UA: GESTALT Characters..anybody try this yet?

[cignus_pfaccari]

IIRC, there's nothing about that in UA.

Correct. You just pick two different classes each level and combine their benefits, taking the best of overlapping features (BAB, saves, HP).

Of course, there's nothing about gestalting characters with ECLs (i.e. racial HD or level adjustment).

Brad

 

[DaveMage]

I don't agree. The wording goes like this:
This states the better progression is taken, not the better BAB. Taking only the best BAB of all the classes we have ever gestalted with (yeah, I verbed that noun; I'll do it again, too) effectively erases advancement in all but one class. Rather, at each level, we should progress as the better of the two classes we are currently gestalting with.

Fractional bonuses make figuring this out easy. I'll wager we were supposed to use fractional bonuses (and it just so happens that that particular rule is presented on p. 73, right smack dab in the middle of the gestalt character section) for all base bonus progressions. By that reasoning, we have 1 level at which the Ftr progression (+1 BAB) is the better progression, and 4 levels where the Sor/Wiz progression (+.5 BAB) is our only option. That gives us a total BAB of +3. All 5 levels have contributed to the character's total BAB, whereas in your logic the first level Ftr is thrown away entirely (or rather, retroactively changed to using the Wiz's BAB instead of the Ftr's).

Just my $0.02.

I stand corrected.

 

[takyris]

I'm considering using Gestalt characters in an upcoming one-shot to see how they run. The ones I'm worried about aren't the cleric/sorcerer combo -- because clerics and sorcerers don't have that strong a synergy (like the person who mentioned Fighter/Paladin). They have a lot of spells, but running out of spells is rarely an issue. In effect, they're clerics with better direct damage or a few extra domains who can't wear armor.

No, I'm worried about those strong synergies. Just looking at it from the book, I'd be leery of ranger/wizard and rogue/cleric, and possibly monk/wizard as well. Those are the classes who really complement each other by eradicating weaknesses.

Ranger/Wizard: Ranger-side gives you good combat and great skills and skill points. Wizard side gives you spells up the wazoo. Only downside is the lack of armor, and really, that ain't much. You have three good saves, too.

Rogue/cleric: Again, three good saves, a ton of skill points, and good spells. This one I'm a bit less worried about since, although they can wear armor, they don't have fighter attack progression.

Monk/wizard: No fighter progression, but still, a class designed to not use armor combined with a class designed to buff people, with good skills thrown in to boot. Three good saves, again. The wizard's only downfall is his lack of durability and weakness if caught in an extended melee. The monk gets rid of much of this weakness with both mobility and a bit of melee strength.

That said, I was actually going to use the Gestalt idea, and see how it goes. And I was also going to use UA's "basic class" idea along with it at some point, so that you could Gestalt yourself a Warrior/Expert, an Expert/Spellcaster, or a Warrior/Spellcaster. Since the core classes seem a bit weaker than the normal D&D classes, the Gestalting gives them a bit more kick and a lot more flexibility. Dunno. We'll see how it goes.

 

[Olfactatron]

Gestalt FAQ

I'm running a gestalt campaign starting this summer. There are a lot of things that weren't talked about in UA that I've had to deal with before the game can start. My friend set up a web page for it and I've posted an FAQ that deals with both overall questions and some pretty specific questions asked by my players.
Check out the site, any feedback would be helpful.
http://www.pedantic.org/~ryan/dnd/gestalt/

 

[Halivar]

It seems like WotC didn't spend enough time on the gestalt system in UA. There's a lot of ambiguity in the rules (DaveMage, don't throw out your BAB issue outright; I'm wrong more often then I'm right) that needs to be addressed via a formal channel.

I think the gestalt system could easily have taken up a supplement in and of itself. A number of issues (especially on the DM side) need to be taken into account.

Anyhow, I think it's a brilliant idea that was expressed with too much handwaving. It would be nice to see more detail (i.e. rules) fleshed into the system. As it is, I think house-rules are going to multiply as a result of this.

That being said, I am not prepared to shy away from the gestalt system. I just wish there was more there.

 

[Apok]

I'm currently playing in a gestalt campaign and I must say it's a blast. The enhanced versatility and freedom to create some really neato characters by mixing classes just can't be beat.

Power-wise, yes we are definitely a bit stronger than your average party, but as has been said before, our HP remain the same as normal characters of our level. Overall, I highly recommend using the gestalt character option if you like characters who are a bit less cut and dry.

Our current party is at level four and the classes break down as follows;

Swashbuckler|Rogue
Fighter|Bard/Rogue
Monk|Rogue
Fighter|Scout
Fighter|Ranger
Wizard|Sorcerer

As you can see, we're a pretty melee heavy party with the Wiz/Sorc being our only real spellcaster (though he is amazingly good at it). Oh, and having three frontline fighter's with Rogue levels makes for some heinous tactics with sneak attacks.

 

[takyris]

It seems like WotC didn't spend enough time on the gestalt system in UA. There's a lot of ambiguity in the rules (DaveMage, don't throw out your BAB issue outright; I'm wrong more often then I'm right) that needs to be addressed via a formal channel.

Hal, what stuff seems confusing? Having not run it, I've got no clue whatsoever about anything, but it seemed decent to me. Are there issues about special abilities, like if you have a rogue|barbarian and want to figure out when he can be sneak-attacked? I know that particular one is covered, but I can imagine some issues getting weird. It seems like it gets real ugly real fast as soon as people start multiclassing inside the Gestalt rule. "Yeah, I started out Rogue|Wizard, but then I added a couple levels of Fighter|Cleric to get things evened out, and now I'm continuing in Bard|Ranger." That's a book-keeping nightmare right there, but you could do it with mathematically strong players who like to keep track of lots of stuff.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

You have to be carefuly of players choosing gestalts that have weak synergy like a Fighter/Paladin, since it puts them below the power level of more effective Gestalts.

Hmmm... I don't know about this. A Paladin with 11 Bonus Feats doesn't sound very powder-puff to me. Perhaps, with most of the by-level numerical gains (BAB, Saves, Hit Point, etc.), it doesn't look like much, but there's no way the character could possibly be slouching in the damage-output department.

 

[Thanee]

Wizard|Sorcerer

As you can see, we're a pretty melee heavy party with the Wiz/Sorc being our only real spellcaster (though he is amazingly good at it).

Arcanist extraordinaire...

With all the utility spells from the wizard side and all the combat spells spontaneously added... Altho a cleric/sorcerer is probably even more flexible than that (but not a pure arcanist, of course).

Bye
Thanee

 

[rei jin]

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