Would someone help me understand what Gelstalt is?

[Viktyr Gehrig]

First, the gestalt rules are essentially the same as the multiclassing rules of the 1st and 2nd editions... You remember the fighter/cleric/mage? Well, take out one of those classes, and you've got a gestalt character.

Of course, you can alternate between Fighter/Cleric, Fighter/Wizard, and Cleric/Wizard. Every level has at least 3/4 BAB and progression in one of your spellcasting classes. In any sane, rational Gestalt campaign, you won't be allowed Fighter/Mystic Theurge or Cleric/Eldritch Knight, but Spellsword/Cleric and Hospitaler/Wizard are viable.

 

[Glyfair]

They are better, of course, but not so much as one might think.

I agree, I think the power level of gestalt characters are overestimated a lot. Of course, a min-maxer could probably have a field day with it. If I ran it (and I'd probably consider it if one of the character generation programs could handle it), I'd likely have limitations on "multi-classing" (say "once you create a class like "cleric/wizard" those classes can only be used together for a level).

I'm guessing - just guessing here - that Gestalt makes the game far more entertaining, more fun, for play at low levels (1st through 5th). The players have more choices, more rules to use, more food for thought. Their characters can, simply put, do more.

I think a large number of campaigns using the gestalt rules are those with fewer players. When you only have 2 or 3 players, the gestalt rules balance things nicely vs. the assumed 4 character party with all 4 character classes.

I think the second largest group (and I'd be willing to believe it was the largest) are those with powergamers in them. I know I heard of at least one campaign firsthand where one player ran a gestalt character, and the others didn't. Hey, if it works for them....

I think the rest are doing it because it looks fun or just to try it out. It certainly seems like it would be interesting as long as you don't have min-max players, and you have players who are sound in the rules (having a cleric/wizard picking his spells for the day would be a nightmare with an inexperienced player).

 

[Flyspeck23]

And it's Gestalt (derived from the german word) not Gelstalt.

Gestalt (German): Shape, outline, growth, build, person (novel, movie, historical, etc.), a being.
And, IMHO most importantly in this context: an organized unity that's more than the sum of its parts.

It's a complicated word, just like it's a complicated RPG concept...

 

[wingsandsword]

Edena, my cleric PC, made 21st level legitimately (level by painful level. It is what happened after that, which is questionable to others.)
With the gestalt rules, this human character - Edena - would have gained 21 free levels in another class of his choice. So, by the standard 3rd Edition rules, he'd be a 42nd level character.
He'd probably have become a 21st level cleric/mage.

First, there are no real rules for converting between gestalt characters and regular characters in any edition, they really aren't meant to mix like that. Gestalt is a special option for special campaigns.

However, there are clear rules for converting AD&D multiclassed PC's to D&D 3.x, and it does not include just adding up all the multiclassed levels. When 3e came out, WotC published a little conversion booklet which explained how multiclassed and dual-classed characters should be handled.

An AD&D Cleric 21/Mage 21 would be a 28th level character in 3.x, where you could spread those levels out as you chose (Cleric 9/Wizard 9/Mystic Theurge 10 for example). You take the highest class level, then take all the other class levels divided by 3 (round down), and add that together. 21+(21/3)=28.

Also, I wouldn't call Gestalt rules any kind of revolt against WotC, but that 3e is very adaptable to change and modifications. WotC published the Gestalt rules, so popularity of them is hardly moving against WotC.

 

[Teemu]

The important thing for people new to Gestalt rules to remember is that you’re fusing two base classes into one brand new class. Cleric/wizards and monk/paladins are misleading; they should rather be clericwizards and monkpaladins. You could also give them brand new names: a Gestalt class combining cleric and fighter could be called the Templar, for example.

The Templar’s class features would be:

- d10 for hit points
- 2 + Int skill points per level
- class skill list has all the skills from fighter and cleric lists
- best BAB
- good Fort and Will saves, bad Ref saves
- proficient with all martial and simple weapons, with heavy and lighter armor, and with shields (including tower shields)
- bonus feats as fighter
- turn/rebuke undead, spontaneous cure/inflict spells, alignment aura, domains, and spellcasting as cleric

 

[Turjan]

Gestalt characters are only slightly more powerful than normal ones. Their big advantage is that they are often much more versatile. For estimating the power, it should not be forgotten that the character still has the same number of actions per round. Abovementioned Templar could speak a healing spell or make a melee atack in a round, but not both. It's basically a cleric who is somewhat better in a straight fight.

 

[Kunimatyu]

Gestalt is fun if you remove a lot of PC aquisition of magic items.

 

[Aaron L]

And totally redifine CRs.

 

[William Ronald]

Actually, I support the Gestalt concept. It seems alright. (I just had to get over my astonishment, since I haven't played in 7 years and all this is new to me.)
I would never retroactively equip any character of mine with gestalt abilities. That's a new concept for new characters, in my opinion.

I guess the most important thing here, for me, is:

I'm back.
I'm back in gaming.
I'm back in D&D, in D&D 3.5.

Edena_of_Neith is back.

First, welcome back! Maybe after you have gone over the books, you could start a thread to ask some questions. This may help other people who are converting to the 3.5 rules from earlier editions.

I think for someone just getting into the current edition, the core rules books are enough for a start. Of course, each group will use different books and rules -- some may want the Complete series or not, as an example.

I know there was a booklet that WoTC created to help people convert between editions. Does anyone have an idea of whether it is still on WoTC's site?

 

[wingsandsword]

I know there was a booklet that WoTC created to help people convert between editions. Does anyone have an idea of whether it is still on WoTC's site?

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/conversionbook.zip is the official conversion guide from going from AD&D to D&D 3e.