E6: Adding Gestalt Levels; How Much XP?

[Goober4473]

For those who don't know, E6 is 3.5 D&D or Pathfinder with a level cap of 6, and every 5,000 XP after that gets you a feat.

What I'd like to do is add in the ability to take on additional classes, as with the gstalt rules, as an alternative to taking feats. For instance, a level 6 wizard could take a level of fighter, making his/her first level a gestalt fighter/wizard level, but leaving him/her a 6th level character.

What I'm wondering is, how many feats (or just XP; it doesn't need to be in increments of 5,000) is this worth? Should it vary by level (i.e. should going from wizard 6/fighter 2 to wizard 6/fighter 3 cost more than going from wizard 6/fighter 1 to wizard 6/fighter 2)? Obviously higher levels in classes provide better stuff, but you no longer worry about total hit dice, and there's an element of investment involved.

[ArcanistSupreme]

I have thought about doing the exact same thing and wondered how it would work.

I agree that it should increase as you gestalt into higher levels, and probably cost more than a feat. Maybe it should cost what it would take to level up? So 6000xp for the first gestalt level, 7000xp for the second, etc. This could also permit triple gestalting if the character really wanted to, though it would obviously have diminishing returns.

[HunterOfJello]

I'm suddenly reminded of Final Fantasy Tactics.


If you wanted to use that system, why not use the normal XP costs x2? That way it takes them 2000xp for Fighter 1, 6000xp for Fighter 2 and eventually 30000 for Fighter 5.

Characters who don't want to gestalt, or don't need to, can do without. I would also suggest using the Fractional saves and bab from UA for this method.

[Zeofar]

Two feats sounds solid to me. So, if you have 10,000 xp, you can get a gestalt level or two feats and either one counts against your feat total. This is actually a great idea, by the way.

[ArcanistSupreme]

I'm suddenly reminded of Final Fantasy Tactics.


If you wanted to use that system, why not use the normal XP costs x2? That way it takes them 2000xp for Fighter 1, 6000xp for Fighter 2 and eventually 30000 for Fighter 5.

Characters who don't want to gestalt, or don't need to, can do without. I would also suggest using the Fractional saves and bab from UA for this method.

I'm not sure how well that would work. Under this system, the first level (which can be ridiculously good in many cases) is dirt cheap, but later levels would be prohibitively expensive for very little gain. Also, I believe you are looking at total XP instead of XP needed between levels.

[Flickerdart]

Add it to the total character level - so that the 1st level of Fighter would take as much XP as it would to level to 7th.

[Jallorn]

Add it to the total character level - so that the 1st level of Fighter would take as much XP as it would to level to 7th.

I think this would be good. I mean, yes, you don't get a HD, but you're already at the peak of human achievement, and now you're going to be able to do more stuff. I also recommend adding the difference between HD if you the new class has higher. So a level 6 Rogue adding a level of Fighter adds 2 to his HD total.

[ArcanistSupreme]

Add it to the total character level - so that the 1st level of Fighter would take as much XP as it would to level to 7th.

If I wasn't clear, this is also what I meant.

[Goober4473]

I have thought about doing the exact same thing and wondered how it would work.

I agree that it should increase as you gestalt into higher levels, and probably cost more than a feat. Maybe it should cost what it would take to level up? So 6000xp for the first gestalt level, 7000xp for the second, etc. This could also permit triple gestalting if the character really wanted to, though it would obviously have diminishing returns.

I like this, but the problem is that one gestalt level is basically way better than a feat, and actually after doing the math usually doesn't get a whole lot better or worse in a lot of cases.

For instance wizard to fighter gets +2 to Fortitude saves, +3 hp, and a fighter bonus feat, which is equal to three feats (one being Toughness which isn't a good feat, but still), plus weapon/armor/shield proficiencies, and probably a few class skills, which is probably worth another feat or two. The second level of fighter gets another 3 hp, another bonus feat, +1 BAB, and in Pathfinder adds Bravery +1, which is roughly 3-4 feats. Third level in 3.5 gets you 3 more hp, and Pathfinder adds Armor Training 1, so 1-2 not-so-good feats. Fourth level gets you another +1 BAB, bonus feat, and the usual 3 hp, which is roughly three feats. Fifth is again just the 3 hp in 3.5, plus Weapon Training 1 in Pathfinder, so 1-2 feats. Finally sixth is the 3 hp, +1 BAB, +1 to Fortitude saves, a bonus feat, and Bravery +2, so about four feats. Total something like 18 feats (one or two less with 3.5 versus Pathfinder), which is three per level, but one is Toughness.

(calculated using fractional bonuses, which I always use)

I'm temped to just charge 10,000-15,000 per gestalt level.

Obviously spellcasters scale a little more with level, gaining more powerful spells at higher levels, but would basically be being overcharged at lower level to make up for it.

[Galdor]

Add it to the total character level - so that the 1st level of Fighter would take as much XP as it would to level to 7th.

I agree. I was going to say that before I saw your post. The only problem I can think of is that gestalt tends to give you the better option when you get two of similar features, but it shouldn't make too much of a difference.

[Stegyre]

Gestalt is complicated enough when both sides are equal. You want to do it with imbalanced sides? I think you're going to create more problems than it's worth.

Consider: with 6 levels of progress on one side, a number of PrCs will be available, and a character may conceivably start with one on the other side. Do you want a 6th level Ur Priest (with 6th level cleric spells) or a 6th level Chameleon (with 4th level arcane and divine spells)? This cannot happen in a regular gestalt, but desegretating the progressions makes it possible here.

Are you allowing only two tracks of class levels (6//6) or as many as characters can pile on (6//6//6//6//. . . .)? The second means that ultimately, every character has 6*d12 HD, BAB +6, Fort/Ref/Will +5/+5/+5, full casting progression, full maneuver progression, etc. The longer the campaign runs, the more alike everyone becomes. The choice is no longer "this or that?" but "now or later?"

IMO, six class levels are a good limit for characters. It imposes some tough choices; that's a good thing, not a bad one.

[Goober4473]

Gestalt is complicated enough when both sides are equal. You want to do it with imbalanced sides? I think you're going to create more problems than it's worth.

It's really not that complicated. I've done it before, I'm just looking for a more balance pricing system.

PrCs

No PrCs in my E6.

Are you allowing only two tracks of class levels (6//6) or as many as characters can pile on (6//6//6//6//. . . .)? The second means that ultimately, every character has 6*d12 HD, BAB +6, Fort/Ref/Will +5/+5/+5, full casting progression, full maneuver progression, etc. The longer the campaign runs, the more alike everyone becomes. The choice is no longer "this or that?" but "now or later?"

I'd probably allow more classes, but at a scaling cost. For instance, 10,000 XP per level for your second class, 15,000 for your third, etc. If the campaign ran long enough, sure you could have 9 classes, but that's 1,110,000 XP, or 222 feats for someone who hasn't gone gestalt. I don't envision this being a real problem, considering the E6 rules seem to assume around 30 feats by the time things are getting to the equivalent of "epic."

[Goober4473]

Preliminary system for determining the XP cost of gestalt levels:

The cost is based on how much of the classes overlap (and therefore how much you end up losing out on, since you get the best of each), combined with how well you can use their abilities at the same time.

High Overlap: There is a great deal of overlap between classes. Gaining the best of each class leaves you with a lot wasted. For instance, Ranger combined with Paladin. 5,000 XP per level.

Medium Overlap: There is some overlap between classes. For instance, Sorcerer combined with Wizard. 7,500 XP per level.

Low Overlap: There is little overlap between classes. For instance, Fighter combined with Cleric. 10,000 XP per level.

No overlap: Each class contributes almost all of its normal abilities. For instance, Barbarian combined with Wizard. 15,000 XP per level.




No Action Synergy: Each class has virtually no way to improve upon what the other does. No self-buffs that affect the other class's abilities, no combination of powers, no ability to use both classes at one time. For instance, Fighter combined with Warmage. 0 additional XP per level.

Low Action Synergy: Using one class's abilities usually prohibits the use of the other's in that same action, but buffs may help the other class. For instance, Cleric combined with Ranger. 2,500 additional XP per level.

High Action Synergy: Some abilities may be used together, stack, compliment each other, etc. Major abilities may stack in some situations. For instance, Rogue combined with any other weapon-wielding class. 5,000 additional XP per level.

Anything with higher action synergy should be banned or modified. (I'll be fixing duskblade + spellcasters, and druid + totemist, for instance)




When comparing classes, it doesn't matter which is being added and which has already been taken. For instance, making a Wizard//Fighter is the same as a Fighter//Wizard when considering how much they overlap.

When adding a third or higher class, compare the new class to the combination of the others. For instance, when making a Rogue//Wizard//Fighter, compare Fighter to Rogue//Wizard. Each extra class beyond the first at any given level costs an additional 5,000 cumulative XP (i.e. your third class at a level costs 5,000 more, your fourth costs 10,000 more, etc.).

[Holocron Coder]

I like the idea of the amount of xp being equal to the total number of levels you will have, i.e. 6//1 = 7000xp, 6//2 = 8000xp... this also extends nicely into multiple gestalts, i.e. 6//6//1 = 13000xp. Since you aren't really going "up" in power so much as "sideways" (though, admittedly, "up" a bit, depending on choices), you won't be gaining xp much faster, if at all.

As for the comment of eventually having perfect-everything, well, isn't that what we assume happens in low fantasy? Like that warrior who picked up some magic, then became a devout worshipper before being driven underground by an invading, conquering army and had to pick up some thieving skills... and all of this over the course of his life (becoming ftr6//wiz6//pal6//rog6, or similar).

[Stegyre]

As for the comment of eventually having perfect-everything, well, isn't that what we assume happens in low fantasy? Like that warrior who picked up some magic, then became a devout worshipper before being driven underground by an invading, conquering army and had to pick up some thieving skills... and all of this over the course of his life (becoming ftr6//wiz6//pal6//rog6, or similar).

What can I say? Your assumptions are very different from mine.

(Not that there's anything wrong with that. )

In my low fantasy, she'll be wearing a long blue dress (wrong fantasy) fighter-types are still recognizable as such: they'll always swing a sword or axe better than the spell casters (BAB +6); full casters will always have more, and more powerful, spells than those who merely dipped into their fields (3rd level spells typically only available with a 5- or 6-level investment); etc.

Feats may allow you to pick up some traits of other classes, but you'll never successfully duplicate them by feats alone.

YMMV.

[Goober4473]

I like the idea of the amount of xp being equal to the total number of levels you will have, i.e. 6//1 = 7000xp, 6//2 = 8000xp... this also extends nicely into multiple gestalts, i.e. 6//6//1 = 13000xp. Since you aren't really going "up" in power so much as "sideways" (though, admittedly, "up" a bit, depending on choices), you won't be gaining xp much faster, if at all.

It's simple, but see my previous posts where I used math. It seems like increasing price means taking a few gestalt levels is way better than taking feats, and then later, taking feats becomes much better, since feats don't increase in cost as you go. So it seems that a set price per level is the way to go. I'm going with an icnrease in cost per class beyond your first gestalt for now, but I may drop that depending on how powerful adding more classes ends up looking.

I also felt that every gestalt was not equal, thus my previous post about synergy and whatnot. Any thoughts on that?

As for the comment of eventually having perfect-everything, well, isn't that what we assume happens in low fantasy? Like that warrior who picked up some magic, then became a devout worshipper before being driven underground by an invading, conquering army and had to pick up some thieving skills... and all of this over the course of his life (becoming ftr6//wiz6//pal6//rog6, or similar).

I had the same thought as to how a character might progress. You could of course picking up more feats, becoming better at whatever class you already have, or you could pick up a new path of abilities. Sure, you could end up as a Fighter//Wizard//Cleric//Rogue, and basically be everything, but at the same time, you could end up with something like 50+ feats, enough to have every combat feat, Skill Focus in everything you want, Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus in every school you care about, etc., and Toughness a pile of times (in 3.5 anyways; in Pathfinder, I'd probably allow 3.5 Toughness once you have the regular one).

I like the way this ends up working with specializing or diversifying.

[Tvtyrant]

Couldn't you just make each level have feat requirements? A feat tax is never fun but in this case it would spread the Gestalting out enough that you wouldn't have to worry about balance so much, because everyone else would have three times as many useful feats.

So say to Gestalt Bard you would need to take a Music Mastery feat, a Smooth Talker feat and a Stage Presence feat. After that you can take a level in Bard which switches out you skill points for theirs (if you aren't a ranger or rogue) and you gain their casting/music abilities. Having lost 3 feats that don't do all that much you aren't really in danger of unbalancing it, especially if you add requirements for every level taken, instead of just as entrance reqs. 3 feats to get a level aren't much for entry reqs, but multiply by 6 and you get 18 feats burned to get a full gestalt.

[Goober4473]

Couldn't you just make each level have feat requirements? A feat tax is never fun but in this case it would spread the Gestalting out enough that you wouldn't have to worry about balance so much, because everyone else would have three times as many useful feats.

So say to Gestalt Bard you would need to take a Music Mastery feat, a Smooth Talker feat and a Stage Presence feat. After that you can take a level in Bard which switches out you skill points for theirs (if you aren't a ranger or rogue) and you gain their casting/music abilities. Having lost 3 feats that don't do all that much you aren't really in danger of unbalancing it, especially if you add requirements for every level taken, instead of just as entrance reqs. 3 feats to get a level aren't much for entry reqs, but multiply by 6 and you get 18 feats burned to get a full gestalt.

What does this improve upon though? If the feats do nothing, wouldn't that just be the same as charging 15,000 XP per level? If you're also thinking you'd be charged XP for the levels too, then that's just really expensive, and I want this to be a valid option.

[Tvtyrant]

What does this improve upon though? If the feats do nothing, wouldn't that just be the same as charging 15,000 XP per level? If you're also thinking you'd be charged XP for the levels too, then that's just really expensive, and I want this to be a valid option.

I wouldn't make them do nothing; they boost your abilities less then a normal feat but more the skill points do. Essentially they act as little markers to allow them some boosts while waiting for the XP to build up, rather then just sit on a slowly expanding pile of xp. So some of them give you a lot of skill points in perform for instance, and another one gives you a boost to several skill checks (intimidate, bluff and diplomacy +2) etc.

[Goober4473]

I wouldn't make them do nothing; they boost your abilities less then a normal feat but more the skill points do. Essentially they act as little markers to allow them some boosts while waiting for the XP to build up, rather then just sit on a slowly expanding pile of xp. So some of them give you a lot of skill points in perform for instance, and another one gives you a boost to several skill checks (intimidate, bluff and diplomacy +2) etc.

Ahh. Yeah, I was considering breaking up each class into components to be gained slowly. I probably wouldn't have hard rules for it though. Instead, just whatever the DM feels is appropriate. If I go with my cost based on synergy system, I couldn't charge a constant 5,000 XP per increment of class features, since cost would vary, but I could do something like every 1/3 of the cost you get something.