Gestalt Rules for small groups

[anomalousman]

I have a group that has recently been playing with three PCs, and while it is possible to optimise hard and have some chance in the published modules, I think it's fair to say that the group is simply too fragile.  Dropping the numbers in the opposition was making for kinda odd encounters, so I started wondering what it would take to allow a 3 PC team have a solid chance of playing against standard encounters.

Then I thought, gestalt rules should be much simpler in 4e.  The power system makes them the classes mesh well.  For  all I know this has been examined before, but here are my suggested rules:


Rules:

Gestalt characters take two classes at first level, and take all class features of both classes.  Any defence bonuses from the classes stack.  They gain all options to take powers, feats, paragon paths and epic destinies as though they were a member of either class.  They may not take multiclass feats of either of their base classes.

Hitpoints: Gestalt characters gain the largest number of starting hitpoints, healing surges, and hitpoints per level of their two base classes.

Skills: Gestalt characters gain all fixed skills from their base classes, and the largest number of freely chosen skills from their base classes.  Their class skill list is the union of the skill lists of their base classes.

At-will Powers: Gestalt characters have the normal number of at-will attacks of one of their base classes, and an additional at-will power from the other base class.  Humans may choose their additional at-will power from either of their base classes.  Half-elves may not choose their dilettante power from the base class in which they gained their normal number of at-will attacks, but may freely choose from all other classes, including their second base class.

Powers:  Other powers are gained as normal, but from the combined power list of both base classes.


How strong are these gestalt characters?

They're still limited to the same number of non-at-will powers, and most importantly, they're still heavily limited by their choice of stats.  The power creep is via the class features, a little by the ability to pick and choose powers, and (if the MAD problems are worked out very carefully)  the ability to play multiple roles as circumstances dictate. 

I would say that a team of three gestalt characters would still be very much weaker than a normal party of five.  They might start to rival four normal PCs, however.  Even that is strongly debatable.  Offensively, the total pool of actions, encounter and daily powers and focused fire is just that much smaller.  The numerical differences of more optimal choices would be hard pressed to compensate.  Defensively, the reduced number of targets and total hitpoints make the group more fragile, as do the reduced tactical options.  Perhaps 4 gestalt ~ 5 normal PCs.

[Ieniemienie]

Why not play 2 characters when you are with a too small group?

[Kari]

Not everyone likes the idea of playing multiple characters at a time. Nevermind the additional length in combat of running a second character per PC (which, granted, isn't too bad when compared to how long a larger group's combat would run), it's more difficult to keep multiple characters separate, especially if you are given to actual RP - then you're trying to play two characters simultaneously.

I, and most every gamer I know RL, hate the idea of playing multiple characters at once.

----

Anomalousman, it looks interesting. Depending on what your players choose, the characters will likely be tougher than average, however, they're also likely to run into some serious MAD issues, as well. If you're using the point buy method of character creation, with this kind of set up, you might want to consider giving them a few extra points to spend on their stats. If doing dice rolling, a somewhat higher average method of dice rolling might be recommended. In my opinion, in the long run, it'll work out to seeming like you've got one extra character, maybe one and a half, in terms of actual power - after all, you haven't increased the number of encounter or daily powers, and certainly they're not getting more actions per round.

Also, how about healing surges? Presumably they get the better of the two classes?

[anomalousman]

I, and most every gamer I know RL, hate the idea of playing multiple characters at once.

Exactly.   It's really hard to invest in two characters to the same extent that you do with one.  You take everything less personally, and that detracts from the game, in my experience.

... they're also likely to run into some serious MAD issues, as well. If you're using the point buy method of character creation, with this kind of set up, you might want to consider giving them a few extra points to spend on their stats. If doing dice rolling, a somewhat higher average method of dice rolling might be recommended.

Actually, I didn't do this for a reason. Even within single classes, most of the power balancing is done through the limitations of getting multiple stats to high levels.  The point buy makes, say, a fighter build have to choose between Pit Fighter, Hammer Rhythm, or Heavy Blade Mastery.  Or at least compromise.  Loosening those restrictions would have bigger effects on build types than I was planning, and potentially allow for really quite broken builds.

Also, how about healing surges? Presumably they get the better of the two classes?

Yes, good call.  I'll edit.

[Eepop]

Is the multiclass restriction really necessary?  The only thing that could be gained that would "stacK" as far as I recall would be a healing/inspiring word 1/day (which is easily enough gained by multiclassing into the other of cleric/warlord anyway) or one of the at-will powers as an encounter power (if you have it available as an at will, not a whole lot of reason to get it as an encounter power).

[anomalousman]

I didn't prevent multiclass feats for other classes, just the base classes.  It's there to keep consistency with the original multiclassing rules.  As you say, the exploits in the absence of that rule were always limited, so I'm sure it would have been even less of a temptation for gestalt characters, who already have more options.

[Darth Krzysztof]

I'm joining a 4e campaign with only 3 players, so I'm interested in this subject as well.  I'm the guy who plays whatever the party's missing, but I'm not covering two or three roles with one PC.

My DM -said- that the encounters (he's using the 3E Adventure Path as a framework) will be tailored for whatever mix of roles we come up with, but it's my nature to worry about these things anyway.

We may be getting a DMPC, which may or may not be a better solution than crazy-multiclassing or playing multiple PCs. I did the latter the last time I played (v.3.5) and it was pretty headache-y, esp. with all the unfamiliar psionics rules.

[anomalousman]

Personally, I really dislike DMPCs.  In fact, I think it's more disruptive to the game than playing multiple characters.

Encounters can be balanced to deal with three PCs, it's just that some of the tactical flavour goes out of the game.  It also makes it hard to place solo monsters in the game under an XP budget.

That's why I looked at this variant - as a different solution to the balancing issue.  You could try pitching it to your DM.

[yellerSumner]

Looks quite interesting. When I've seen similar ideas on WotC, it's usually been straight up giving them templates from the DMG and turning them into "Elite PCs."

Do Defense bonuses stack or do you get the "best of"? (Would a Cleric/Wizard get +2 Will or +4 Will?)

May a half-elf choose an at-will from their "secondary" class or do they have to pick a third class to choose their at-will from?

[anomalousman]

I would have regarded the defence bonuses as class features, which therefore stack.  In fact, it's almost the only defence boost the gestalt characters will get.

Half-elf: good call, I forgot that the dilettante power had to be chosen outside the character's class.  Given that one of the two base classes only gives a single at-will, I think it should be possible to take a dilettante power from it.  But not from the base class that provides the normal number of at-wills.  I shall edit.

As an aside, I'm still quite impressed at how clean the gestalt rules look in this edition.  Compared to the hoops required to set them up for 3.5e.

[brokenoakleys]

I understand a lot of people don't like playing two characters, but I've never found it to be a problem.  Our group has been playing with two characters for so long we'd feel weird only playing one.  Personally, I like the variety of playing more than one character at a time.

Playing two characters per player solves the understrength party problem:  with three players, you have six characters and can cover the four basic roles (striker, controller, leader, defender) with two slots left over.

Plus, if one or more players can't make the session (a problem in our group due to RL work/family) we can still play a four member party with as few as two players, and cover the four basic roles.

On the rare occasions everyone shows up, we simply play one character each (that does create xp and storyline issues, but happens so rarely it really isn't a big problem). 

[anomalousman]

Fair enough.  I've done it a lot myself.

For me, the difference is the role playing.  With multiple characters it's more of an academic exercise.  I'm trying to be fair minded and I'm telling a story as though I'm telling it to an audience.  With one character I invest more.  I feel more like it's me being asked to try opening that door.  I can speak in character (accent, voice and all) without tripping over myself and giving up.

I'm playing in a 2 person party tonight.  I wonder if the DM will craft the encounters well.

[atanakar]

My group has only 3 players also... We've managed to successfully play two characters each.
The twist is that the second character of each player is a retainer* for the first. 
(*not a slave or a puppet - I'm very strick on this)

Much like in a novel/tv show the story revolves around the 3 main characters. The other 3 characters are
there in support. Once in a while I spin a story tread that makes one of the secondary characters shine.

End result : After 6 months of play each of the six characters now have their own personality. Of course
this solution will not work if you do immersive roleplay. Having a player talk back to herself is really
weird (or extremely funny).....

[atanakar]

A thought : Why not simply give the PCs more actions per turn?
You could allow this variant for PCs only: Standard Action + Standard Action + Shift

[Banor]

In higher level tier, where you got more Encounter and Daily power, just having an extra standard will not work as it will probably only an extra At-Wll. You might get some more damage, but the loss of these extra Encounter (and maybe daily) powers will hurt a lot

[atanakar]

In higher level tier, where you got more Encounter and Daily power, just having an extra standard will not work as it will probably only an extra At-Wll. You might get some more damage, but the loss of these extra Encounter (and maybe daily) powers will hurt a lot

[Ieniemienie]

the problem is threefold:
- Damage
- Hitpoints
- Versatility

You should try to solve all 3

[anomalousman]

It's an alternative approach, certainly - but I'm not sure I'd call it simpler.  Powers do a lot more than just damage.  How small a list can you make the instructions for augmenting them?  Or does the DM have to rework every power in the game? 

[bihlbo]

This gestalt plan has a couple of problems with it that make me wonder how it would be useful for the purpose of making a party more capable. First, unless you want to deal with MAD you are shoehorned into picking between only a couple of options for the second class in the gestalt, and nothing in this plan tries to correct this. Second, except for hp/level the options gained after level 1 do nothing to make the character more powerful or capable, and it's arguable that they would make the character more versatile. Since a character at level 15 is defined far more by everything gained after level 1 than by any starting abilities, being gestalt matters less and less as you level. Being able to choose from a larger list when you gain a power is not really much of an ability, especially compared to 3.5e gestalt rules which actually allow you to get something a single-class character could not get at almost every level. These gestalt rules do so little that they don't really accomplish their original goal.

[Eepop]

These gestalt rules do so little that they don't really accomplish their original goal.

That really depends on what you think the "original goal" was.

It sound's like the OP's goal was to make a 3 player party able to run the published modules.  My group ran through the first one with 4 characters without too much trouble.  These changes aren't as powerful as 3E gestalt, but that never seemed to be his goal.