Opinions on Gesalt Characters?

Hi everyone,

I was just wondering if I could get some opinions on Gesalt PCs. Who's played them and who's DM'd them? I am very intrigued by their concept, but I don't want to make things overly complicated for the PCs. I was thinking of using PHB + Complete books series, with a limit to 2 PrCs.

Anyway, please give me any feedback, fyi's, etc. about Gesalts.

Gracias!

-AoA
 

log in or register to remove this ad

It is a power upgrade - but only a little. You have to be careful of the critters you throw at the party. In general, they'll be slightly more durable than standard characters, but not by much. The (published) rule of thumb is that you throw things +1 CR higher than normal if the critter you're using is mostly based on things without saves (e.g., Bears, Dinosaurs, Fighters, Barbarians), or +2 CR higher than normal if the critter you're using is mostly based on things with saves (e.g., Basalisks, Gorgons, Most Wizards, Most Sorcerers) compared to a non-gestalt party.

So if you judge that the appropriet CR fight for a party like yours pre-gestalt at a particular point in the plot would be a CR 5 Dire Lion, you advance it to CR 6 (+3 HD, elete array, or add a nifty special ability). If you judge that the appropriet CR fight for a party likes yours pre-gestalt at a particular point in the plot would be a CR 5 Ghost Sorcerer-3 with a lot of save or ... effects, you instead use a CR 7 Ghost Sorcerer-5 with a lot of save or ... effects.

Edit:
That said, it's also useful when you're doing other things - Gestalt is great for a low-wealth campaign (low wealth cuts down on everyone's abilities, Gestalt pumps it back up - mostly). It's also great when you're short a player, for the same reason as with the low-wealth campaing and because it permits people to fill multiple party roles (I'm currently in a campaign with two characters, soon to be three - we just leveled up after last session, but we had a Gestalt Ninja/Druid and a Gestalt Wizard/Druid; Ninja is the Sneak, Wizard is the Utility Belt, they share healing, and the Animal Companions together make for a single good meatshield - all four party roles covered, if only just; new character will be focusing on Ranged Combat).

From a player's perspective, there's a couple of things to remember when building a character:
1) Build your character with Primary/Supporting class mindset; don't try to fill the traditional roles of both classes.
This is primarily to reduce Multiple Attribute Dependancy - the Sorcerer/Paladin who wants to go into combat and zap needs all stats nearly equally. The Sorcerer/paladin who uses the Paladin side purely as a defensive measure doesn't need much more than a plain Sorcerer. Likewise, the Paladin/sorcerer who uses the Sorcerer side purely for buff and utility spells doesn't need much more than a plain Paladin (not that that's actually saying much...). You want to avoid MAD.

2) One side needs to be a full caster.
This is a power curve issue - a melee combatant usually has above average "power" at low levels, and below average "power" at high levels - meanwhile, a full caster usually has below average "power" at low levels and above average "power" at high levels. A sneak usually has about average "power" at all levels. If one side of your character is not a full caster, you'll eventually want to replace the character to keep up with the rest of the party.

3) Avoid class combinations that only limit you.
You need to avoid class restrictions that nullify one of the strengths of your other side. For example, one of a Fighter's big strengths is full armor proficiency. One of a Wizard's weaknesses is an inability to use most armors. The two classes don't mix well very easily. A Cleric, on the other hand, has no issues with armor; a Fighter/Cleric can do very well pretty easily.

4) Look for synergy.
You want classes that rely on the same stat sets, or classes where a class strength eliminates the other side's reliance on a particular stat. For instance, the Monk/Druid. The Monk has a case of MAD straight out of the box - needs Con for HP, Wisdom for AC, Dex for AC, and Strength for attacking. The Druid's Wildshape class feature, on the other hand, permits you to pick forms with high Strength and Dex - permitting the character to ignore those attributes, for the most part. The Monk needs Str, Dex, Con, and Wis - the Monk/Druid needs Con and Wis. Likewise, a Druid has some difficulty with AC in wildshaped form - the Monk's AC bonus applies regardless. As Wisdom is the Druid's Primary Casting Stat, this helps the Druid out - even in Wildshape, where Armor/Shields are hard to use anyway.

5) Look for active/passive combos.
You've only got so many actions a round. In general, you'll want one side of your Gestalt to be "active" - cast spells, swing sword, and so on - and the other side to be "passive" - grant saves, AC, SR, HP, or whatever.
 
Last edited:


I find them to be a lot of fun, especially for players who have experience with multiclassing in earlier editions. One thing you might want to consider is giving out more feats (a feat a level or just doubling each feat received (including bonus feats) both work). This will pretty definitely tweak the power level up a bit, but it will also allow players to get feats for both classes. They still won't be able to do everything (ability scores being one of the main limiting factors, as mentioned above), but they will get to do some of the cool stuff associated with their "secondary half" that they'd otherwise miss out on.
 

Kaomera,

How has the added feat progression worked for your characters? W/o doubling the feats, you basically have one main class, and one supporting class. W/2 feats per 3 levels, you could actually have 2 main classes. Its something I've been thinking over.

Did you DM for this Gesalt group? Any advice on changing encounters to meet the new Gesalt types (i.e.: the ones w/extra feats)?

Thanks,

AoA
 

Jack Simth said:
5) Look for active/passive combos.
You've only got so many actions a round. In general, you'll want one side of your Gestalt to be "active" - cast spells, swing sword, and so on - and the other side to be "passive" - grant saves, AC, SR, HP, or whatever.

This is really the key point. Gestalts aren't nearly as powerful as two characters with the same classes because actions in combat are a critically limiting resource. For example, if you're the only character in the party with a divine caster class, you're probably going to be spending most of your actions healing, so a sorceror with a lot of flash boom spells is probably a bad choice for a second class. You'd be better off taking something that would increase your survivability (barbarian for d12 hit dice, rogue for reflex save plus evasion, etc.)
 


Angel of Adventure said:
How has the added feat progression worked for your characters? W/o doubling the feats, you basically have one main class, and one supporting class. W/2 feats per 3 levels, you could actually have 2 main classes. Its something I've been thinking over.

Did you DM for this Gesalt group? Any advice on changing encounters to meet the new Gesalt types (i.e.: the ones w/extra feats)?
I've played (fairly shortly) in one game where some characters got doubled feats and some characters where gestalted; two in particular had both, including my Archivist+Rogue. It was kind of an odd game all around, so perhaps it's not the best example, but it seemed like you really didn't get characters with two main classes (quite). For example, I really didn't have the ability scores or skill points to do everything a Rogue could while also functioning as an Archivist. The Knight+Warlock seemed to have the same issue, ending up being a Knight with a few extra tricks.

I've DMed several games with a feat per level. One of them ended up being very similar to gestalting each character with one of the generic classes from UA (which is probably what I should have actually done, as it would have been simpler overall). Actually, nevermind, that's a really bad example, since a real gestalt would have had either even more feats or else an extra set of class features. In any case, when GMing with extra feats I've generally found that it encourages players to take feats that they would not have really considered otherwise, and I really try to encourage this. Players who take two separate "sets" of feats tend to end up only being able to use one at a time in most cases, anyway. The prerequisites tend to keep things from getting out of hand, IMHO. It also makes a lot of PrCs a lot more attractive / less of a PitA to qualify for...

One thing I think you do need to keep an eye out for is saves. BAB tends to be uniformly higher with gestalts, which IMHO is fine. Also each character is much more likely to have at least two good saves. There can be a tendency for the DM and/or players to start assuming that characters are generally going to make every save, and that can cause trouble when things go wrong.
 

I've been playing (on and off) in a WLD campaign.

The DM started it off as gestalt as there were only about 3 party members. The party has since mushroomed to about 8 or so, and all those gestalt characters are making it hard for the DM. Apparently the party of 10th level gestalts is waltzing through a section of the dungeon aimed at 15th-16th levels (or thereabouts - I forget the details).

While a fighter - general purpose wizard might not be much better than a standard PC, a fighter - sorcerer who is optimised for buffing himself (GMW, Stoneskin, Shield, Fire Shield, other good stuff) becomes a very powerful fighter quite quickly.

Personally I like the additional class options that become open with gestalt; I've enjoyed playing a Paladin/Bard, and I'd been looking forward to having a go at a soulknife/ranger (soulger?).

However, the DM has requested that we de-gestalt our characters, either picking one of the existing classes or bringing in a new PC of the appropriate level, so that particular campaign is turning into a standard PC one rather than a gestalt PC one.

Cheers
 

As a normal power-upgrade I'm kind of ho-hum on gestalt characters.

I do think they're a wonderful option if you have very few players in a game.

I think they make for GREAT BBEGs, particularly ones that are meant to seem larger than life.

I also think they're a very interesting option for thematic campaigns. Such as a thieves' guild type game where everyone has to be at least partially rogue, or a wuxia game where everyone has to have a certain degree of martial arts prowess.
 

Remove ads

Top