Would this be balanced?

[Sindri]

In a game that I run, I'm contemplating allowing a modified gestalt system, wherein a gestalt character would split all EXP earned between the two sides of their progression. For example, they would become level 2//2 at a total of 2,000 EXP, 3//3 at 6,000 (where a normal character would be 4th), etc. Any EXP expentitures, such as item crafting, high powered spells, LA buyoff, etc. would be deducted from the side with the feat used or which cast the spell or whatever. At 1st level, the gestalted character would be more powerful, but at, say, 91,000 EXP a normal character would be 14th, while the modified gestalt would be 10//10. Is this relatively balanced, and a way to allow some gestalt characters in a usually normal campaign, or a horrendous error on the level of Wizard vs. Monk?

Edit: I'm also thinking of allowing the player to choose what portion of EXP earned goes to which side, up to a maximum of 90% one way, 10% the other. For example, the 91,000 EXP above could be split into 9,100 on one side and 81,900 on the other, leading to a level 13//3 character; this could allow, say a fighter-type with minor rogue or monk abilities, whereas normally a small dip of a base class would usually be a bad idea. Or it could open the door to horrible abuses. Thoughts?

[Tengu_temp]

I'd say those gestalt characters are a bit on the weak side. So yeah, pretty balanced.

[DemLep]

Balance against what? A normal character of the same exp? If so are some PC's gestalt and some not?

[Sindri]

Would characters using this version of gestalting be roughly equivalent to characters with the same number of EXP using normal progression?
Should have made that clearer...

[Mastikator]

How many hit dice would a level 5//8 have? 8? 5? 13? It's not obvious or intuitive. If you gain a level in one class but not the other, are you using regular gestalt rules? What when the other class increases in level, do you use the gestalt rules again to level?

The mechanics are ambiguous. You need to clarify.

[DemLep]

That what I thought you were asking just wanted to make sure. Gestalt is meant to be more powerful than a normal character. If you weakened it enough so it wasn't it would be pointless. I would suggest make them take a feat or something to go into gestalt.

[Gnaritas]

The principle of Gestalt does not work if both sides do not level at the same time. There is no way to determine what would be gained each level. You can fix this by always keeping the XP of both sides equal, thus if the Wizard side needs to expend XP, you take half of the XP from each side. This way each side will level at the same time.

Now on the point of it being balanced....no, a level 14 character is more powerful than a 10//10. I guess if you give both sides 70% (instead of the 50% you use) times the XP a normal character would get, you get closer. That way a 13 becomes equal to a 11//11, which in my opinion seems about what it needs to be. But i never played Gestalt, so i am just going by the numbers off the top of my head.

However, as you mentioned, there is still the lack of balance in the classes themselves. I would probably allow a Monk 10//Fighter 10 in a party with a Wizard 10 a Druid 10 and a Cleric 10 if the latter 3 were fairly optimized.


If you weakened it enough so it wasn't it would be pointless. I would suggest make them take a feat or something to go into gestalt.

I disagree, a player might find it interesting and fun to play a gestalt character. That does not make it pointless.

[DemLep]

Let me restate my last statement, without level adjustment to make the to equal would be pointless. Proper level adjustment could fix that.

Also some gestalt builds should be limited. There are some gestalt builds that make the character much more powerful then what their level would suggest. This can cause havoc if your not prepared for it. Also gestalt is normally used to get around classes that have funky multi-classing rules. Not saying that it's bad, just something to keep in mind.

It really depends on the players at the end of the day though. I've ran games with unbalanced rules that worked fine and ran games with "balanced" rules that my players turned against me.

[Tengu_temp]

Oh yeah, I missed the part about splitting XP. It makes no sense within Gestalt rules without heavt houseruling, is very abusable, and I'm against it. Just have Gestalt characters gain levels at twice the XP of non-Gestalts. In fact, treating Gestalt as LA+2 would probably work better.

[Gnaritas]

LA+2 would be unbalanced at low levels where a 1//1 is nowhere near a level 3 character in power.

[Sindri]

How many hit dice would a level 5//8 have? 8? 5? 13? It's not obvious or intuitive. If you gain a level in one class but not the other, are you using regular gestalt rules? What when the other class increases in level, do you use the gestalt rules again to level?

The mechanics are ambiguous. You need to clarify.

A 5//8 character would use whatever was better from the two sides; they would have 8HD, whichever HP total was greater (probably the one from the level 8 side, but maybe not it that's 8d4 vs 5d12), whichever BAB was better (again, probably the one from the level 8 side, but that might be a +4 vs a +5 on the other), etc. Basically, have two separate level progressions side by side, gaining EXP at varying rates, and then take the best features of each. I'm imagining something similar to the multiclassing system in AD&D or Hackmaster.

[Sindri]

...a level 14 character is more powerful than a 10//10.

But a 10//10 is significantly better than a 7/7 in terms of everything but HD and number of feats. This system won't give you the power of, say, a pure wizard or broken PrCs but it makes multiclassing between base classes actually viable, by trading off the advantages of being a higher total level for the class features of an extra class.

[Gnaritas]

A 5//8 character would use whatever was better from the two sides; they would have 8HD, whichever HP total was greater (probably the one from the level 8 side, but maybe not it that's 8d4 vs 5d12), whichever BAB was better (again, probably the one from the level 8 side, but that might be a +4 vs a +5 on the other), etc. Basically, have two separate level progressions side by side, gaining EXP at varying rates, and then take the best features of each. I'm imagining something similar to the multiclassing system in AD&D or Hackmaster.

If one would do this, one would be forced to take the same class on either side throughout their advancement (so no switching classes in between).


But a 10//10 is significantly better than a 7/7 in terms of everything but HD and number of feats. This system won't give you the power of, say, a pure wizard or broken PrCs but it makes multiclassing between base classes actually viable, by trading off the advantages of being a higher total level for the class features of an extra class.

If by this you mean, a Fighter 7/Wizard 7 is very unoptimal, then yes, that is true.
But compare it to a Wizard 7/Fighter2/Abjurant Champion 5....(by no means optimal)

With a con of 16 the gestalt has 89.5 HP, the Abjurant Champion has 102,5 HP.
The gestalt has 7 BaB, the Abjurant Champion has 10 BaB.
The gestalt has CL 7, the Abjurant Champion has CL 12
The gestalt has 3+4 feats, the Abjurant Champion has 4+2 feats
The gestalt has Fort +5, Refl +2, Will +5. The Champion has +6/+3/+9
The Champion has extra abilities from being an Abjurant Champion 5.

There is no comparison! (if you want to say, but the Abjurant Champion is broken, which he is not, then use a Eldritch Knight and the numbers wont differ much).

You should probably try to get closer to the 11//11 vs 13 i suggested.

[Tyndmyr]

Would characters using this version of gestalting be roughly equivalent to characters with the same number of EXP using normal progression?
Should have made that clearer...

They will be slightly stronger. Basically, if you can split xp however you wish, you have the option of being essentially a non-gestalted character unless it benefits you to do otherwise. And, when you get to say, level 10, siphoning off a few xp to gestalt up to level 2 or 3 is a very minor setback.

It's an interesting system, and I think it'd be fun to see in practice.

[Gnaritas]

So a Wizard 11 could choose to instead be a Wizard 10//Fighter 4

He would gain 15 hp, 2 BaB, 3 Fighter Feats, Armor and Weapon Proficiencies, +3 Fort saves.

You would lose 1d4+con hp, and a caster level.

I value caster levels pretty high, but the fighter side offers a lot too.

[Tyndmyr]

Yeah. It's surprisingly balanced. I consider that a pretty decent trade.

If anything, it's more advantageous for melee builds, since losing one level off the top is probably less of an issue for them, in return for roughly an equal amount of good stuff.

I kinda want to play with this at some point.

[Gnaritas]

Yeah well, an optimizing player would more likely go for a more profitable gestalt than Wizard//Fighter, like a Warblade.

Nevertheless i might try to give this a go for my group.

[Sindri]

If one would do this, one would be forced to take the same class on either side throughout their advancement (so no switching classes in between).

Why?


If by this you mean, a Fighter 7/Wizard 7 is very unoptimal, then yes, that is true.
But compare it to a Wizard 7/Fighter2/Abjurant Champion 5....
...
There is no comparison! (if you want to say, but the Abjurant Champion is broken, which he is not, then use a Eldritch Knight and the numbers wont differ much).

Yes, if you just look at caster level and BAB then a build that uses a PrC to max out caster level and BAB will be better.
If you want class features, you need actual levels in the classes involved; a Druid//Factotum, for example, would do better at level 10//10 rather than ECL 14 with traditional advancement, because it gives them 20 levels worth of class features.