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

[Horwath]

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).

I agree with you, but gestalt is not making the rest of the party redundant. It is about filling in core roles of the party with few people available. I.E. 3players. You need; fighter,rogue,cleric,wizard(or classes that fill that role equally).

Players sometimes want to play cool-not so effiecient characters, then if you do not have 5-6 size party, your party cohesion suffers. 3 players gestalt offers abilities from 6 classes, so you are most likely be sure to get 4 core roles filled, with 2 extra flavor combinations.

 

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

Level adjustments don't balance, except in the most trivial cases, which gestalt is not. Either everyone gestalts or no one.

Similar to the original gestalt from 3.x, the rules should be simple and easy to apply, even if some combinations mesh better than others.

Here goes:

Whenever you advance a character level, choose one class and follow the standard multiclass rules for advancing a level in that class. At first level, follow the standard rules for creating a first level character.

Then choose a second class different from the class you just advanced. Follow the standard multiclass rules for advancing a level in that class, except that you do not gain any hit points. (Optional: Gain the hit points too. Optional: Get the full money or gear of both classes at first level.)

And... that's it.

* Yes, Warlock combines very well with full-casters. So do other classes that don't have normal spellcasting.
* Yes, you do get lots of ASIs.
* Yes, a level 10 gestalt that involves only full-casting classes has as many spell slots as a non-gestalt level 20 full-caster. No, the spells per day chart is not extended past level 20. This trait is desirable, not a bad side effect.
* Yes, an EK20/AT20 has the spell slots of a 12th level full-caster. (Per multiclass rules, both class levels round *down* when calculating spell slots.) He also has 13 ASIs.
* Yes, it very much makes a difference which class you pick first, especially at first level.
* No, the multi-class rules do not change. No such thing as double proficiency. If both of your classes provide a Second Attack, you don't get a third attack. You cannot take more than one subclass of a given class. Etc.
* No, a gestalt Warlock10/Bard10 does not cast cantrips as a 20th level caster. A gestalt character is considered to have a character level equal to half of his total class levels.

D&D5 has very few features based on character level, and does not have prestige classes, so it is easy to get reasonable results tweaking the standard multi-class rules.

Anyway,

Ken

 

[thethain]

I think this is a wiser approach, assume its overpowered, let it be so.

I don't think making a list of 20 abilities you aren't able to use in the same turn will fix it.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

I dunno, I actually like this proposal. (In my own games, untrained skills are rolled at disadvantage, so the "+0 to skill" aspect isn't as relevant for me.)

If you start gestalt characters with a +0 proficiency bonus (up to +4), and single class characters at +3 (up to +7), I don't think the balance would be that off even with no level adjustment whatsoever. Give the gestalt the better hit die, better number of skills, better proficiencies, and one major and one minor save from the combined class list. Otherwise, the gestalt gets everything, except that ASIs and Extra Attack don't stack. If it's a double caster, track spell slots and spells known/prepared separately, and don't allow overlap. No overlap for features like metamagic, either, that should only impact sorcerer spells.

Maybe restrict combinations to certain classes and subclasses, also, just to be safe. Caster/noncaster only, for example. No Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster if you multiclass with a caster. No paladin or ranger with a full caster.

 

[Blue]

If you start gestalt characters with a +0 proficiency bonus (up to +4), and single class characters at +3 (up to +7), I don't think the balance would be that off even with no level adjustment whatsoever. Give the gestalt the better hit die, better number of skills, better proficiencies, and one major and one minor save from the combined class list. Otherwise, the gestalt gets everything, except that ASIs and Extra Attack don't stack. If it's a double caster, track spell slots and spells known/prepared separately, and don't allow overlap. No overlap for features like metamagic, either, that should only impact sorcerer spells.

Strongly disagree that you don't need the level adjustment. Out of combat, the two most commonly used things are skills and spells. Spells often replace skills. Gestalt characters would almost all be spellcasters, so they would always have that,and they would have the same number and same level spells as full caster.

In other words, that would seriously overbalance gestalt characters over non-gestalt in non-combat situations. They NEED to lack spells and higher spells known to give non-gestalt characters a chance to shine.

 

[TwoSix]

Strongly disagree that you don't need the level adjustment. Out of combat, the two most commonly used things are skills and spells. Spells often replace skills. Gestalt characters would almost all be spellcasters, so they would always have that,and they would have the same number and same level spells as full caster.

In other words, that would seriously overbalance gestalt characters over non-gestalt in non-combat situations. They NEED to lack spells and higher spells known to give non-gestalt characters a chance to shine.

<shrug> That imbalance already exists. Like you said, spells can already replace skills, so that would mean current non-spellcasters are already at a disadvantage in non-combat situations, correct? What changes if more spellcasting options (the gestalt character options) are introduced? And even comparing single class casters to gestalt casters (so it's a more apples-to-apples comparison), is a cleric/wizard that much stronger than a wizard in non-combat situations? Enough to be balanced against a -3 penalty to virtually everything, including spell saves?

I'm not saying my concept is obviously balanced, but I'd need more proof to say it's obviously imbalanced.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Thanks to all those who participated.

I've decided that the proposal is unbalanced. I was well on my way to a revised proposal after working out level by level comparisons (this one would involve losing three levels and some proficiencies), but I just felt that it wasn't really a satisfying way to go about it (even if it turns out more or less balanced) so back to the drawing board for me for the 6th time or so.

 

[hastur_nz]

Here's a good article that I believe is quite pertinent; well worth the time to read:
http://theangrygm.com/why-are-you-doing-this/

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Like most of the Angry GM's stuff I've read, a pretty thought provoking article. This one has the bonus feature that you can basically use it to support any position you want to. In particular this quote:

"Complexity, cognitive load, imbalance, and unexpected interactions are all impossible to avoid. Every system has some of each. And the bigger the system and the more things it can do, the more of each are going to crop up. More rules lead to more complexity. More systems lead to more cognitive load. More choices and options lead to more imbalance. And more of everything leads to more interactions and that leads to more interactions you don’t see coming.

In a well-designed game, the professional designers have balanced out all (or most, because nobody is perfect except me) of those things against the game experience."

If the designers would finally get around to giving us the multiclassing we had for over half the game's history (if you count 4e hybrid), then this whole expenditure of time I (and others) are putting into it could be avoided.

 

[mrswing]

If you gestalt in a duet campaign, there is nothing wrong with combining spell slots from two classes. You just have more options & more casting power but action economy etc. stay the same and since there is no other PC there are no balancing or unfairness issues.