Three characters, even Gestalt ones, aren't usually going to cut it in an adventure designed for six, unless they're particularly well designed for exactly that (e.g., a Druid//Wizard, a Druid//Ninja, and a Druid//Cleric, all three of whom take one of the more combat-oriented animal companions - Riding Dog at 1st, and either an Ape or one of the Pouncing cats at 4th+, spending a bit of cash to get the animal companion some barding), or are very well optimized otherwise.The context of the OP is a 3-player campaign and the Age of Worms adventure path that is geared to a party of 6 PCs.
Age of Worms is a really hard campaign so I'm looking at Gestalt as a way to even up the odds a bit so the 3 players won't be in for as difficult a ride.
Wow, I was going to write out a lengthier post about the game mechanics side of Gestalt, but StreamoftheSky pretty much nailed all the points I'd of brought up (and more.) Good post.
Have you seen Owen K. C. Stephens' recent blog post that touches on this subject? He describes various ways to do "power fantasy" in Pathfinder 1E, and one of them is "amalgam characters." They're basically gestalt characters, with the difference that "[a]ll of the abilities of both classes are considered to be native to the amalgam class. This can be important for rule interactions. For example, an amalgam magus/wizard treats all their wizard spells as being magus spells when determining if they can cast spells without suffering from arcane spell failure."Over the past fifteen years, I have played around quite a bit with turning optional Gestalt-- with various penalties-- into a viable substitute for the D&D 3.5/PF1 multiclassing system.
In my experience, a lot of smaller third-party publishers come up with great products that all too often don't get the attention they deserve. Kudos to you for bringing this up here.I came very close, thanks to a neat bit of third-party content-- look up Overhauling Multiclassing by Tipsy Tabby Publishing-- but I never quite stuck the landing.