As someone who runs gestalt games, I don't find it odd or difficult, I find that it gives characters more choices, and more chances to expand their background, unfortunately for anyone who joins wanting to be a combat monster, they can of course do that, but will likely find themselves bored to tears with encounters that don't combat, since I run on the role-play agenda rather than the roll-play one.

I have run gestalt in 3.0/3.5 & pathfinder.

I am fortunate to have excellent players, that want to role play and not just brute power through everything. I sometimes run modules, but I do not run them as the module actually indicates, I tend to add and take things away, change encounters, to fit my group. SO far it's worked out just fine, I am positive about it.

It gives the gm a chance to allow all the players to shine in one way or another, and it gives the group, extra boost if the inevitability of IRL happens and someone disappears, the group can still proceed.

Personally I'd lean towards the former. Gestatlt feels like power-gaming because we are talking about their paper abilities, and invariably all I've seen is the equivalent of min-maxing. No attempt to take an equal amount of bad with the good. If the GM needs more powerful characters then it feels like something went wrong in balancing the game before you even started.

Perhaps it might have more value in a solo game?

Gestalt seems to me to be the antithesis of a balanced and flawed group working together to build a story and achieve goals together. Characters get to shine when there isn't someone else standing in the same spotlight.

Gestalting can also be used in the more poorly made editions to allow Players to make characters that emulate characters from books that are impossible in the base systems, frex Conan, Fafhrd, and the Grey Mouser.  Until 3e they were simply impossible to make in the rules without seriously bending the rules, in third they're possible with a single rule break.  In fourth and fifth they are easily done.

Actually, Fafhrd and the Mouser where both published in an old edition old Dragon (maybe White Dwarf) back during 1st edition. As I recall, Fafhrd was a barbarian thief multiclass, and the Mouser was a thief Mage multi, although just starting as a mage.

And that's the thing: Gestalt did it quicker, but it wasn't actually impossible, or particularly hard, even, to do with the rules in many/most editions, mostly. It just took patience. And really high stats, but that could be used as a character goal, and wasn't that hard to earn, usually.

Yep, and there was a Lankhmar setting as well, for 2nd edition.

Skills and powers offered something like it, it just evolved as it went. Like I said though I have had great players and it's always been a joy to run. The extra boost just means they can get into more.

This message was deleted by the user at 04:45, Sat 30 Oct 2021.

And it took breaking the rules.  AD&D doesn't allow Humans to Multiclass (and even if Fafhrd were a non-human, Barbarian isn't a Multiclass option).  Humans had to Dual Class, which means they're still doable, but it's much harder, and very kludgey (no going back and forth, once you dual, you're old class is forever closed to advancement, there are penalties for using your old class while learning the new one, etc).

But that was my point, "they were simply impossible to make in the rules without seriously bending the rules", or since I never read the Lankhmar setting, it may have changed the rules from base AD&D to allow Humans to multi (but I doubt it).

They're "doable" in 3e, depending on your personal belief in how they should be built, but even then the skill limitations make it difficult without bending the rules on how many skill points you can put into out of class skills, or going the "suboptimal" route of multiclassing.

Apologies, I meant Dual classed. Finish one, start another. That's the human option, and that is what was used.

Well within the rules.

It's been a few decades and a few editions, and I forget the finer points of the semantics of  the older rule sets.

I like gestalt because it increases variety.  I know it makes players more powerful, but that isn't my goal.  Because power comes secondary to story in games I enjoy.

A "balanced" game always feels like playing an mmo to me, where each player is just their role, nothing more.  I heal.  I hit.  I cast.  I sneak.  each player stays in their lane.  That works great for dungeon crawling, but that isn't the type of game I am talking about.

If I want to run a game that explores what it would be like to be a powerful mage in a world of magic, and I want to run a group that is all different casters, gestalt seems ideal for adding a depth and variety to each character.  Instead of having multiple wizards and sorcerers that are only differentiated by a few small choices, I can have players that mix various classes to a wide range of options.  The fact that they are more powerful than a standard character has nothing to do with the game, or what I hope would make it enjoyable.

I get that that isn't how most people play D&D though.  That's why I asked the question.  If there aren't any players, or very few, on rpol that this sort of game interests, then I won't bother investing time in thinking about running it.

And as far as "taking time" that really isn't an option on rpol.  I don't want to run a game with this goal, but it will take several years of playing to accomplish it.

I know this is hte D&D Gestalt thread, but if you really want variety, you should a system that isn't D&D.

I agree with you in part, and that is my predicament.  There are other systems that are much better at handling games of mystery, story, and intrigue.  But none of them have the depth and variety to their magic that d&d does.  Very few have the same level of depth and devopment in their settings either.  So it is a trade off, and one I will probably never be able to do on rpol.  But it was worth asking, at least.
This message was last edited by the user at 06:04, Sat 30 Oct 2021.

That's certainly an opinion, and if by "depth" you mean "very long list of spells" I'll agree.


Because very few have the longevity and resources of D&D, but once you leave the Gungeon Dungeon Fantasy genre, there are plenty of games with with settings as rich as the ones in D&D.

But you do know you can shed the system and take the setting right?  Like I occasionally flirt with the idea of running a GURPS Dungeon Fantasy game set in Mystara (because I have all the Gazetteers)... but then I remember that means reading all those Gazetteers again I decide my homebrew setting is way easier to run.
This message was last edited by the user at 16:53, Sat 30 Oct 2021.

It's the combination of number of spells with types of spells, the  types of magic, the hierarchy to it, and the variety.  Players in D&D understand that when a wizard casts greater planar binding, it is a show of great force and power because they know the level involved, what could be summoned, etc.  I have not encountered other systems that have that same tightly laid out magical system.  Things like Mage and other more open ended systems technically can allow great feats of magic, but they have less of an impact because the limits and reaches of magic are so much less defined.  Having magic so clearly regimented makes growing in that magic system have a great deal more weight.


Using a different ssytem in the D&D setting would require a great deal of work to adapt.  and it would be hard to get a perfect fit.  If I used Eberron, for example, I'd have to figure out how to represent dragonmarks, and the unique magic items of that system.  To really dig into it would require a good deal of adaptation.  Not impossible, but it's a question of what is more work.  It's also a question of finding players that would want to play such a game.  As is evidenced here, there aren't a lot of players interested in this sort of game, at least not vocally so, so it's hard to know if I would be able to find a group for a game like that.

And I guess I just haven't played the right games.  What other games have as developed settings as things like Faerun or Eberron?  I don't know of many outside things like lord of the rings or star wars, or modern day games obviously.
This message was last edited by the user at 16:52, Sat 30 Oct 2021.

That's one way to look at it, I've never* seen it that way, but sure.


* Consider it a failing of my imagination, but I'll explain why in a moment.


GURPS, Rolemaster, Dresden Files, Ars Magica, Mage: The Awakening/Ascension, etc.


It's just as defined, it's simply defined in a different way, and in the case of Mage, since "everyone is doing it" it probably feel less "epic".  It might still be cool, but when everyone's a superhero, now one is special.  And I think that might be feeding into your lack of 'awe' over MtA's magic system.  When Bob the Sorcerer makes the epic magic happen, well... it's not as incredible when everyone else in the party has the same phenomenal cosmic powers.

Like let's wrap back to the premise of this thread, Gestalts.  If everyone in the party was a Wizard or Sorcerer, would it feel so very awesome when one of them Summons an Extraplanar Being?  Or would that just be "the first move of every fight" (aka "It's Tuesday, Bob's summoning angels again.  Suzy hit the party with your maximized improved overpowered invincible Fire Immunity spell, and I'll drop a Meteor Swarm centered on Bob's Fire Angel..").

And that's why I've never felt that D&D has a particularly "awe inspiring" magic system, the cost is so low, "just survive long enough to get the level", that the magic itself begins to feel mundane.  See also "everything modern tech can do magic can do better" problem of settings like Eberron.


Eh.  I don't see it.  But I've also lament the incredibly slow "growth" in other systems, so I think this might be system blindness on your part.  Which is fine, everyone has a preferred a system.


It is that.  Granted I don't care about emulating everything perfectly, if you want perfect emulation, run the game the setting was built for.  The feel and look is good enough, and that's the real key to emulating a setting.  Don't worry that "+1 magic swords" don't exist in the new system, just adapt to what does.  Or make it up.


Never is and as I argue, shouldn't be.


I wouldn't take anything said in this thread (or threads on RPoL in general) as gospel.  The vocal few are just that, the vocal few, we aren't a "voice of the silent masses" at all.


There you go, as I said: "once you leave the [D]ungeon Fantasy genre" and that's what I meant.  The White Wolf settings is vast and has depth, GURPS has a lot of settings (just not quite as vast or 'deep'), several even fits the Dungeon Fantasy genre; Star Wars; Middle Earth; Traveler; Trans-Human Space; etc.

See, the thing is D&D is so huge, it eclipses the dungeon fantasy genre, it makes going deep and wide on building a setting difficult, most OSR and D&D off-shoots do not do well.  Paizo's D&D is the one exception, and I think it only did well because it is D&D and was serving a vast 'niche' in the hobby that WotC decided to abandon and call names as WotC left that 'niche' behind.  Had WotC not made 4e their "Edition War" edition... well, we'll never know how many converts WotC won for Paizo with that move.

All of this just shows that you and I view aspects of the game differently.  I  have quite a bit of experience with Mage, it is a very different thing than D&D.  It doesn't give the same feel, both in system and in setting.  And I disagree on the magic system being clearly defined.  It was totally broken in earlier editions, and players used to love finding loopholes that effectively made them gods with 3 dots in a sphere.  And when every limitation or definition of what your magic can do is ultimately up to storyteller arbitration, it makes it much less of a game of exploring the magic before you, and much more of a game of tug of war with the storyteller.  That's not what I want.

I wanted to play a game where players got to really delve into the magic of D&D.  The system so many people are familiar with, but that most people don't get a chance to dig into much.  Gestalt added variety along with weight.  Saying two sorcerers view magic slightly different isn't as impactful as one being a sorcerer/warlock who desires to unlock the secrets of his dark blood, and the other is a sorcerer/paladin who is committed to the silver flame.  The class combinations make them very different characters, far more than just a few feat and spell choices.

I can't do that in another setting, and I can't really do that with another system combined into D&D.  The game I wanted is a D&D game, by definition, it just isn't something I seem to be able to find much interest in.  Oh well, My loss.

Okay.  It's defined, it's just not rigid.

And I agree, 2e is much less loopholey, but the whole premise is narrative freedom and GM's control.  It's the same in Ars Magica, a few magic/supernatural systems in GURPS (GURPS magic can go either way depending on which system you chose), and Dresden Files.  The system is there, it's just not rigid.


You can, it would just require work.  Frex, GURPS can do everything you want (and more), it just requires you to chose the right tools and put in the work building the setting (or 'adapting' the setting", I mean I can adapt on the fly, but I've been running GURPS for 30+ years, I do not expect to sell someone on GURPS who has never played it before).

For that matter... with even more work you could do it in the Storyteller (White Wolf's) system... but that would be an awful lot of work.  I was doing something similar once, back in the 90s, but after a year of hammering it into a fantasy genre Earthdawn came along and had already done basically what I was building, and did it better (IMO).

And no, Earthdawn does not do what you want in any way, shape, or form.  It's a good system, but the magic is not what you seem to be aiming at.


Then stick with it!  Gestalting works fine for what you want, then go forward with it¹.  You've actually introduced a use for it I've never considered, which is interesting.

Doesn't change my mind on D&D², but it is an interesting revelation.



1 Or, if you can dig up a copy of AD&D 2e Player's Option: Skills & Powers, I know it says "2e" on the cover ,a dn it is for 2e, but it might arm you with the tools to create your own whatever edition version, so you can build classes as you want for the games you run.

2 I hate D&D, it does everything the opposite way I enjoy.  I'll still play it though if that's what my group is doing...  I mean, I say hate, but, it's really more "I will never run D&D and will usually chose something else if given my choice".


[EDIT]
Ooops!  Client info slipped into the post, that's what comes of reading and responding to the forums while working...

And now, just like that, I'm totally sold on posts not having pre-edited backups.  Jase, you're a genius!  I'll never question your judgement again, until inevitably I do.
[/EDIT]
This message was last edited by the user at 22:33, Sat 30 Oct 2021.

If there's one D&D book you need, regardless of the edition you run/play, it's 3.5 Unearthed Arcana; more than that, it's Spells & Magic, Combat & Tactics, and Skills & Powers, in that order. After that... there are a whole lot of incredible sourcebooks on different genres, time periods, and worldbuilding that it would depend on a person's interests... but those four at always at the top of the pile.

---

It's already been touched upon in this thread, but there is a massive design space in Gestalt with fixed or semi-fixed progressions: fun thought exercise is to go to the d20PFSRD.com page and the list of classes and archetypes, and imagine what kind of game you would be running if everyone in the party were "one side" fixed progression in that class.

Everyone's a Bloodrager, Eldritch Scion (Magus), or Sorcerer on "one side" is a very different game if everyone picks a different bloodline (X-Men) versus everyone picking the same bloodline (Throne of Bhaal). The Knotty Works has a couple of mini-supplements about expanding Sorcerer bloodline bonus spell lists...

Same thing with everyone being a Cleric, Oracle, Paladin, Inquisitor, and/or Warpriest. (Same god or not?) Everyone's psychic and/or psionic? Book of Nine Swords or Path of War? Shugenja (OGL via Rokugan) versus Kinetcist?

A lot of really niche classes that you never see in standard 3.X or PF1 environments come into their own in Gestalt. (And a lot of mid-tier or lower Prestige Classes become problems.)
This message was last edited by the user at 06:22, Tue 02 Nov 2021.

I think that it moves away from the consistent presence of stereotypes (how many longsword and large shield fighters do you need to see?), it allows both diversity and for a smaller group size.  Or alternately, more challenging content at a lower level.

I've got a semi-contrary stance on the issue.

To me, gestalt is not inherently more powerful, but it can become so for powergamers.

The reason is this, a gestalt character is never going to have a higher bab or spell dc or cl than a non-gestalt character of the same level. They have more options, but any of those options have no greater impact than if they were the only option a character had.

The so-called greater power of gestalt comes from greater variety of available options, which is the whole point, and the occasional combination of two abilities.

But honestly, the power argument feels very modern to me. In older play, you'd have hirelings and be stuck at level for a long time, but more importantly, in older play, you faced a wide range of encounter difficulties, as in, you never stop running into 1st level encounters, and boss fights can be 5 levels or more above you. When you consider that, then easy encounters are still easy with gestalt, and hard encounters are still hard but are more interesting.

The modern concept of all encounters needing to be about equal in difficulty is a crazy thing the community arbitrarily chose during 3.0 despite being explicitly against the rules. No idea why, but probably because of video games pushing people to apply video game to their rpg sessions instead of real world logic. Whatever the cause, this shift to vudeo game play is what makes gestalt seem so powerful, cause quite frankly, if a gm has players that can easily handle equal cr encounters then why not simply raise the cr of encounters to be challenging regardless of gestalt or not? It'd be easy, and is in fact the gm's job to make such adjustments, but for some reason, people feel they can't do that. Then there is the option of making enemies fight smarter, that never happens either.

To be quite honest, I haven't seen a single problem with gestalt that isn't caused by the gm or the general expectations of the players/gm. Never have I seen a mechanical reason to consider gestalt a problem.

It's a decent way to get the lower tier classes to sometimes be able to contribute in games that allow obscenely overpowered crap like Wizard, Druid, Cleric, Archivist, Artificer, Wu Jen, and Sha'ir, provided the lower powered classes like Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Paladin, Ranger, Knight, Dragon Shaman, Swashbuckler, Samurai, Ninja, etc., are the ones gestalted with similar themed low-power classes to allow people to play archetypes and still be able to -- somewhat -- contribute in a game that allows the high power, cheesier options.
This message was last edited by the user at 01:59, Sat 20 Nov 2021.

That is another thing that exists only because of modern weirdness. Those so-called tier lists and classes being unable to contribute is a bunch of nonsense that results from the community developing expectations and boundaries that have nothing to do with the actual rules but result in the mismatch of power. It is interesting that gestalt alleviates that issue in making people feel better about playing "lower" classes yet is still argued against for the same reasons as what causes the tier distinction to begin with.

I wish I knew how the community comes with and adopts concepts and expectations that are so contradictory to the source material.

In reply to DarkLightHitomi (msg # 27):

Because mathematically, a Druid is capable of using their class abilities to contribute to the solution of more types of adventuring problems than, say, a Monk. Character ability imbalance is a thing that exists. Remember,  this is a game where balance improves if you give everyone straight 18s.

Consider this adventuring problem appropriate to a level 10-12 party.

"An Ice Devil has been summoned and is loose on the top of that tenement building over there. It is slaughtering the townsfolk. Save them, quickly!"

What classes have access to class abilities at levels 10-12 that allow them to contribute in providing solutions to the scenario?
This message was last edited by the user at 03:30, Sun 21 Nov 2021.

It has nothing to do with "modern weirdness" unless you consider OD&D (1974) to be "modern".

Every class.

A problem I consistently encounter with this type of argument is similar to the combat as sport vs combat as war issue. People who look only at their sheet and the obvious superficial use of abilities.

As a counter example, consider a trap. Some might consider the only viable solution to a trap is the anti-trap skill, but the truth is, that is just video-game logic, when real world logic is apllied, then you can find other solutions that do not rely on a specific skill, such as stepping over a trip wire, getting a bench and setting over a pressure plate, using spider climb to reach the other side and flip a lever to disable the trap, etc.

Similarly, if you limit yourself to video-game logic, then yea, some classes will handle your ice devil better than others, but using real world logic, well, it will depend far more on the player's creative problem solving skills than character stats.

I'd like to note here a very important fact, dnd up to and including 3rd edition, were designed for players using real world logic, not video game logic. 4e and 5e and pf2 are designed around video game logic, hence the drastically different structures and balances they use.

Heck, 2e actually requires that when a player creates a trap, they are supposed to actually draw what the trap does and how it functions for the gm to see. Just consider a moment the difference in thinking that implies.

When 3e came out, players complained about modules not meeting certain standards, standards built on video game logic which was not in line with the game's fundemental design.

This us the same reason why 3e seems so unbalanced, because it is being judged according to vastly different standards than those by which it was designed.

I'm sorry, but you can't compute a player's creative problem solving skills like this.

I call it modern more because it is the standard expectation in modern designs but not older designs. That is not meant to imply that such thinking didn't exist from the beginning. There us a reason after all that Gygax complained about playing the rules vs playing the game. That kind of player always existed, but it wasn't always the design philosophy.