Opinions on Gesalt Characters?

[TarionzCousin]

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.

I'll second third this notion. Gestalt characters, when built well, have many fewer weaknesses than "ordinary" characters.

I'm in the same gaming group with Drowbane, and in the year we've been playing, we've gotten addicted to gestalt. It adds another dimension to D&D: uber-power.

I have run a dozen sessions for gestalt characters at levels 12-13, and I think I've learned a few new things about DM'ing gestalt:

1. The PC's are very efficient at killing my monsters.
2. The PC's are rather hard to kill. They don't have obvious weaknesses and they are skilled at surviving.
3. It's still D&D and just as fun, if not more so. Everyone has more options, including the DM.
4. I can DM "with the gloves off," so to speak. I don't have to hold much back.
5. Nearly all of the monsters I've used have been customized, either built from scratch or heavily modified.

Rather than building encounters around CR, I've just tried to come up with ways that the monsters can damage the PC's. High saves, Multiple Energy Resistances/Immunities, Spell Resistance, and High AC are omnipresent with our group. I have a chart that tells me all sorts of things about the PC's (Crunch) to glance at when designing game sessions. Using this chart, I know not to build mooks with fire-based attacks since everyone is immune to fire, for example.

Good luck!

 

[Jack Simth]

Uh, those are one and the same.

Yeah, that's one of the other reasons I tend to use "stuff under discussion + core" - unfamiliarity.

Oh, and something I forgot to put on my earlier list:

6) Avoid overlapping abilities.
It's a bad idea to have a Fighter/Barbarian. You don't gain much vs. either. Both have full BAB, both have a good Fort save with poor Ref and Will saves, both have high HD. You end up with a literate Barbarian with bonus feats (and heavy armor / Tower Shield proficiency, but that doesn't exactly help). You're liable to be better off with a Barbarian/cleric or Barbarian/druid - the spells are liable to fill in for the feats very well (Divine Favor, for instance, keeps pace very well with the fighter feats that increase your to-hit/damage; Flame Strike can sub for Whirlwind Attack - at range, even - and so on), add some extra flexibility (healing, utility spells), and save on equipment (Magic Vestments and Greater Magic Weapon last all day fairly readily) - and you get a good Will save out of it, too.

 

[Maldor]

i've played in a few games with gestalt and i enjoyed them all very much they allow for chacter types that are hard to make with single class my fav. so far ninja/wizard
i liked picking a name for my class to instead of say i was a Such/such

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I like gestalt rules. As we say around here: "Hier em Netz do gibs Gestalte, die solld ma nedd für möglich halte!" (translates roughly into "everything's possible")

They open up new concepts you can play without giving up being effective.

They are a great way to make sure the basics are covered in smaller parties, and since you can mix and match, you can try exotic stuff without abandoning the basics.


As the others have said: Either use one main class and one support class, or use two classes that have great synergy. Two classes that need similar abilities (albeit at different levels) work great together.

You usually try to combine classes with different strengths (no sorcerer/wizard or fighter/barbarian), but sometimes, this kind of overspecialisation can be fun.

Try to think of a concept (from some movie/novel character) that doesn't play that well in D&D, but that comes into its own with gestalt rules.

I had a Half-giant psychic warrior/scout that could easily average 90 points of damage off of a single attack and could hit for up to three hundred on a non-critical charge and pounce.

At what level?

I just can't see the point to gestalts myself - munchkinism at the extreme. Each to their own, I guess...

Nah. Doesn't have to be.

Uh, those are one and the same.

It's a Gestalt book.

 

[SolitonMan]

I'm currently DMing a gestalt campaign and have found that the rule of CR+1 and CR+2 doesn't seem to hold as well as I'd like. I started my group at 6th level and have been running them through the Seeds of Sehan campaign arc from Dungeon issues 145-147. The BBEG in Vile Addiction, a CR 11 spriggan druid 5/souleater 3, was not a problem for this group and went down easily. The characters have high AC, good saves, decent HP, and the players are all highly skilled and familiar with the rules, using them to maximum advantage (they're pesky that way).

I have to admit, tho I hate to see the bad guys shredded so thoroughly and quickly, it's been a lot of fun overall. As many have said, it's not so much the options that are available to players leading to greater power, since they have the same limitation on actions per round as anyone else. Still and all, I'm expecting that it will only be my own creations, BBEGs who are also gestalt, that will present real challenges for the players. Once they've finished with Dread Pagoda of the Inscrutable Ones (Dungeon 147) they'll face off against some more deadly opponents. Although the characters are quickly closing in on 10th level (which is what the adventure is designed for) I'm statting up the creatures as recommended in the adventure sidebar for levels 11-12, since I expect the players will be able to defeat most of the enemies in their current forms. I'll throw a few higher level encounters at them, see how they do, and if they're able to overcome the tougher challenges then I'll use them throughout the adventure.

It's nice to feel that I don't have to hold back so much. And the players love the options. All in all, gestalt has been a pleasurable experience. But it takes time to get a feel for what sort of opponents will be challenging without slaughtering the party wholesale. Giving the enemies SR, energy protection and damage reduction seems to add something to the battles, as well as a high enough attack bonus to actually hit on something other than a natural 20.

Good luck and have a lot of fun!

 

[Drowbane]

Hey, I honestly couldn't give a flying fomorian what other people do in their games, just saying it doesn't work for me.

Ahh hell, don't mind me bro... long weekend >.<

 

[Nifft]

I *heart* gestalt!

- For small parties.

- For theme parties.

- For durable parties.

- For flexible, high-skilled parties.

Cheers, -- N

 

[robberbaron]

I like the idea. In fact, it is about the only thing from UA that was any good (IMO).

Played through about half of WLD as gestalt and it was fun for the players. I agree with the above posters that they make it very hard for the poor GM but are not all-conquering.

Certainly, we were fairly breezing through Area D but, previously, the Ghaele in Area G kicked the crap out of us twice and it took us 4 attempts to take out the Hags.

 

[blargney the second]

If you're DMing a group of gestalts, don't bother throwing a single monster at the party - the PCs'll shred it lickety split. Always have at least a secondary threat in the encounter, and ideally more!

 

[Erywin]

If you're DMing a group of gestalts, don't bother throwing a single monster at the party - the PCs'll shred it lickety split. Always have at least a secondary threat in the encounter, and ideally more!

QFT

Over the past 2 years DMing our gestalt game, I have come to realize that you need to send quite a bit at them in order to get their defenses. Lots of decent mooks and atleast a few sergeants Although I just sent 2 CR 9 Huge Fire Elementals at 4 members of the party, they were minus the healer and the Elementals held up well. Nearly killing Blarg's Crusader Three were level 10 and one was level 9.

Cheers,
E