Is Gestalt good for a multi-class system?

[Daedrova]

I have seen discussions about how and why the current multi-class system leaves something to be desired. While some classes synergize well enough with others, many class fall short in power compared to a base class. So my question is- do you think Gestalt, as presented in Unearthed Arcana, works well to fill this gap?

Before saying “it is too powerful” (obviously it would be), consider what I have tried in my game. Obviously prestige classes have stepped up to try to “fill the gap” and I have noticed that PrCs such as Eldritch Knight, and Mystic Theurge give close to full progression for the important aspects of their respective requisite classes (full base attack and 9/10th spell casting to Elk). I did decide to let my players try playing with gestalt characters, but decided that and effective ECL increase would work well, as some of the players weren’t interested in an archetype other than a core class. For balance, I thought it fair that before you take levels gained in the gestalt multi-class style, and every 10 levels thereafter, you would have to take an ECL adjustment of +1. So a figher/ranger11 would be ECL 13.

Right now we have a Wizard 14, a gestalt Sorcerer/Rogue 12, a gestalt Cleric/fighter12, and a paladin/fighter12. The wizard is looking pretty good. I notice (as pointed out in discussions on “mystic theurge” discussions) that the Wizard needs not worry about having more than one high stat, while the multi-classers seem not to excel as well in one or either of their classes due to ability score spread. Also, his caster level is 2 higher than the other casters, and next level he will be firing at 8th level spells, while the sorcerer will still be using 6th.

I had thought the cleric/fighter combo would well outshine a paladin/fighter, but the power difference does not seem too substantial. The paladin needs only his good Str, and does well with above average Con, Wis, and good Cha.
This may be an important note; I used point buy- 36 points. The cleric/fighter started as a cleric (of war) who wanted to focus on buffing/combat ability. He did start with Str, Con, and Wis at 16 (other stats at 10), and continued raising Wis. The Paladin started with Str 16, Dex 10, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 16 and continued with Str.

I guess to add to the question above, do you think there would be a better way to handle gestalt multi-classing (when concerning balance toward base classes) than the ECLs? I thought about an XP “penalty” of 25% (or something similar) but felt it may make players feel “punished”, and figured I would have to calculate them at a higher ECL anyway, as a gestalt fighter/cleric 12 is surly better than 12th, and I believe 13th level single class character.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Gestalt really isn't built to work alongside normal characters. A 1st-level gestalt character probably has no ECL to speak of. A 15th-level one is far higher than ECL +2, as your system would have it.

I think you're better off tweaking the multiclass system than trying to shoehorn gestalt into it. It's never going to be a very good fit.

 

[takyris]

To be honest, I think your ECL system is a bit cumbersome. The gestalt system seems to break down pretty quickly unless everyone in the group is using it, and using it well. If one guy is doing Fighter|Wizard, that's wonderful, but if someone else is doing Paladin|Fighter, he's not getting a ton out of it -- a few extra bonus feats, sure, but not nearly as much as the Wizard fellow.

I'd recommend ditching the ECL and just getting people to have more complementary gestalting ideas. I mean, if the paladin|xxxx was just going to be a paladin, and doesn't want to cast spells, you can tell him to think of it as a more flexible version of the same character:

paladin|rogue: He's still a paladin. He just has a lot more ranks in Spot and Listen and Diplomacy, and in light armor he might be able to dive out of the way of a fireball. He doesn't have to use his sneak attacks except when flanking monsters (ie, don't use them in duels, honorable combat, etc).

paladin|monk: He's a paladin, and his faith and belief have given him enough martial ability to be a formidable threat even without a weapon in his hand. He probably doesn't use his monk skills often, since he'll usually have armor on, but if he needs to, he can hold his own with unarmed martial training.

paladin|ranger: Flavor-text the ranger abilities as advanced training and true dedication against the forces of evil (ie, favored enemies).

Heck, a paladin|fighter is actually not that bad, if built correctly -- he has a ton of fighter feats. Only weakness'd be if he wasn't built to take advantage of his extreme combat flexibility -- he should have one area of greatness (say, sword and board) and a lot of areas of goodness (archery, two-weaponing, mobile combat, etc).

The one thing that could be unbalancing in your campaign is the relatively high point-buy levels. Gestalt characters are usually held in check by point-buy restrictions -- a paladin|monk is powerful, sure, but not too powerful, since he can't afford a dump-stat (Strength to hit/damage, Dex to dodge, Wis to dodge and for paladin spells, Int for skills, Con for damage absorption, Charisma for saves). By the same token, a Ranger|Wizard, often a great Gestalt character because of his archery/spellcasting mix, has to put a lot more into Int than an ordinary ranger might. By giving people 36 points to work with, you're giving them the chance to overcome that drawback -- which means that the paladin|fighter, who might have worked fine under 25 point-buy, will be a little better (a paladin|fighter is pretty much a fighter with a decent Wis and Cha, so giving more points just lets you up everythign a bit), but the monk/sorcerer will be a ton better, since the extra points let him be a good monk and a good sorcerer).

The important thing, of course, is that your players are enjoying themselves. If you've got that, everything else is good.

 

[zcthu3]

The classes that generally get nerfed by the current multi-classing rules are predominantly the spellcasters. I suggest that if you want to avoid this use the magic rating systems for the different classes which increases your caster level (although not your spell progression) thus your spells increase in power proportional to the level of the game you are playing at.

 

[Vargo]

The problem, as I see it, with gestalt classes aren't that in general a lower-leveled gestalt character is more powerful - it is that there are a couple combinations that are rediculously powerful.

Take, for example, the Monk/Druid gestalt. Note the synergy between the two classes, and one big breaker - Druids can wildshape. In your 36 point buy campaign, if starting above 4th level, I'd take a Druid/Monk gestalt with the following stats:

St:8
Dx:8
Co:8
In:16
Wi:18
Ch:16

Then I'd spend the rest of my time wildshaped to whatever form fit. I'd take the Natural Spell feat so that I could cast at will, etc. As soon as you get Large or Huge wildshape, it gets even wackier - 'cause you've got your full monk attack sequence with NASTY physical stats, and a serious bump to AC from Wisdom+monk AC modifiers.

Even scarier is a Druid/Monk who goes Shifter/Monk @ 6th level - a 15th level Monk/5th level Druid/10th level Shifter can become practically ANYTHING they want. Yikes.