For those who don't know, Gesalt (I'm sure I'm spelling that wrong) is a system where, basically, when you level up you pick two classes instead of one. It's proven popular in stuff like Pathfinder and, while I don't know the popularity in D&D, I was curious if you think they should include some official rules for doing so in the base PHB for 1DD; possibly a modified character sheet as well. Wouldn't need much, a page or two at most, and that's likely extremely overstating it. Do you think this would be a good idea to include as an optional ruleset or do you feel it is best left as 'unofficial'?
I've heard of this, but never looked deeply into it, so I'm not sure what the purpose is. Other than... more power? Can anyone explain what the allure is?
While power is an aspect of it, the real draw is customization. You can mix, say, a wizard and a rogue without heavy sacrifices in leveling or being confined to specific sub-classes. Like, say you wanted to be a ninja and, in order to do that, had to mix rogue, sorcerer, and monk to make it work. In normal stuff you'd need to devote yourself heavily into it and end up running a heavy risk of batting below where you should be. With Gesalt you could do so while remaining relatively on par, or slightly above, the average enemy level.
For example, when I did it I managed to mix a specific barbarian sub-class that specialized in guns with a wizard class that wielded magic guns for a high HP, durable, gun mage. Had I had to do that normally it would have been... insanely difficult... to do and would have resulted in a character who was just below where they should have been. With Gesalt they could stand their ground and be capable of handling themselves.
Gestalt rules are generally used for games with very low player counts - when you only have two or maybe three PCs, having each PC gain a broader range of abilities can be useful. It's also a way for players to try options they wouldn't have time to play in regular games - having two classes at once means getting to try two different kits at once, essentially compressing two characters' mechanics into a single campaign. Players with limited time to play can experience more of the game that way. And yes, sheer power can come into it, but why should that be bad?
There's a number of reasons someone might want access to gestalt rules. Sadly I don't see it coming in anything remotely like official capacity. It's very easy to do on a paper sheet, and it's semi-doable in DDB if you maintain two separate character sheets - a 'main' sheet for the overall character and a second sheet used as an appendix document to keep track of your alternate class abilities. It's klunky but functional enough. Still, given most DMs' violent aversion to the idea, giving gestalt rules any more support would likely reflect poorly on the developers. Who are in enough trouble with fans as it is.
I see, thanks for the thought your out responses. Power alone isn't a problem necessarily. But the game is hard enough to challenge players at higher levels. It sounds like a nightmare to DM for. Hahaha
It seems like a lot of characters would end up pretty similar, as some kind of gish. I guess if you had 1-3 players it could work. I don't think I'd enjoy it personally.
But if some groups do enjoy it, then why not? I see they've already printed it in some capacity once. I don't see why they couldn't include it in the DMG somewhere as an optional rule. Support from DnD Beyond would be nice too, for those that are into it.
It is completely at odds with 5e's "all levels are equally valuable" design maxim. "Gestalt" classes was a 3e attempt to reintroduce 1e/2e style multi-classing to D&D. What do I mean by that? Strap your seat belts as we hop into the way back machine...
In 1st & 2nd Edition, "Multi-classing" was an option restricted to "demi-humans" (dwarves, elves, gnomes, half-elves, halflings, and half-orcs). Each race had certain classes they could progress in SIMULTANEOUSLY, such as fighter/mage, fighter/thief, mage/thief, cleric/ranger etc. There were even some triple combos, mostly for half-elves (their chief racial benefit). Several classes were not allowed to multi-class, and many multi-class combos were forbidden (no fighter/rangers, for example). By contrast, humans were only allowed to dual-class, which meant training in two classes sequentially, but once you left your original class, you couldn't go back. (ASIDE: the Racial classes from Basic D&D basically instituted the most stereotypical AD&D class combos as classes: "Dwarves" were basically fighters, "Elves" were fighter/magic-users, and "Halflings" were fighter/thieves).
I could look up the tables (and it got very complicated), but what part of what made that form of multi-classing work was that a Fighter 2/Magic-User 2 would probably be in a party with a bunch of 3rd-level characters. Part of the whole point of exponential XP growth as you leveled up was to make this happen. Moreover, D&D Spells were DESIGNED with this exponential progression in mind. A multi-class fighter/mage was originally only a level or 2 behind the single class characters until you hit "name level." Humans pulled away from the other races as you moved past 9th, which creates a human dominated world.
Also, it's worth remembering that 1e was designed with the idea that *every* character started the game at level 1. Magic-users being particularly squishy at low levels was supposed to create "balance" by them being unlikely to survive long enough to actually achieve their phenomenal cosmic (i.e. "world and game-dominating") power. But I don't think it ever *actually* worked that way.
3e squared up the systems, opened the options to everyone, but made everyone multi-class by taking levels SEQUENTIALLY. As everyone knowns, this is the multi-class system we now have, and it has created nothing but problems. That is because with the equalized experience points for going from level to level, single-class characters end up vastly out-powering their multi-class counterparts. So, late in 3e, they floated the idea of reintroducing 1/2e style multi-classing in the form of "Gestalt Classes." Basically, you slam two classes together, figure out what the XP progression should look like, and progress in both classes simultaneously.
I liked a lot of things about the original system, but fundamentally, the idea of reintroducing it boils down to trying to fix the problem that spell power is totally out of whack with the rest of the system.
I see, thanks for the thought your out responses. Power alone isn't a problem necessarily. But the game is hard enough to challenge players at higher levels. It sounds like a nightmare to DM for. Hahaha
It seems like a lot of characters would end up pretty similar, as some kind of gish. I guess if you had 1-3 players it could work. I don't think I'd enjoy it personally.
But if some groups do enjoy it, then why not? I see they've already printed it in some capacity once. I don't see why they couldn't include it in the DMG somewhere as an optional rule. Support from DnD Beyond would be nice too, for those that are into it.
Well, one of the potential advantages of some official rules would be being able to include some sort of power balancing in the rules. Like, I dunno, maybe making it so you get the average HP of your two classes instead of just taking the higher? But I definately disagree on the 'characters ending up kind of similar' bit. It comes down to the classes you pick. Like, say, mixing a wildfire druid and some sort of sorcerer for highly flexible casting with an increased focus on fire and correcting the greatest crime against Wildfire druids, lacking Fireball. Or, alternatively, mix a warrior specializing in lances with a Kensi monk to make a FF style dragoon. Or some sort of sword-wielding class and a Sun Soul monk to play as Trunks. There are options and you'd be freed up from the normal multi-classing rules to pursue them with a much lower risk of falling below your power level. I'm sure a bunch of paladins would love to take Sorc or Warlock for increased spellcasting options, or warrior/barbarian for improved melee combat abilities too.
I just meant similar in the broadest sense. Based on the fact that you take the best version of any similar options. I assumed most people would want to take one martial class and one magic class to not waste benefits like higher HP, more attacks, spells, etc. I guess you could double up on one or the other, but you'd be weaker than your companions in some regards. A double spellcaster would get more slots, but not much else. A double martial would waste duplicating extra attacks, HP benefits, weapons and armor proficiencies, etc. But I've never used the rules myself, so I wouldn't really know, and defer to those who have.
I'm not sure there is any way to really balance something like this. The whole premise seems based around a 'best of both worlds' approach. They have a hard enough time balancing single classes already. :)
But hey, if there is a demand for it (which there clearly is), I don't see why they couldn't at least try to include it in the DMG and allow characters to be made easier in DnD Beyond.
I mean, there's no denying it will be OP'ed. But some people are interested in the power fantasy and some people are interested in the customization or potential roleplay aspects (I milked the HELL out of being a magi-gun girl. It was hilarious to have the most durable character in the entire group also be the one who was too terrified to get into combat and her 'rage' was just her freaking out at enemies getting too close to her. At least initially.) If they decide to not include it I fully understand, but I also don't see the harm in at least a short bit about it being listed as an optional rule with maybe a 'Warning: with these rules characters will be far stronger than normal and it may be difficult to provide balanced fights for them.'
Yeah that sounds great to me, a section with some optimal rules and guidance. More ways to play the game are always welcome. I can see how it would be fun when everyone's on board.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
For those who don't know, Gesalt (I'm sure I'm spelling that wrong) is a system where, basically, when you level up you pick two classes instead of one. It's proven popular in stuff like Pathfinder and, while I don't know the popularity in D&D, I was curious if you think they should include some official rules for doing so in the base PHB for 1DD; possibly a modified character sheet as well. Wouldn't need much, a page or two at most, and that's likely extremely overstating it. Do you think this would be a good idea to include as an optional ruleset or do you feel it is best left as 'unofficial'?
I've heard of this, but never looked deeply into it, so I'm not sure what the purpose is. Other than... more power? Can anyone explain what the allure is?
While power is an aspect of it, the real draw is customization. You can mix, say, a wizard and a rogue without heavy sacrifices in leveling or being confined to specific sub-classes. Like, say you wanted to be a ninja and, in order to do that, had to mix rogue, sorcerer, and monk to make it work. In normal stuff you'd need to devote yourself heavily into it and end up running a heavy risk of batting below where you should be. With Gesalt you could do so while remaining relatively on par, or slightly above, the average enemy level.
For example, when I did it I managed to mix a specific barbarian sub-class that specialized in guns with a wizard class that wielded magic guns for a high HP, durable, gun mage. Had I had to do that normally it would have been... insanely difficult... to do and would have resulted in a character who was just below where they should have been. With Gesalt they could stand their ground and be capable of handling themselves.
Gestalt rules are generally used for games with very low player counts - when you only have two or maybe three PCs, having each PC gain a broader range of abilities can be useful. It's also a way for players to try options they wouldn't have time to play in regular games - having two classes at once means getting to try two different kits at once, essentially compressing two characters' mechanics into a single campaign. Players with limited time to play can experience more of the game that way. And yes, sheer power can come into it, but why should that be bad?
There's a number of reasons someone might want access to gestalt rules. Sadly I don't see it coming in anything remotely like official capacity. It's very easy to do on a paper sheet, and it's semi-doable in DDB if you maintain two separate character sheets - a 'main' sheet for the overall character and a second sheet used as an appendix document to keep track of your alternate class abilities. It's klunky but functional enough. Still, given most DMs' violent aversion to the idea, giving gestalt rules any more support would likely reflect poorly on the developers. Who are in enough trouble with fans as it is.
Please do not contact or message me.
I see, thanks for the thought your out responses. Power alone isn't a problem necessarily. But the game is hard enough to challenge players at higher levels. It sounds like a nightmare to DM for. Hahaha
It seems like a lot of characters would end up pretty similar, as some kind of gish. I guess if you had 1-3 players it could work. I don't think I'd enjoy it personally.
But if some groups do enjoy it, then why not? I see they've already printed it in some capacity once. I don't see why they couldn't include it in the DMG somewhere as an optional rule. Support from DnD Beyond would be nice too, for those that are into it.
It is completely at odds with 5e's "all levels are equally valuable" design maxim. "Gestalt" classes was a 3e attempt to reintroduce 1e/2e style multi-classing to D&D. What do I mean by that? Strap your seat belts as we hop into the way back machine...
In 1st & 2nd Edition, "Multi-classing" was an option restricted to "demi-humans" (dwarves, elves, gnomes, half-elves, halflings, and half-orcs). Each race had certain classes they could progress in SIMULTANEOUSLY, such as fighter/mage, fighter/thief, mage/thief, cleric/ranger etc. There were even some triple combos, mostly for half-elves (their chief racial benefit). Several classes were not allowed to multi-class, and many multi-class combos were forbidden (no fighter/rangers, for example). By contrast, humans were only allowed to dual-class, which meant training in two classes sequentially, but once you left your original class, you couldn't go back. (ASIDE: the Racial classes from Basic D&D basically instituted the most stereotypical AD&D class combos as classes: "Dwarves" were basically fighters, "Elves" were fighter/magic-users, and "Halflings" were fighter/thieves).
I could look up the tables (and it got very complicated), but what part of what made that form of multi-classing work was that a Fighter 2/Magic-User 2 would probably be in a party with a bunch of 3rd-level characters. Part of the whole point of exponential XP growth as you leveled up was to make this happen. Moreover, D&D Spells were DESIGNED with this exponential progression in mind. A multi-class fighter/mage was originally only a level or 2 behind the single class characters until you hit "name level." Humans pulled away from the other races as you moved past 9th, which creates a human dominated world.
Also, it's worth remembering that 1e was designed with the idea that *every* character started the game at level 1. Magic-users being particularly squishy at low levels was supposed to create "balance" by them being unlikely to survive long enough to actually achieve their phenomenal cosmic (i.e. "world and game-dominating") power. But I don't think it ever *actually* worked that way.
3e squared up the systems, opened the options to everyone, but made everyone multi-class by taking levels SEQUENTIALLY. As everyone knowns, this is the multi-class system we now have, and it has created nothing but problems. That is because with the equalized experience points for going from level to level, single-class characters end up vastly out-powering their multi-class counterparts. So, late in 3e, they floated the idea of reintroducing 1/2e style multi-classing in the form of "Gestalt Classes." Basically, you slam two classes together, figure out what the XP progression should look like, and progress in both classes simultaneously.
I liked a lot of things about the original system, but fundamentally, the idea of reintroducing it boils down to trying to fix the problem that spell power is totally out of whack with the rest of the system.
My two cents.
Most certainly, I concur that such an enstatement should be made available to utilize.
Well, one of the potential advantages of some official rules would be being able to include some sort of power balancing in the rules. Like, I dunno, maybe making it so you get the average HP of your two classes instead of just taking the higher? But I definately disagree on the 'characters ending up kind of similar' bit. It comes down to the classes you pick. Like, say, mixing a wildfire druid and some sort of sorcerer for highly flexible casting with an increased focus on fire and correcting the greatest crime against Wildfire druids, lacking Fireball. Or, alternatively, mix a warrior specializing in lances with a Kensi monk to make a FF style dragoon. Or some sort of sword-wielding class and a Sun Soul monk to play as Trunks. There are options and you'd be freed up from the normal multi-classing rules to pursue them with a much lower risk of falling below your power level. I'm sure a bunch of paladins would love to take Sorc or Warlock for increased spellcasting options, or warrior/barbarian for improved melee combat abilities too.
I just meant similar in the broadest sense. Based on the fact that you take the best version of any similar options. I assumed most people would want to take one martial class and one magic class to not waste benefits like higher HP, more attacks, spells, etc. I guess you could double up on one or the other, but you'd be weaker than your companions in some regards. A double spellcaster would get more slots, but not much else. A double martial would waste duplicating extra attacks, HP benefits, weapons and armor proficiencies, etc. But I've never used the rules myself, so I wouldn't really know, and defer to those who have.
I'm not sure there is any way to really balance something like this. The whole premise seems based around a 'best of both worlds' approach. They have a hard enough time balancing single classes already. :)
But hey, if there is a demand for it (which there clearly is), I don't see why they couldn't at least try to include it in the DMG and allow characters to be made easier in DnD Beyond.
I mean, there's no denying it will be OP'ed. But some people are interested in the power fantasy and some people are interested in the customization or potential roleplay aspects (I milked the HELL out of being a magi-gun girl. It was hilarious to have the most durable character in the entire group also be the one who was too terrified to get into combat and her 'rage' was just her freaking out at enemies getting too close to her. At least initially.) If they decide to not include it I fully understand, but I also don't see the harm in at least a short bit about it being listed as an optional rule with maybe a 'Warning: with these rules characters will be far stronger than normal and it may be difficult to provide balanced fights for them.'
Yeah that sounds great to me, a section with some optimal rules and guidance. More ways to play the game are always welcome. I can see how it would be fun when everyone's on board.