What are gestalts?

[jodyjohnson]

We use it. It's a nice option when you have 3 or less players and they don't want to have cohorts/henchmen. Or when you have 4 players but odds are only 2-3 make it each session.

It is also good if you want a themed group but want to cover the standard bases. For example, we have a pseudo-knightly theme so all the characters have Ranger, Fighter, or Paladin for one half. Then they split out the other duties - wizard, rogue and cleric.

Other options would be all monk or all samurai. A band of rogues. All paladins. All soldiers. Barbarian culture (all part Fighter, Barb, or Ranger), Etc.

 

[iwatt]

Lancelot (Fighter/Paladin?)
Paul Atreides (Swashbuckler/Diviner?)
Hercules (Fighter/?)
Ridley from Dungeons & Dragons: The Movie
Batman (??/??)

You could add

Rand al'Thor (fighter/Sorcerer)

many an anime character would also probably be handled beter by Gestalt as well.

Basically, Gestalt means: huge power in less levels.

Also all Mary Sue characters in Fan-Fic qualify for Gestlat as well I guess

 

[Balord]

In our gaming group, we are allowed to play gestalt characters so long as we follow some restrictions. We can choose ONE gestalt class (fighter/wizard, rogue/barbarian, etc.) to play, and as long as we don't multiclass into some other class, we can continue to gain levels in our chosen gestalt class (similar to the rules for monk and paladin). As soon as you multiclass into another class/prc, you can no longer gain levels in the gestalt class. Also, if you plan on playing a gestalt character, you must choose a feat called Heroic Destiny at first level. This feat gives you no benefits other than allowing you to gain levels in a single gestalt class.

So far, these rules have worked pretty well for us, allowing us to play characters with the potential to become legendary.

 

[dcollins]

But really, what are they supposed to represent?

Actually, I believe the intent is to re-introduce the 1st/2nd Ed. multiclassing mechanic where you would advance in two classes and be practically the same level in each as if you had only one class. For example, in 1st Ed. if you had one PC a Cleric 10, his multiclass buddy with the same XP would likely be a Fighter/Wizard 9/9, with the best benefits taken from each of those classes (attacks, saves, etc.)

Some people considered that unbalanced in 1st Ed., but some people miss it, hence the Gestalt variant in Unearthed Arcana.

 

[mikebr99]

I'd also suggest a 2 or 3 level adjustment for gestalts... if you are mixing with regular classes. YMMV


Mike

 

[JoeGKushner]

Elric

Rand from Wheel of Time and all the other wannabes who are in this vein of supreme warrior-spellcaster.

Anime/Manga has tons of these types of characters.

Depending on whose writing him, Conan is a better thief than the company of thieves and a better fighter than King Arthur with Excalbiur.

Pug's buddy from the original Magician bit... Thomas. If that's not an example of a Warlorck Fighter...

 

[Krafen]

Elric

Rand from Wheel of Time and all the other wannabes who are in this vein of supreme warrior-spellcaster.

Anime/Manga has tons of these types of characters.

Depending on whose writing him, Conan is a better thief than the company of thieves and a better fighter than King Arthur with Excalbiur.

Pug's buddy from the original Magician bit... Thomas. If that's not an example of a Warlorck Fighter...

Actually, I'd describe Tomas as a human fighter who gains the half-Valheru template.

 

[apesamongus]

I've used them. I kind of like my barbarian/sorcerer. Its a little ridiculous.

But really, what are they supposed to represent? Do we ever see in literature such characters, do they point to characters that feel like gestalt characters? Are there examples?

Almost all of them?

I can't think of too many fictional characters that fit neatly into class pidgeon holes. Multiclassing makes it possible to design more complex characters, and gestalting is just multiclassing without being really weak.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I'll just add that the idea behind them is to run a game with a smaller than usual party. In practice, it's power gaming at its finest.

I'm running a Gestalt game now, my second, and in both games, all of the players chose Gestalts with relatively little synergy. They're more powerful than standard characters, of course, but none of them has really taken advantage of the combinations.

First time I ran it (of the characters I can remember), we had a Githyanki PsW/Soulknife, an Orc (WIS penalty and all) Cleric/Barbarian, an Elf Ranger/Shugenja, and a Human Sorceror/Wizard.

No Monk/Druid. No Paladin/Sorceror. No PsW/Psion.

In my current game, the most synergistic combination is our Ranger/Rogue. Who chose to fight with daggers. In a game which features blaster pistols. While I'm using the Armor as DR rules.

We have a Monk/Sorceror. A Pilot/Wilder (who's chosen all emotional manipulation powers). A Fighter/Mechanist. And a Rogue/Illusionist.

Just because it's a powerful campaign option doesn't mean it forces the players to be powergamers.

 

[Sejs]

They can also make for really nasty BBEGs as well.