Hi, does anyone know how to implement the Gestalt variant rule that can be found at https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Gestalt_(5e_Variant_Rule)
-
Please note: In an effort to ensure that all of our users feel welcome on our forums, we’ve updated our forum rules. You can review the updated rules here: http://forums.wolflair.com/showthread.php?t=5528.
If a fellow Community member is not following the forum rules, please report the post by clicking the Report button (the red yield sign on the left) located on every post. This will notify the moderators directly. If you have any questions about these new rules, please contact support@wolflair.com.
- The Lone Wolf Development Team
Gestalt Variant Rule?
- Thread starter Azure
- Start date
dungeonguru
Well-known member
Wow, that's so munchkin it hurts my brain.
I don't think it can be done. A single class that has two separate spellcasting methods can't be done as far as I know.
If you disallowed dual-spellcasters, you could try to make one-offs by copying one of the base classes into a new class and then bootstrapping the missing abilities of the secondary base class into this new class.
The second trick would be to how you want to handle the subclasses. A subclass is considered a custom ability. You could allow two on a base class, but you would have to figure out scripts that choose the timing of granting the subclass choices. Like Clerics choose their domain at 1st level, but Rogues choose their archetype at 3rd level, so your scripts would have to increase your class field values at certain points.
So, a one-off build is possible but trying to make a generic Gestalt might be too much to try and bite off.
I don't think it can be done. A single class that has two separate spellcasting methods can't be done as far as I know.
If you disallowed dual-spellcasters, you could try to make one-offs by copying one of the base classes into a new class and then bootstrapping the missing abilities of the secondary base class into this new class.
The second trick would be to how you want to handle the subclasses. A subclass is considered a custom ability. You could allow two on a base class, but you would have to figure out scripts that choose the timing of granting the subclass choices. Like Clerics choose their domain at 1st level, but Rogues choose their archetype at 3rd level, so your scripts would have to increase your class field values at certain points.
So, a one-off build is possible but trying to make a generic Gestalt might be too much to try and bite off.
Last edited:
I really wish people would let the gestalt concept die. In light of how 5e is balanced this concept really is no longer needed. You can mix and match through multiclassing. You have a multiclass spellcasting table and can be a Warlock Sorcerer or Wizard Warlock if you want and get class features from both classes. There is no need to revive this in 5th edition.
If you intend to implement it in Hero Lab, you'd have to use the multiclass spellcasting table.
If you intend to implement it in Hero Lab, you'd have to use the multiclass spellcasting table.
dungeonguru
Well-known member
But then that wouldn't be a 1-to-1 translation of this wiki article, which states that "You keep track of your spell lists, spell slots, & etc. separately. "
Which means a 2nd level Gestalt (Cleric/Wizard) would know at least 6 cantrips and be able to cast 6 1st level spells each day (which beats any other spell caster I've seen in printed material except for Acererak the lich). You would have to basically custom build a secondary spell slots table somehow, which as I stated, I don't think is an arbitrary or achievable task. I think also that since there are 12 classes in the SRD, which means there are 66-ish base combos, your scripts and/or conditionals on this would be freakishly complex without even considering the subclass archetypes, which then force another amazing large number of choices presented (not going to try to do the factorial math, but the number would be huge).
The author of the wiki article apparently doesn't understand balance very well or really understand the math, I agree; but, the question is how it could be done, not should it be done.
Which my vote is: no, this shouldn't be allowed at a 5e table.
ShadowChemosh
Well-known member
I did attempt this in Pathfinder and I got pretty close. Another individual really wanted it and finished my work and it has its own GitHub Repository.
The idea is if you wanted a Fighter/Rogue you would add three character classes. First is the Fighter then a level of Rogue and finally a new Gestalt class. Basically the idea is the new Gestalt class handles merging of HP, Skill Points, saves and the characters true level. Then on the Gestalt Class tab you select Rogue/Fighter and both of those levels are "removed" from HL leaving the character as a level 1 Gestalt class.
This is all done so that the Rogue/Fighter tabs are still displayed allowing for archetypes or picking of class specific abilities. It will also allows for multiple spellcasting classes.
The above "works" but its not pretty. Its NOT easy to work with or understand the scripting but it works. I for all purposes is a 100% Hack of Pathfinder game system.
The idea is if you wanted a Fighter/Rogue you would add three character classes. First is the Fighter then a level of Rogue and finally a new Gestalt class. Basically the idea is the new Gestalt class handles merging of HP, Skill Points, saves and the characters true level. Then on the Gestalt Class tab you select Rogue/Fighter and both of those levels are "removed" from HL leaving the character as a level 1 Gestalt class.
This is all done so that the Rogue/Fighter tabs are still displayed allowing for archetypes or picking of class specific abilities. It will also allows for multiple spellcasting classes.
The above "works" but its not pretty. Its NOT easy to work with or understand the scripting but it works. I for all purposes is a 100% Hack of Pathfinder game system.
The thing is, with 5e, you still level up in all your classes a bit based on total character level. Your proficiency bonus and cantrips do extra damage. The multiclassing mechanics are well tuned and don't require keeping the classes separate. This was/is an OP option that completely breaks game balance. And that would be a big deal in a 5e game. Should it be done, no. Could it be done? Well maybe if you know how to build tabs and know enough of the file mechanics to build in whatever else you need. Or if you scratch build 5e from the authoring kit and add in all the stuff you want, but that could take a long time depending on how much you know about hero lab's inner workings.
dungeonguru
Well-known member
@RavenX, I also think gestalting is redundant, not just OP. It's not like 5e doesn't have or will not have PC choices that can do two things pretty well and be balanced.
You want a Sorcerer/Cleric - Divine Soul Sorcerer
... Cleric/Wizard - Cleric Arcana domain
... Warlock/Fighter - Hexblade (Martial Adept feat build is interesting)
... Fighter/Wizard - Eldritch Knight
... Rogue/Fighter - Assassin it all up, need more armor, take a feat
... Bard/Fighter - College of Swords, Fighter with the Entertainer background
... the list goes on...
and more books drop slowly each quarter or so...
You want a Sorcerer/Cleric - Divine Soul Sorcerer
... Cleric/Wizard - Cleric Arcana domain
... Warlock/Fighter - Hexblade (Martial Adept feat build is interesting)
... Fighter/Wizard - Eldritch Knight
... Rogue/Fighter - Assassin it all up, need more armor, take a feat
... Bard/Fighter - College of Swords, Fighter with the Entertainer background
... the list goes on...
and more books drop slowly each quarter or so...
Gestalting is done for OP purposes. The player wants to gain all the benefits of two classes while leveling up as one class... That mechanic is severely unbalanced. The multiclass mechanism is finely tuned and well balanced for the system, you don't need to take the class features of two classes and have a one man walking tank when the Fighter Champion already takes care of that. The character archetypes as you have pointed out do the job of mixing classes in a way that won't upset the balance of power that WotC went through months of playtesting to create. This isn't just a matter of Gestalt being overpowered, its something I'd ban from my table, I didn't even let players use it in 3.5 and I've not seen it implemented in the 3.5 files despite it being in the unearthed arcana book. It was way overpowered the few times I allowed it back then and I'm not even willing to go there with an edition that is this well balanced by open playtesting. Even starfinder and Pathfinder 2e are borrowing mechanics from 5e.
One of the things I liked about 5th was how well balanced it is. And it is a lot different from past editions. The public playtest hammered out everything nicely.
Gestalt options would likely require a new tab, and without access to the raw source code the community would be hard pressed to build that.
One of the things I liked about 5th was how well balanced it is. And it is a lot different from past editions. The public playtest hammered out everything nicely.
Gestalt options would likely require a new tab, and without access to the raw source code the community would be hard pressed to build that.
Last edited:
I once used the 3e Gestalt rules to create a Fantasy version of The Shadow (1930's pulp character) and ran my friend through a waterdeep adventure featuring the character. Gestalt characters might work for a solo adventure or something like that, but the munchkin is strong with this one...