UA: GESTALT Characters..anybody try this yet?

[Halivar]

A Paladin with 11 Bonus Feats doesn't sound very powder-puff to me.

Sign me up, please.

takyris, you hit it right there. It seems like WotC didn't really consider out the multiclassing thing. And, now that I read it, although there is a perfectly good solution to the base bonus problem (fractional bonuses), I have to admit there is nowhere in the rules telling you to use it (and calls it a "house rule", indicating it's optional anyway). And what about saves? If I take a level of Ftr/Brd followed by a level of Dru/Rog, Do I have F/R/W=+4/+4/+4? (Mr. DM, can I have a level of monk, please? )

 

[DaveMage]

the only real problem with gestalt characters comes in with psionics 3.5. in 3.5 they advise that all multiclass psionics can pool their powerpoints if they have them from multiple sources, and use them to cast any power they know, from either class. for example, a psion/wilder gestalt gets twice the powerpoints to spend on powers, and has no restriction on how she uses them. just to see, i made a level 20 psion/wilder with an intelligence and charisma of 34 (yes, it is possible)

she had over 960 powerpoints.

that means up to 43 maxed out powers a day.

equivalent to 43 level 9 spells a day

anyone else know the pain that causes?

then, for fun, see what happens when the wilder uses her wildsurge ability.

ouch
ouch ouch ouch

I would rule that for this purpose you do not allow multipsionic classes for the gestalt, just as you cannot have a wizard/conjurer gestalt.

 

[takyris]

takyris, you hit it right there. It seems like WotC didn't really consider out the multiclassing thing.

I think that they implied that you should treat each Gestalt level as an ordinary character level for purposes of figuring stuff out, but it was by no means clear. By this logic, someone who went Rogue/Fighter for the first two levels and then Wizard/Cleric for the next to levels would have:

BAB: +2 from Rogue2|Fighter2 and +1 from Wiz2|Cleric2, for +3 total
Saves: F+3, R+3, W+0 from R|F and F+3,R+0,W+3 from W|C, for:
F+6, R+3, W+3 (although I tend to use the "You only get the initial +2 once, no matter how often you multiclass" rule, to stop Paladin/Ranger/Fighters from racking up that enormous Fort save)
Skills: (8+Int) x 4 at 1st level, 8+Int at 2nd level, 2+Int at 3rd and 4th. At 1st and 2nd, you can pick any skill from the fighter or rogue list as a class skill, and at 3rd and 4th, you can pick any skill from the cleric or wizard list.

Far simpler to just say "Gestalt anything you want, and then never, ever, ever multiclass from that," though, which is a step back from the "multiclass however you like, maximum flexibility" rule... but if you're letting people Gestalt, they're already getting far more powerful, flexible character.

 

[DaveMage]

Far simpler to just say "Gestalt anything you want, and then never, ever, ever multiclass from that," though, which is a step back from the "multiclass however you like, maximum flexibility" rule... but if you're letting people Gestalt, they're already getting far more powerful, flexible character.

In the game I'm playing in now, no one has multiclassed their gestalt character. Were I to ever DM it, I think I would rule no multiclassing. For me there's too much to think about already with gestalts, and when I start adding multiclassing, it gives me a headache.

Still, the hard part will be to go back to a regular character after this campaign. Have I mentioned that I *really* like my rogue/sorcerer?

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I would rule that for this purpose you do not allow multipsionic classes for the gestalt, just as you cannot have a wizard/conjurer gestalt.

That's pretty much what I was thinking...

Far simpler to just say "Gestalt anything you want, and then never, ever, ever multiclass from that," though, which is a step back from the "multiclass however you like, maximum flexibility" rule... but if you're letting people Gestalt, they're already getting far more powerful, flexible character.

My own thoughts on Gestalt would be to use them for "themed" games. For instance, I might say "This game is heavily psionic; you're all Gestalt, but one of your classes every level must be either a Psionic Class, Psychic, etc.", or an "Aristocrat" game focused on politics and espionage/intrigue, with a Courtier or Noble Class as a mandatory Class, etc.

I like the Gestalt concept, but not enough to set it loose without some sort of safety net. However, it's value in building a party around a campaign concept (i.e., allowing the PCs to match that concept through a mandatory Class requirement) while allowing the second class to be used by the player to build his character concept beyond that theme is undeniable. I'm not changing any of my current games to include Gestalt, but my future games likely will do so right from the start.

 

[takyris]

That's pretty much what I was thinking...
My own thoughts on Gestalt would be to use them for "themed" games. For instance, I might say "This game is heavily psionic; you're all Gestalt, but one of your classes every level must be either a Psionic Class, Psychic, etc.", or an "Aristocrat" game focused on politics and espionage/intrigue, with a Courtier or Noble Class as a mandatory Class, etc.

Excellent thought. That's a lot like what I was thinking, but I hadn't put it in such a coherent form. I might use it for a swashbuckling campaign where social skills are very important (kind of Musketeers-ish), and where a straight fighter would be considered a thuggish lout. In that campaign, I wouldn't tell people that they had to have a certain class as part of their gestalt, but I would say that they're going to want social skills and/or acrobatic skills in order to have a good time swinging on chandeliers and romancing the mademoiselles. A fighter/wizard wouldn't do very well there (although the thug fighter-variant|enchanter wizard-variant might have a good time), because of the lack of skills. The PCs should include a ranger, rogue, bard, monk, or something like that somewhere in their makeup, to get a bunch of skill points and a bunch of fun class skills -- a rogue/fighter is a good swashbuckler, as is a paladin(of freedom)/bard or monk/wizard -- or at least, they can be.

Although that brings up another potential worry. Some of the variant classes are designed to make a class weaker in one area and stronger in others. With Gestalting, this can get ugly.

For example, you take the ordinary cleric. Then you say, "Oh, but I'd like to cloister him, give him more skill points and some other abilities in exchange for weaker combat abilities and fewer hit points." And then you say, "Yes, I'll be gestalting this with Fighter." So you keep all the strengths and lose all the weaknesses, which is already what Gestalt does, but you're doing it even more.

Dunno. Probably wouldn't come up very often.

Nevertheless, a great way of putting it, Bendris. That pretty much encapsulates how I'd use it.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

In that campaign, I wouldn't tell people that they had to have a certain class as part of their gestalt, but I would say that they're going to want social skills and/or acrobatic skills in order to have a good time swinging on chandeliers and romancing the mademoiselles.

Well, yeah. You'll note that I don't limit any of the above to one class. For instance, in the political/intrigue campaign, the choice would be between Noble or Courtier (while I'd also add to the list any other Base Class that was suitable to the arena of aristocrats and the upper class). This would ensure that the PCs have those abilities that are aimed at that environment (by way of Class Features) or they'd find themselves (politically) upstaged by the NPCs that do.

(For those that don't know, AEG's Courtier Class isn't a potent adventuring class, but I wouldn't want to get into politics without gaining levels as one quickly.)

Although that brings up another potential worry. Some of the variant classes are designed to make a class weaker in one area and stronger in others. With Gestalting, this can get ugly.

Which would be the "safety net" I'm talking about; by giving one of the Classes a direction (political, skilled, arcane, divine, whatever), you're also placing some limits on how far Gestalts can be taken. While it certainly doesn't ditch every possible combination, it certainly assists the GM in narrowing down what to look for.

(Consequently, is it just me, or does Gestalt give anyone else an "Amberish" or even a "Dunish" feeling?)

Nevertheless, a great way of putting it, Bendris. That pretty much encapsulates how I'd use it.

Hey, you should have me figured out by now; I try to put this kind of spin on everything I use.