I am a 4th ed lover, i enjoyed 3rd and 3.5 but think that 4th has taken D&D in an interesting and exciting direction. While at first i was a bit taken aback by the way multi classing was done, after seeing it in action i embraced it
Now, there is hybrid classes
See, the problem i have here is that all the problems of character optimization, loopholes and abuse is coming back again. Dont get me wrong, they have tried to make sure it is balanced, but how are you meant to balance this sort of thing. They dont want to marginalise anyones contribution, but then they make the ability to create classes that can do what two classes can
Truthfully, I think the only reason it has even been done is because so many people whinged when they couldnt make their sorceror/fighter/cleric etc that they played in their last campaign etc etc, and complained about it non-stop
So hooray for giving options i guess. I will probably be the only person who thinks making combined classes is a bad idea.
Honestly though, I have read through it, i havent seen it in play. I will wait and see if it doesnt unbalance the game which has been running so smoothly in the two groups i run....then i may change my opinion, but for now.....
what a cop out
I have yet to see hybrid classing in effect at the table, but I can say that I am truly not going to allow it at any of my tables.
I so far have not seen any broken combos with it, the worst i've done personally was with my lvl8 fighter|wizard i took the hybrid talant feat picking up tempest technique and using arcane power to allow me to use light blades as impliments and duel impliment spellcasting. But here is the thing while that seems broken, I am insanely squishy (low hitpoints and moderate armor) and my defending ability is low, even if my damage output is okay and i have some decent AoE attacks.
compare this is a fighter wizard who is a whole lot better defender :still has all his class features can mark with Aoe's something the hybrid cant do. Can wear heavy armor when he needs to, better hit points, and more options. Even if i were to paragon multiclass him there are plenty of reasons to do so, especially the new paragon multiclass feat that gives the impliment mastery feature.
Hybrid is awesome becuase it makes a new class somewhere between two old ones, it doesnt replace multiclassing which is giving an existing class more options.
And when the good & balanced ideas for classes run out they start making bad & broken classes.
Did you really believe that 4Es balance stays forever even after the power creep sets in?
And when the good & balanced ideas for classes run out they start making bad & broken classes.
So you are predicting it to work the exact opposite of how it did in the past where they started with the broken classes and made more balanced ones as they learned more about designing for the system? Why should 4E be the complete opposite of last edition in this regard?
By not allowing certain features(marking, quarry, sneak attack ,etc) to work with powers from the other class eliminates most of the potential broken cheese upfront. Not getting all of the class features of each and weakened versions of most makes it if anything a little Underpowered in my books.
I've allowed fractional HP to carry over at creation (if you hybrid 2 defenders you get 7.5+7.5=15HP + con) and the same with HP/level( a 2 striker hybrid gets 2.5 +2.5=HP/level) to compensate a little for the perceived weakness thus far.
While at first i was a bit taken aback by the way multi classing was done, after seeing it in action i embraced it
This was exactly my progression on the matter. At first I was like "spending feats to multiclass? Are they mad???" but now I see that it actually works out pretty good. I don't really share your ire on the hybrid classes though, I actually kinda like them, though I never intend to actually play them. The way I see it, they're similar to multiclassing in previous editions in that you dilute what you're good at. In 3rd edition a level 5 wizard/level 5 fighter was half as good as either of the two classes. Essentially, it sacrificed focus for versatility. There might end up being brokenness associated with hybrid classes, but for now I'd say that they're, if anything, weaker than other classes. The reason I like them is that they open up more character possibilities and let people get away from the pigeon-holing antics of normal classes (do you want to play the melee cleric or the ranged laserey cleric? What? You want to use a bow with your cleric? I'm sorry, that data has no meaning to this unit...)
I myself always approach homebrew by low-balling the power of a thing. It's always easier to tack a little extra on, than have to chop off whole chunks and hope you didn't ruin it.
I happen to like multiclassing as it is, but I'm still getting used to it. I probably won't use hybrids until I'm finally fully comfortable with multiclassing.
So you are predicting it to work the exact opposite of how it did in the past where they started with the broken classes and made more balanced ones as they learned more about designing for the system? Why should 4E be the complete opposite of last edition in this regard?
This.
The brokeness of the last edition didn't come from splat books. It was in the core books because at this time, designers weren't as familiar with the system.
The only thing I don't like about hybrid classes is that they seem a bit clunky compared to the way rest of 4th edition is designed.
Its quite simple. WotC wants to sell lots of books and for that they need lots of classes as they can't fill the books with prestige classes and spells any more.
They can still use the equivelent: paragon paths, new class features, and new powers.
I could be wrong, but I'm also fairly sure that Hybrid Classes are optional Rules, not RPGA-Legal Rules. I could be wrong, though.
As for combos, i would like to see a limit maybe on combining roles? For example, a sorceror/warlock maybe not, because two strikers, or the above mentioned Warlord/cleric
As for 4th ed, i dont think they will stuff it up as such, and i love what they have done so far, i was just irked by something that caused so many balance issues and so much aggravation being brought back
Maybe its because i usually DM.....
To put it bluntly, you're being needlessly paranoid. Take the hybrid classes for a spin before declaring them broken and acting as if the sky is about to fall on your head. Seriously, if anything, they're underpowered. If you're concerned about them, send WotC playtest feedback. I, for one, think its an excellent idea, but if you hate it, you might do more to ensure that they work out by taking your complaints to Wizards, instead of us.
So you are predicting it to work the exact opposite of how it did in the past where they started with the broken classes and made more balanced ones as they learned more about designing for the system? Why should 4E be the complete opposite of last edition in this regard?
I assume you arn't talking about 3x. Stuff got less balanced and more broken as time went on (except for Complete Warrior which was a step back even from the PHB)
I assume you arn't talking about 3x. Stuff got less balanced and more broken as time went on (except for Complete Warrior which was a step back even from the PHB)
He IS talking about 3.X. Where was the candle of invocation located? What about Explosive Runes? Enervation? Rope Trick? Overland Flight?
3.X started out broken and became even more broken as time went on, but good, balanced ideas emerged as time passed, such as the Warlock, the ToBbers, or the Factotum.
Broken they may or may not be, i think i am more annoyed that they felt they had to put them in in the first place...
As for combos, i would like to see a limit maybe on combining roles? For example, a sorceror/warlock maybe not, because two strikers, or the above mentioned Warlord/cleric
As for 4th ed, i dont think they will stuff it up as such, and i love what they have done so far, i was just irked by something that caused so many balance issues and so much aggravation being brought back
Maybe its because i usually DM.....
Do you think Hybrid Classes are broken now?
He IS talking about 3.X. Where was the candle of invocation located? What about Explosive Runes? Enervation? Rope Trick? Overland Flight?
Then you actually think about it: Where was Greater Blink? Ray of Stupidity? Quillfire? Wings of Flurry? Any number of new polymorph spells.
And the XShape spells were more balanced than the old Polymorph, that's for sure. Becoming a Remorhaz was insanely cheap and easy to do.
He IS talking about 3.X. Where was the candle of invocation located? What about Explosive Runes? Enervation? Rope Trick? Overland Flight?
You forgot 'The Cleric', 'The Druid' and 'The Wizard'.
/reported (not really)
Where are these hybrid classes you speak of?
EDITION WAR ACTIVATE!
/reported (not really)
Where are these hybrid classes you speak of?
Dragon Magazine playtest article this month. They basically take half the features of two classes and smush them together, then you have to split your powers between the two.
So, regular multiclassing is better if you just want a 'splash' of a second class, hybrid is better if you want closer to a 50/50 mix.
The class themselves are vague enough that you can fit many concept into them (unless you're one of those person who has a hang up on class name) so the idea that you need to further distill already distilled concepts seems a tad silly to me.
Now, it's useful if nobody wants to play a Defender (or leader, or what not) and you splice your Barb (or ranger) into a Fighter for some marking abilities. And yes, it might become the favorite tool of the CharOp board as well. But from a rp point of view? Why exactly would you need to a play a fighter/ranger or a 'plain' fighter or ranger?
And while I haven't done a lot of testing with them or anything, they don't seem overpowered to me. I'm sure some insane combo can probably be made, but the fact that you need to split your power between both class 50%/50% can prevent you from just cherry picking the best powers from both class.
You also lose out on a lot of your defining class feature (Warlord do not get their bonus to AP for example) and so forth... and in many case, that's what made the class OP in the first place. A battlerager Fighter who MC into Barb and gets Rain of Blows is a lot deadlier then a Fighter/Barb for example, because the Fighter/Barb doesn't get the Battlerager class feature.
Now, it's useful if nobody wants to play a Defender (or leader, or what not) and you splice your Barb (or ranger) into a Fighter for some marking abilities. And yes, it might become the favorite tool of the CharOp board as well. But from a rp point of view? Why exactly would you need to a play a fighter/ranger or a 'plain' fighter or ranger?
What was the RP reason for that in 3x? "RP" reasons don't decide brokenness, the class combo's ability to bend the rules matters. You can RP yourself as pretty much whatever you want without multiclassing.
The core difference between Multi-Classing and Hybrid is that a Fighter (for example) who MC into Barbarian is still a Fighter. It's also quite possible that over a long career, a character pick up tricks and moves from other classes.
An hybrid is really both. How do you justify that from a rp point of view? Even the playtest mention something about 'elaborate backstory'.
I don't know, it just doesn't feel right to me. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea or what not, I just don't personally like it. :P
I assume you arn't talking about 3x. Stuff got less balanced and more broken as time went on (except for Complete Warrior which was a step back even from the PHB)
I was talking about 3.5 classes specifically. The Cleric, Druid, and Wizard were 3 of the top 4 most game-breaking classes in the game, and they were core. Meanwhile, more balanced class material like the Warlock, Magic of Incarnum, and Tome of Battle came out after they realized that having 9th level spells, a t-rex companion and an AC 10 points higher than the party tank was too much for any one character.
An hybrid is really both. How do you justify that from a rp point of view? Even the playtest mention something about 'elaborate backstory'.
I don't know, it just doesn't feel right to me. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea or what not, I just don't personally like it. :P
Not every group cares about special RP reasons for having an arbitrary word like "ranger" or "fighter" on their sheet though. As long as it isnt game-breaking, "I took this combo because i want cool powers" is as good an explanation as any for a lot of groups.
Look at it this way: If you had never played 4E before and sat down at a table with a fighter/ranger but didnt know that "fighter/ranger" was written on his sheet, would there be any reason for you question what the player's RP reasons are for having that specific set of abilities? Probably not. The classes are just sets of abilities, nothing more, unless you bring your own preconceptions to the system.
There wasn't one, and I personally always hated character build who looked like 2 Fighter/3 Rogue/5 Warblade/5 Cavalier/2 Pasta Chef/3 Apprentice Baker or what not.
Get over it. It isn't our fault it was the only logical way to get +32d6 on an Absurdly Delicious Spaghetti Casserole attack that auto-hits.
It just got worse when you got your "Save or Crepes" attacks. It was so tempting and game breaking I banned the entirity of Complete Culinary from my table.
Look at it this way: If you had never played 4E before and sat down at a table with a fighter/ranger but didnt know that "fighter/ranger" was written on his sheet, would there be any reason for you question what the player's RP reasons are for having that specific set of abilities? Probably not. The classes are just sets of abilities, nothing more, unless you bring your own preconceptions to the system.
You're right, I probably couldn't even tell the difference.
But the thing is, I do have my preconception :P.
Me not liking something thought isn't a big deal. It happens a lot. I get by.
It just got worse when you got your "Save or Crepes" attacks. It was so tempting and game breaking I banned the entirity of Complete Culinary from my table.
Yeah, my DM pretty much snapped when he read the description of the 'Molten Lava Cake'. The book was banned shortly after.
Meanwhile, more balanced class material like the Warlock, Magic of Incarnum, and Tome of Battle came out after they realized that having 9th level spells, a t-rex companion and an AC 10 points higher than the party tank was too much for any one character.
In what way, exactly, is anything in Tome of Battle balanced?
In what way, exactly, is anything in Tome of Battle balanced?
In the way that they brought the melee classes near to CoDzilla in power, without actually giving the ability to solo the game, which full casters tended to have.
In the way that they brought the melee classes near to CoDzilla in power, without actually giving the ability to solo the game, which full casters tended to have.
Arguing that it is balanced because it made melee classes unbalanced doesn't prove it was balanced, it only serves to prove that they were unbalanced. Especially since "CoDzilla" was a specific way to play Druid/Cleric in the first place that is outside the standard way to play.
Arguing that it is balanced because it made melee classes unbalanced doesn't prove it was balanced, it only serves to prove that they were unbalanced. Especially since "CoDzilla" was a specific way to play Druid/Cleric in the first place that is outside the standard way to play.
It was the way to play them most beneficial to the Party. Just because WotC expected everyone to only play them a specific way, while giving those Classes the option of completely obsoleting other Classes, doesn't make it the Player's fault.
I was talking about 3.5 classes specifically. The Cleric, Druid, and Wizard were 3 of the top 4 most game-breaking classes in the game, and they were core. Meanwhile, more balanced class material like the Warlock, Magic of Incarnum, and Tome of Battle came out after they realized that having 9th level spells, a t-rex companion and an AC 10 points higher than the party tank was too much for any one character.
And how exactly is the Warlock balanced? I can fly, go invisible at will and hit you with a ranged touch attack that gets no save, no reduction of any kind, does more damage than the rogue's SA, is untyped and (with the right feats), ignores SR. And that's for starters.
I personally always hated character build who looked like 2 Fighter/3 Rogue/5 Warblade/5 Cavalier/2 Pasta Chef/3 Apprentice Baker or what not.
What was wrong with that? Classes are a metagame concept after all. What difference does it make if my fighter has 20 lvs in fighter or just 2 lvs, so long as he still fights?
And how exactly is the Warlock balanced? I can fly, go invisible at will and hit you with a ranged touch attack that gets no save, no reduction of any kind, does more damage than the rogue's SA, is untyped and (with the right feats), ignores SR. And that's for starters.
The problem is that SA is downright pathetic on a single hit. 10d6 amounts to just 35 damage, on average, so doing that damage is not impressive at all when enemies can have 800 HP. Thus, the warlock is much more balanced than you think it is.
Still, if I was looking for a balanced class, I'd look at the Binder.
The best example of what WotC faces here can be found in World of Warcraft, for that game uses "pure" classes and also has hybrids.
Pure classes are the Warrior, Rogue, Priest and Mage. The Hybrids are Druid, Paladin, Shaman. There are 3 classes that don't exactly fit the pure or hybrid mold which are the Warlock, Hunter and Deathknight.
How folks took to these classes divided along what they prefered to play. The hybrid player always complained of being gimped vs. the other classes, while the pure class players worried that the hybrids would render them obsolete.
This is a very important issue. For example, why play a warrior when a Druid can cast, heal, stealth and tank like a Mage, Priest, Rogue, or Warrior? Likewise, if the pure classes out do the hybrids in their roles, and the hybrids offer no distinguishing abilities other than a mix of roles but at reduced ability, then why have one in your party?
Furthermore, the hybrid player will say, "But doing One thing is boring, and what if you don't have a role represented in your party?" I emphasise this because this is the mantra of the D&D multiclasser.
To this day, this debate rages on.
For me, the answer lies in something like the Hunter... don't base everything off of roles... simply make fun classes that have the same level of pwnage and have all classes bring something unique and valuable to the play field.
In the old editions of D&D, this was the old multiclassing vs. one class debate. Which was better or right?
Well, it depended on who was making the character. In short WotC can't win the argument, but they can circumvent it by allowing for both and multiple playstyles. It will be upto the individual GM's and their players to decide how the roles are to be used and what ones are to be included in their games. Small groups will benefit by having hybrids, while larger ones will do better with more pure classes in the mix.
Given that, I hope they ere on the side of fun. This means the pure classes must have things that only they can do, and the hybrids must have combos that only they can do as well. The important thing is that either style of play lets all members feel like they are contributing and have purpose.
4E's core is solid and balanced. Therefore, I think 4E will rise to this challenge more effectively than the editions in the past. As to whether all proponents in both camps will agree with WotC on the issue, of that I have serious doubt.
There wasn't one, and I personally always hated character build who looked like 2 Fighter/3 Rogue/5 Warblade/5 Cavalier/2 Pasta Chef/3 Apprentice Baker or what not.
The core difference between Multi-Classing and Hybrid is that a Fighter (for example) who MC into Barbarian is still a Fighter. It's also quite possible that over a long career, a character pick up tricks and moves from other classes.
An hybrid is really both. How do you justify that from a rp point of view? Even the playtest mention something about 'elaborate backstory'.
I don't know, it just doesn't feel right to me. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea or what not, I just don't personally like it. :P
The hybrid PC may have been trained in both forms of class?
If you have ever been a 4th ed. dm this is nothing to the power monsters hold (I can make a solo purple worrm variant with barbarian dailys, warlock encounters and fighter at wills.. just because it think "it would be cool" - no rules saying otherwise.)
the "hybrid" version of class features work (they may seem weak at times, but look at the big picture) - and they hold out as the best multi classing 4th ed is gonna get.
I feel these hybrid rules are a joke in that I can only play them in non-sanctioned events (so closed home games is the only way to get rpga points with these.). its kinda insulting im paying for material twice with books and dragon magazine (arcane power borrows heavily from past dragon magazine in content)
- frankly if they dont feel its ready for open play, why are they asking me to pay for it.
personnaly I like the idea of the hybrid (needs work though)[snip]
I feel these hybrid rules are a joke in that I can only play them in non-sanctioned events [snip]
- frankly if they dont feel its ready for open play, why are they asking me to pay for it.
Well I feel that playtest material should be open to all to increase the pool of people that can test it.
However, it is still in testing. That's why the are not allowed sectioned events and still need work.
I'd be glad to give any feedback on these PCs if you have some specific questions. Overall, I haven't seen any difference in play from either PC except for the fact that the player with the fighter/warlord is enjoying his PC much more now than he was originally. The emphasis has shifted from leader to defender with some leader-goodness and the PC has a much better attack bonus than it did as a multiclass warlord. The original concept for the rogue was a tempest fighter that multiclassed into Rogue. This PC is a 4th edition version of my 3.5 PC who was a two-weapon rogue - I think they were called invisible blades in 3.5 (I can't believe I forgot that). In any case, the fighter that multiclassed into rogue felt too much like a fighter, and the rogue that MCed into fighter didn't feel enough like a two-weapon fighter. With this build, it feels more like a two-weapon rogue, if you get my meaning. I've really liked how it's worked out so far. However, like I said, if there are some specific things you would like to know about, feel free to ask.
It's like they decided to give a half-worked idea for PCs to make their own classes to us.
Well, um.... Yeah, they did.
Or did you miss the part where they told you up front that these were merely playtest rules?
They WANT you to try them out, read them over, etc & provide feedback about them.
Or at least so they've claimed.
Get over it. It isn't our fault it was the only logical way to get +32d6 on an Absurdly Delicious Spaghetti Casserole attack that auto-hits.
It just got worse when you got your "Save or Crepes" attacks. It was so tempting and game breaking I banned the entirity of Complete Culinary from my table.
Yeah, my DM pretty much snapped when he read the description of the 'Molten Lava Cake'. The book was banned shortly after.
LOL! I really hope, against all odds, that this book you speak of actually exists XD XD XD
Also, someone earlier asked for rp reasons for hybrid classes? I'm planning on playing a Wizard/Warlord who was trained by the military both as a magic user and as a tactition. Done.
In what way, exactly, is anything in Tome of Battle balanced?
Tome of Battle gave options that were far better balanced than the core melee types because it made melee characters versatile enough that they could deal with CR appropriate monsters without super contrived arsenals of specific magic items or super optimized CO board builds. It let melee characters begin to almost approach some of the things that certain caster builds could do without being as ridiculous as the CoDzillas.
Some people just got upset when it came out because the options were better than your average core fighter or barbarian, but that is precisely because those core classes simply were not balanced with most CR appropriate challenges out of the box after rocking the low levels. Basically, ToB being more powerful than the aspects of core that were the most underpowered does not make it overpowered.
And how exactly is the Warlock balanced? I can fly, go invisible at will and hit you with a ranged touch attack that gets no save, no reduction of any kind, does more damage than the rogue's SA, is untyped and (with the right feats), ignores SR. And that's for starters.
Meanwhile, every "real" caster is flying at-will while turning into crazy monsters and becoming immune to all energy types. Core wizards could permanently turn into dragons with the right trick, not to mention get unlimited wishes. I had a druid with an AC as high as 2 other characters combined, was invisible at-will, and was immune to magic that allowed for SR. The warlock could not touch that.
And the eldritch blast wasn't that impressive. It was once per round first of all, meaning that plenty of archer builds could crank out more damage without trying too hard. The rogue could easily doing more damage simply because he could dual wield, use crazy weapon properties and get sneak attack on of all his multiple attacks. The feat that let you actually ignore SR was in a 3.0 book and from what i remember WotC said the combo didn't even work anyway.
In the end the warlock was fun but not too strong. The "real" casters in the party could do everything the warlock could...on top of zillion other things. In fact, the CO boards back in the day firmly held that the warlock was underpowered.
par example:
-a feat that allows you to use your MC fighter weapon talent a number of times a day equal to your str mod instead of just once.
-a feat that allows d8+wis/int heal an encounter on top of the 1/day healing/inspiring word.
-feat that allows sneak att or quarry 1x day on top of 1/encounter
-feat allowing use of divine favor...
each of these could have the 1st multi-class feat as a requirement and maybe a low stat requirement (but not too high-12 or 13 at most). These options tackle the problem of feeling more hybridy without needing to re-create the wheel. The current system works (and is underpowered a bit too often in my opinion) well enough. The current fixes by mandatory feats (expertise feats are the biggest culprit) and under powered feats (scalable vs non-scalable) and feats with stat requirements are the things that make a feat based mc system not work.
in closing... hybrid does nothing that a more complete Mc system can't do.
I think WotC is running into a bugaboo that has plagued many a system for a long time. The Pure class vs. the hybrid debate. This is a problem with class based game systems, being most skill based systems tend create hybrids unless they are severely structured.
The best example of what WotC faces here can be found in World of Warcraft, for that game uses "pure" classes and also has hybrids.
Pure classes are the Warrior, Rogue, Priest and Mage. The Hybrids are Druid, Paladin, Shaman. There are 3 classes that don't exactly fit the pure or hybrid mold which are the Warlock, Hunter and Deathknight.
How folks took to these classes divided along what they prefered to play. The hybrid player always complained of being gimped vs. the other classes, while the pure class players worried that the hybrids would render them obsolete.
This is a very important issue. For example, why play a warrior when a Druid can cast, heal, stealth and tank like a Mage, Priest, Rogue, or Warrior? Likewise, if the pure classes out do the hybrids in their roles, and the hybrids offer no distinguishing abilities other than a mix of roles but at reduced ability, then why have one in your party?
Furthermore, the hybrid player will say, "But doing One thing is boring, and what if you don't have a role represented in your party?" I emphasise this because this is the mantra of the D&D multiclasser.
To this day, this debate rages on.
For me, the answer lies in something like the Hunter... don't base everything off of roles... simply make fun classes that have the same level of pwnage and have all classes bring something unique and valuable to the play field.
In the old editions of D&D, this was the old multiclassing vs. one class debate. Which was better or right?
Well, it depended on who was making the character. In short WotC can't win the argument, but they can circumvent it by allowing for both and multiple playstyles. It will be upto the individual GM's and their players to decide how the roles are to be used and what ones are to be included in their games. Small groups will benefit by having hybrids, while larger ones will do better with more pure classes in the mix.
Given that, I hope they ere on the side of fun. This means the pure classes must have things that only they can do, and the hybrids must have combos that only they can do as well. The important thing is that either style of play lets all members feel like they are contributing and have purpose.
4E's core is solid and balanced. Therefore, I think 4E will rise to this challenge more effectively than the editions in the past. As to whether all proponents in both camps will agree with WotC on the issue, of that I have serious doubt.
This says it all....it is an ingoing debate
I had many problems with players pulling out silly combos, not for RP reasons, but purely for crunch (level of ranger im looking at you!) and it really soured me on the idea of mixed classes
So seeing them pull this out after already putting in a few MC feats for dabbling has me worried, and makes me think they are pandering to those who were not satisfied
Plus i am also of the opinion that with the classes and the MC feats the way they are there are few concepts you cannot already cover, though i admit when a player comes to me with a cool idea i am pretty flexible
The hybrid PC may have been trained in both forms of class?
What I really meant by that, is it's hard to find a concept that needs Hybrid class in order to be do-able.
The class' fluff is vague enough (and easily refluffable anyway) to cover hundreds of ideas already.
Meanwhile, every "real" caster is flying at-will while turning into crazy monsters and becoming immune to all energy types. Core wizards could permanently turn into dragons with the right trick, not to mention get unlimited wishes. I had a druid with an AC as high as 2 other characters combined, was invisible at-will, and was immune to magic that allowed for SR. The warlock could not touch that.
And the eldritch blast wasn't that impressive. It was once per round first of all, meaning that plenty of archer builds could crank out more damage without trying too hard. The rogue could easily doing more damage simply because he could dual wield, use crazy weapon properties and get sneak attack on of all his multiple attacks. The feat that let you actually ignore SR was in a 3.0 book and from what i remember WotC said the combo didn't even work anyway.
In the end the warlock was fun but not too strong. The "real" casters in the party could do everything the warlock could...on top of zillion other things. In fact, the CO boards back in the day firmly held that the warlock was underpowered.
Wrong. Just simply wrong. First off all that stuff a wizard could do? Easily shut down by anti-magic and dispel magic. They also couldn't do anything at-will. Everything took at least one round to do, in that they had to cast a spell.
Also keep in mind that Warlocks could also add effects to their Eldritch Blast, or did we forget that little fact? That and archers could come nowhere near that type of damage that a Warlock could dish out. Or did you not see that a Wearlock's blast was a ranged touch attack? Archers still have to hit normal AC which was always substationally higher than Touch AC. So by the sheer number Warlocks hit far far more often and deal more damage than even three bowshots could hope to accomplish (at a level when figther BAB types had 3 shots). And as I said with the right feats nothing is stopping that damage. Nothing. It becomes a Supernatural effect, therefore, no reduction, no spell resistance.
I know all of this because I joined a friend's game (one of his last 3.X games) with the sole intent of blowing another player's min/maxxed character out of the water by out damaging, and outdoing him in every combat. I did it as a favor to the DM because he was tired of that character (ranger build that was pretty wrong and pumped out a crap ton of damage) running roughshod over the encounters and bragging about it. He figured someone who knew the rules really well (like myself) could come in with a build that would make the braggart's look weak. Guess what I made? A warlock, simply because they were broken in 3.x, one of the most broken classes by far. I was worried when I heard about their addition to 4e as a core class. Thankfully they are much more down to earth now power level wise.
If you consider the 3.x Warlock balanced, I'm scared of what your idea of balance is.
Edit: Oh and rogues only got SA once per round. Are you sure you know the 3.x rules at all?
Edit: Oh and rogues only got SA once per round. Are you sure you know the 3.x rules at all?
Wrong. Rogues got SA on every attack they made that qualified for it. If a rogue with TWF made a full attack on a target he was flanking, he got sneak attack on every single one of them that hit.
Rogues only get SA once per round in 4th Edition.
the party got together and bought a staff of heal and then mass heal at level 14 or so. 50 mass heal charges lasted till about lvl 22. it was great.
the party we had consisted of a paladin a monk[with sick stats] and an archer rogue. the only time my blast was used at all was against either gigantic hordes of goons[pretty rare and kinda wedged in by DM] or as an out of combat tunneling device.
one of the saddest moments with my lock was that I could just buy a staff of meteor swarm use my prestige path ability[from the nine hells suplement]and just do heaps more damage forever. I didn't do that but it was cheap and easy.
he did the least damage of anyone in the party. he could buff the party and heal from magic items , also he could deal with hordes. but that was it. I had a great time but don't for a moment think that eldritch blast is a damage dealer.
rogues got SA as much as they could, no limit on per round mate.
if your warlock out damaged a "pimped out" ranger I cry for the rest of that team.
I also played a wizard in another game from 1st through 30th. I know which character gave the dm more headaches. I ended up with a metmagicked force orb doing 400 + damage as a level 8 spell by the end touch attack no save.
seriously go have a look at the old 3.x char op boards. you will cry.
warlocks where weak on the damage front. seriously seriously weak
BTW, I believe that hybrid classes make humans more interesting to play now.
Truthfully, I think the only reason it has even been done is because so many people whinged when they couldnt make their sorceror/fighter/cleric etc that they played in their last campaign etc etc, and complained about it non-stop
So hooray for giving options i guess. I will probably be the only person who thinks making combined classes is a bad idea.
Honestly though, I have read through it, i havent seen it in play. I will wait and see if it doesnt unbalance the game which has been running so smoothly in the two groups i run....then i may change my opinion, but for now.....
what a cop out
Should I be the one who points out that they were talking about hybrid-classing(deeper multiclassing) prior to PHBI being released? so they are probably doing it because the designers think it is a good idea rather than because of fan whining.
What I really meant by that, is it's hard to find a concept that needs Hybrid class in order to be do-able.
The class' fluff is vague enough (and easily refluffable anyway) to cover hundreds of ideas already.
How about a nobleman son's who was tutored in wizardly arts, but snuck out every night to train in the fighter's arts under a former military officer who worked as a servant on his father's mansion.
Now I admit that the above example could probably be represented through multiclassing. The question is what multiclassing option would represent it? Is it a fighter who multiclassed into wizard? Or a wizard that multiclasssed into fighter? I think the best way to look at hybrid-clsssing is that it is another option on how you can represent someone who has recieved training in two fighting styles prior to beginning his adventuring career.
So its a crunch thing, i said before, if a player has a great idea and wants to play it then great! Go for it, i am just wary of the consequences in general to player balance, player focus etc
Who will just play a fighter anymore? (3rd ed eg sure, but still valid)
This says it all....it is an ingoing debate
I had many problems with players pulling out silly combos, not for RP reasons, but purely for crunch (level of ranger im looking at you!) and it really soured me on the idea of mixed classes
So seeing them pull this out after already putting in a few MC feats for dabbling has me worried, and makes me think they are pandering to those who were not satisfied
Who cares if they're "pandering" to a subset of fans? Is one person's fun more correct than anothers?
I mean, they released the balanced stuff first, use it if you like, then they release suppliments so that they can add back in things that other people may like.
Initial product = Broad Audience.
Suppliment product = Specific Audience.
I like that they changed the suppliment model to be "player's handbooks" rather than "complete" or "races" books, it makes people think they're required or "core". That is a pretty intelligent design and a great business model.
If you think something is broken, don't use it. I would say that 4e was pandering to fans that were not satisfied with 3e, but that would just be wrong, amirite?!
It's still in the playtesting phase. Nothing's written in stone, yet. And even if hybrid's become part of the core- if you don't like them, don't use the rule in your games. *shrug*
Indeed ...
This new system is so intriging that I will register to DDI tonight to get the details. In the meantime I submit to you a little something along the same lines I was working on for Modern. Its incomplete but some of you might find it relevant.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=18432763&postcount=223
Who will just play a fighter anymore? (3rd ed eg sure, but still valid)
People who want to play a fighter? You give up quite a bit with the present model of hybrid classing. You simply aren't as good of a fighter if you're hybridized with something else, as opposed to 3E, where fighter was good for a couple of feats and nothing else.
Hybrid Races: Have the best of both worlds!
Melee Training II: Link your armor class stat in line with your favorite stat!
But seriously from a design point of view, if you are having problems balancing out your core classes, then you should not expect to have balanced hybrid classes (both underpowered and overpowered).
When tempest fighter came out, I was excited to see a TWF build that wasn't Ranger (that just didn't fit at all), but I was bummed-out with having a "Rogue" PC that could only Sneak Attack 1x/encounter. The Hybrid PC is a great combination for me because I get the skill-set, the TWF (with the Hybrid Class Feature, which may or may not be doable, but we're doin' it), and sneak attack on every round that I use a Rogue power. Here's the basic summary of my PC at 13th level
Race & Class: Human, Hybrid Fighter/Rogue, Paragon Path: Shocktrooper
Defenses: AC 28 (+3 chainmail, feat), F 24, R 25, W 21 (item &feat bonuses)
Abilities: STR 19, CON 14, DEX 19, INT 10, WIS 12, CHA 14
HP & Surges: 92hp, Surge Value 23, Surges/day 9
Skills: Acrobatics +14, Bluff +13, Stealth +16, Thievery +16.
Feats: (Human) Hybrid class feature: Combat Superiority, Hybrid Class Feature II: Fighter Weapon Talent, Armor Proficiency: Chainmail, Backstabber, Nimble Blade, Toughness, Two-Weapon Ambush, Two-Weapon Opening, Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Defense (Bonus).
Basic Attacks: +17 (+3 enhancement, +3 Proficiency, +4 Ability, +6 1/2 lvl, +1 Tempest Technique) DMG: 1d8+12 (+4 ability, +2 Tempest Fighter, +1 TWF feat, +2 Bracers of mighty striking, +3 Enhancement)
Who will just play a fighter anymore? (3rd ed eg sure, but still valid)
What I really meant by that, is it's hard to find a concept that needs Hybrid class in order to be do-able.
It isn't as if hybrid classes are a new concept. What concepts needed a fighter/magic-user/thief in 1e? You might not need that, but it's nice to have. If you want to play a fighter/wizard, you want to play a fighter/wizard; if you want to play a fighter, you want to play a fighter. More choice is a good thing.
Somewhat off-topic...
Not bad, but 70 damage around level 11 isn't broken by any means. Take a fighter 4/barbarian 2 with the Power Attack, Shock Trooper, and Leap Attack feats; a 22 Strength (base 18 + bull's strength or whatever); and a +1 valorous greatsword. He deals an average of 74 damage per attack with a +16/+11 attack on a charge, for an average of 148 damage per round. And he's half the level of this amazing warlock damage build of yours.
Advance him to 11th level and he'll still out-damage the warlock, even if you take DR into account (and, by the way, how are you ignoring SR without vitriolic blast?), probably closer to 148 damage per hit instead of per round, which with three attacks will out-damage the warlock even when you adjust for attacking regular AC rather than touch AC, particularly since he has multiple attacks per round.
Buy him a wand of invisibility if you want him to go invisible after every other round, but he doesn't really need it. If you want him to fly (good idea), a wand of that or an item would work, or he could be a raptoran or other race with flight.
Sub-par damage for a given level does not a broken build make. If you want to discuss this further, head over to CharOp or take this to PM.
You obviously know nothing about how to play a warlock if you think that their damage was weak. By 11th level due to feats and item selections I was doing an easy 20d6 (plus other damage bonus modifiers most fo the time) points of damage, against Touch AC, with no saves, no damage reduction, no spell resistance. Which means I hit everything in a normally balanced encounter on anything except a 1 with a level twenty fireball/lightning bolt. After my blast I went invisible and moved, usually flying. I mowed through anything and everything thrown in front of me, and could not be touched. How is that not broken? An average of 70 damage per round at 11th level. And that's average.
Not bad, but 70 damage around level 11 isn't broken by any means. Take a fighter 4/barbarian 2 with the Power Attack, Shock Trooper, and Leap Attack feats; a 22 Strength (base 18 + bull's strength or whatever); and a +1 valorous greatsword. He deals an average of 74 damage per attack with a +16/+11 attack on a charge, for an average of 148 damage per round. And he's half the level of this amazing warlock damage build of yours.
Advance him to 11th level and he'll still out-damage the warlock, even if you take DR into account (and, by the way, how are you ignoring SR without vitriolic blast?), probably closer to 148 damage per hit instead of per round, which with three attacks will out-damage the warlock even when you adjust for attacking regular AC rather than touch AC, particularly since he has multiple attacks per round.
Buy him a wand of invisibility if you want him to go invisible after every other round, but he doesn't really need it. If you want him to fly (good idea), a wand of that or an item would work, or he could be a raptoran or other race with flight.
Sub-par damage for a given level does not a broken build make. If you want to discuss this further, head over to CharOp or take this to PM.
Off-topic
The warlock was just as screwed in an antimagic field as the wizard. The wizard could buff his caster level to make him hard to dispell, allowing him to fly around all day with day-long spells. Reserve feats, Persistent metamagic and, most importantly, all day buffs allowed casters to have more effects than the warlock all day long. If you didn't have more stuff going on than the warlock, you weren't tryin very hard.
But who says im even talking about the wizard? The Druid could be wildshaped all day long. He could fly all day long without being dispelled while dropping 9th level spells everywhere, having an absurd AC and siccing his animal companion on people. If you start throwing splat books at this core class it got even more redonkulous.
Then you dont know how to build an archer. 4+ attacks with added magic and other rider damage makes for way more damage than one eldritch blast per round. A scout with greater manyshot could toss out a barrage of arrows and add skirmish damage to everyone of them. Seriously, go to the 3.5 CO boards and check out some archer builds.
And? Casters had tons of spells that ignored SR. From what i remember, WotC stated that the Savage Species feat you are talking about [i]specifically did not work with eldritch blast anyway.[i]
Second, if you want to give casters material from splatbooks too then the druid can get Aberration Wildshape and Assume Supernatural Ability (right out of Savage Species!). Now the druid can wildshape into a beholder all day long and choose Eye Rays [Su] as his supernatural ability, allowing him to use all of the beholder's eye rays every round, at-will. Sorry, but the warlock is weak sauce, even with splatbooks.
And what was he, a TWF fighter? ;)
But really, this anecdote doesn't prove anything since have zero info on any of the characters or situations involved. I hardly think a warlock would dominate in some of the games i played in where we had druid with AC 50+, the ability to turn invisible at-will and immunity to magic at-will at level 11, a level 11 artificer that could deal 1,000+ damage in a round and a barbarian routinely dealt 100s in one charge.
lol. C'mon. Sorry, but if you're getting such basic aspects of the core rules wrong, i have a hard time taking you serious as a 3.5 optimizer.
Wrong. Just simply wrong. First off all that stuff a wizard could do? Easily shut down by anti-magic and dispel magic. They also couldn't do anything at-will. Everything took at least one round to do, in that they had to cast a spell.
The warlock was just as screwed in an antimagic field as the wizard. The wizard could buff his caster level to make him hard to dispell, allowing him to fly around all day with day-long spells. Reserve feats, Persistent metamagic and, most importantly, all day buffs allowed casters to have more effects than the warlock all day long. If you didn't have more stuff going on than the warlock, you weren't tryin very hard.
But who says im even talking about the wizard? The Druid could be wildshaped all day long. He could fly all day long without being dispelled while dropping 9th level spells everywhere, having an absurd AC and siccing his animal companion on people. If you start throwing splat books at this core class it got even more redonkulous.
Also keep in mind that Warlocks could also add effects to their Eldritch Blast, or did we forget that little fact? That and archers could come nowhere near that type of damage that a Warlock could dish out.
Then you dont know how to build an archer. 4+ attacks with added magic and other rider damage makes for way more damage than one eldritch blast per round. A scout with greater manyshot could toss out a barrage of arrows and add skirmish damage to everyone of them. Seriously, go to the 3.5 CO boards and check out some archer builds.
And as I said with the right feats nothing is stopping that damage. Nothing. It becomes a Supernatural effect, therefore, no reduction, no spell resistance.
And? Casters had tons of spells that ignored SR. From what i remember, WotC stated that the Savage Species feat you are talking about [i]specifically did not work with eldritch blast anyway.[i]
Second, if you want to give casters material from splatbooks too then the druid can get Aberration Wildshape and Assume Supernatural Ability (right out of Savage Species!). Now the druid can wildshape into a beholder all day long and choose Eye Rays [Su] as his supernatural ability, allowing him to use all of the beholder's eye rays every round, at-will. Sorry, but the warlock is weak sauce, even with splatbooks.
I know all of this because I joined a friend's game (one of his last 3.X games) with the sole intent of blowing another player's min/maxxed character out of the water by out damaging, and outdoing him in every combat.
And what was he, a TWF fighter? ;)
But really, this anecdote doesn't prove anything since have zero info on any of the characters or situations involved. I hardly think a warlock would dominate in some of the games i played in where we had druid with AC 50+, the ability to turn invisible at-will and immunity to magic at-will at level 11, a level 11 artificer that could deal 1,000+ damage in a round and a barbarian routinely dealt 100s in one charge.
Edit: Oh and rogues only got SA once per round. Are you sure you know the 3.x rules at all?
lol. C'mon. Sorry, but if you're getting such basic aspects of the core rules wrong, i have a hard time taking you serious as a 3.5 optimizer.
How about a nobleman son's who was tutored in wizardly arts, but snuck out every night to train in the fighter's arts under a former military officer who worked as a servant on his father's mansion.
Now I admit that the above example could probably be represented through multiclassing. The question is what multiclassing option would represent it? Is it a fighter who multiclassed into wizard? Or a wizard that multiclasssed into fighter? I think the best way to look at hybrid-clsssing is that it is another option on how you can represent someone who has recieved training in two fighting styles prior to beginning his adventuring career.
Swordmage.
You don't even need to multi-class.
He didn't properly train as a Swordmage, but he mixed both style into his own and ended up with his own 'unique' fighting style. Depending on how spread out/common Swordmage are in your world, you could even say he's the first one ever to be whatever paragon path he picks and make him somewhat of an oddity, a arcane and blade genius, who other are seeking out for training.
On the plus side, your Swordmage will actually be a viable character, while the way I see, an Hybrid Fighter/Wizard is going to be dangerously underpowered... You have to split your stats between STR/INT (Not easy if you're not a Genasi), you're possibly screwing yourself out of Weapon Prof at higher level, you'll need a magic weapon and an implement and you start with Armor Prof: Cloth.
Ouch.
After a quick reading, my impression was that they had made it easier to maked ineffective characters. The standard rules have alot ways of keeping you from making a character that can't do anything well if you respect the primary score of the class. Hybrids seem to circumvent stops that were in place to prevent the type of character who is just bad at many things. I hope they remain an optional rule for those who really want them and are not allowed in the campaigns in which I play.
There's a chapter on just that on in there... basically a disclaimer that it's quite possible to create a totally useless character.
It isn't as if hybrid classes are a new concept. What concepts needed a fighter/magic-user/thief in 1e? You might not need that, but it's nice to have. If you want to play a fighter/wizard, you want to play a fighter/wizard; if you want to play a fighter, you want to play a fighter. More choice is a good thing.
Ah, but like I said in my previous post, I didn't like those type of character 1e/2e/3e either :P. I guess I'm a class purist or something.
If anything, I loved the way 4e handled multi-classing specifically for that reason.
I always thought it was borderline stupid that someone needs to study years to be a level 1 Wizard, and 4 level in, the Rogues decides to pick a level of wizard in between two nights of spending the GP he earned during the last adventure in a charnel house :P. I'm pretty sure Order of the Stick made a comic about that.
At least, Hybrid class starts at level 1, which remove this logic issue.
One reason why I decided to try the hybrid PC was because I had an PC in 3.5 that just didn't translate to 4th edition very well. He was known for his two magical daggers, skill-set, and "jak sparrow-like" personality. The RPing aspect wasn't an issue in conversion, but the TWF and skills just didn't feel "right."
Seems your problem with converting your character were with mechanical issue, you say a 'Jak Sparrow-like' guy who dual wield daggers, and I really don't see how a Rogue or a Ranger (possibly multi-class it) or Tempest Fighter doesn't work for it from a conceptual point of view >_>.
I have to say that fluff wise it can easily be explained, but i dont see why it cant be done with MC and why tacking on a whole new system will make the experience any better....
So its a crunch thing, i said before, if a player has a great idea and wants to play it then great! Go for it, i am just wary of the consequences in general to player balance, player focus etc
This is basically what I'm trying to say.
Keep in mind that I'm not a close minded tyrant of a DM... when the PHB3 comes out, if one of my players falls in love with the idea of doing an Hybrid, he'll be more than welcome to it. I understand that just because I don't like something, it doesn't mean it's a bad idea or that people who like it are 'wrong'.
But I'm still entitled to not liking something :P
Seems your problem with converting your character were with mechanical issue, you say a 'Jak Sparrow-like' guy who dual wield daggers, and I really don't see how a Rogue or a Ranger (possibly multi-class it) or Tempest Fighter doesn't work for it from a conceptual point of view >_>.
When I played a Tempest Fighter who multiclassed into Rogue, he felt like a fighter who could sneak. When I tried a rogue that MCed into fighter, he was a rogue who could only Sneak Attack 1x/encounter and could TWF using the abstracted 4th TWF feat. I'm not knocking 4th, because I've had a blast playing it, but the PH 1 class options just didn't capture what I wanted for this rogue PC. However, the hybrid class feature brought it all together for me. I could sneak all day, and it felt like "my job," - not like the PC was a fighter trained in sneak, but that the PC was a sneaky thief who could bluff all day long. In terms of TWF, I liked having the option of powers that allowed 2-attacks and not just having the TWF providing the +1 to damage as a way of conceptualizing two attacks. So, it's a combination of mechanics/concepts - but I'm not saying a hybrid PC is better than a MCed PC, or anything like it. I'm simply saying that, right now in our playtest, I'm enjoying the hybrid PC immensely because it doesn't seem overpowered (as of yet), provides me with a PC that is more inline with what I imagine as a player, and is just really, really fun.
And, yes... you can still not like it, but maybe you should try it too
Keep in mind that I'm not a close minded tyrant of a DM... when the PHB3 comes out, if one of my players falls in love with the idea of doing an Hybrid, he'll be more than welcome to it. I understand that just because I don't like something, it doesn't mean it's a bad idea or that people who like it are 'wrong'.
But I'm still entitled to not liking something :P
This here says it for me too
Ultimately, what it provides is greater versitality - and that's something that generally will not break the game. There is some potential for setting up quirky combos that work really well, but WotC tends to take a conservative approach on such matters, so I don't see it as being a major issue.
Roleplayers are given more options to build the character they want to play, optimizers get new toys to play with. It seems like a largely win-win concept.
But I'm still entitled to not liking something :P
Actually I just read on wikipedia that you aren't any more. Sorry man. So sorry.
Actually, this make me think of that one guy who really wanted to be a paladin dual-wielding bastard sword. He posted on char op and asked someway to do it without gimping himself. Much like Kevtar he wanted the dual wielding aspect of the character to be more than just 'Here's a bunch of feat'. He was planning to go Paladin and MC into ranger.
Going Ranger/Paladin Hybrid would actually have worked perfectly for him.
I guess the way to see is that it isn't really necessary for conceptual need... most concept can be easily expressed with the 17 existing class... and if they can't, odd are when the PHB3 comes out, you'll be able to express it with the 25 class (or 26, if the new setting also include a new class).
Nope.
It's there for the people who aren't quite satisfied with the how a certain class mechanically represent your concept.
I got a feeling we'll see a lot of 'Ranger/X' since dual-wielding is so popular...
I don't understand dual wielding. I mean, it looks cool when Milla does it I guess. But what doesn't really...
Lol, im still trying to decide whether she is cuter there or in 5th element!
Anyway, the general gist is that they are sub-optimal, mostly because of the Hybrid conundrum of not being able to fill a role completely...
Now say the Hybrid fanatics start getting annoyed with that, start demanding more effective combinations, i am worried about where this will end
I am expressing my concern for where this is leading
what is meant by "cop out" anyway?
I actually tried it a few times:
*I wanted my rogue to use a bow.
easy fix, play an elf who gets bow proficiency for free,
then take ranger multiclass feats...
plus some healthy buttering up of my D.M. to use sneak attack with my bow.
this worked at first but my character was "Paying" feats to be the scout that I always wanted, rather than developing the character/tactical options that the new feat system encourages. In terms of capability, I was falling behind the other players. Plus, I wasn't the "thief" that the party needed. on the other hand, I could hunt/track like nobody's business.
******************************************************
Now when the hybrid playtest came out. I dived right on in.
my elven ranger/rogue hybrid has no problems purchasing bow powers.
However there are mechanical trade offs;
my character lost two trained skills,
my character wasn't as good as a pure ranger archer,
or a pure ninja star rogue...
of course, stacking hunter's quarry with sneak attack seemed like a powerful combo... but it was one I already had from my multi-class feat character and that option wasn't reduxed by being "hybrid". despite an optimal access to powers, it wasn't any where near in power to a pure class character.
the concept is still valid, I am trying to make a "swashbuckler" by going hybrid rogue fighter. However, I still think the hybrid rules leave the player short changed on class abilitys, hit points, and trained skills.
the only hybrid combo that really cuaght my brain was an Eladrin wizard/swordmage with the intelligent blademaster feat. the 20 intelligence and sword implement flowed well with ranged control, self defense from foes who could get close enough to hit.
Also, at what levels are these builds broken? I see tons of builds in the CharOp forums that are at level 30. What about the other 29 levels of play? Let's see the level 1 broken hybrid characters. And the level 8, 12, 17, 22, etc.,.
So, who's got the goods?
One reason why I decided to try the hybrid PC was because I had an PC in 3.5 that just didn't translate to 4th edition very well. He was known for his two magical daggers, skill-set, and "jak sparrow-like" personality. The RPing aspect wasn't an issue in conversion, but the TWF and skills just didn't feel "right."
When tempest fighter came out, I was excited to see a TWF build that wasn't Ranger (that just didn't fit at all), but I was bummed-out with having a "Rogue" PC that could only Sneak Attack 1x/encounter. The Hybrid PC is a great combination for me because I get the skill-set, the TWF (with the Hybrid Class Feature, which may or may not be doable, but we're doin' it), and sneak attack on every round that I use a Rogue power. Here's the basic summary of my PC at 13th level
Race & Class: Human, Hybrid Fighter/Rogue, Paragon Path: Shocktrooper
Defenses: AC 28 (+3 chainmail, feat), F 24, R 25, W 21 (item &feat bonuses)
Abilities: STR 19, CON 14, DEX 19, INT 10, WIS 12, CHA 14
HP & Surges: 92hp, Surge Value 23, Surges/day 9
Skills: Acrobatics +14, Bluff +13, Stealth +16, Thievery +16.
Feats: (Human) Hybrid class feature: Combat Superiority, Hybrid Class Feature II: Fighter Weapon Talent, Armor Proficiency: Chainmail, Backstabber, Nimble Blade, Toughness, Two-Weapon Ambush, Two-Weapon Opening, Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Defense (Bonus).
Basic Attacks: +17 (+3 enhancement, +3 Proficiency, +4 Ability, +6 1/2 lvl, +1 Tempest Technique) DMG: 1d8+12 (+4 ability, +2 Tempest Fighter, +1 TWF feat, +2 Bracers of mighty striking, +3 Enhancement)
Hate to reign in on your build but the Hybrid Class Feature feat does not specify that you tkae the feat more than once, which lets you gain either Combat Superiority or Fighter Weapon Talent, not both. This is to prevent Hybrid PCs from being too good.
Oh wow, that really does rain on a hybrid character's parade o.o
I dunno, I think it's a pretty good restriction, especially since they've 'dumbed down' most of the existing class features for the classes. There are still a couple gems to nab (Channel Divinity for Tempus feat, Swordmage Warding seems like it could be explosive depending on what they do for the Avenger hybrid, not to mention Battlerager things running around.)
All in all, I think hybrids fall into the 'don't like it? don't use it' category. They're interesting and fun to experiment with but come with unique restrictions that make them hard to outright break. As far as I'm concerned this is what multiclassing should have been from the get-go.
I just hope that they have hybrid versions of every class when PHB3 comes out, and that PHB classes don't get neglected as a result.
I always thought it was borderline stupid that someone needs to study years to be a level 1 Wizard, and 4 level in, the Rogues decides to pick a level of wizard in between two nights of spending the GP he earned during the last adventure in a charnel house :P. I'm pretty sure Order of the Stick made a comic about that.
Yes. Yes it did.
[WARNING: OotS's site has been really slow lately. They really ought to upgrade their server.]
I dunno, I think it's a pretty good restriction, especially since they've 'dumbed down' most of the existing class features for the classes. There are still a couple gems to nab (Channel Divinity for Tempus feat, Swordmage Warding seems like it could be explosive depending on what they do for the Avenger hybrid, not to mention Battlerager things running around.)
The Avenger will probably get a hybrid version of Oath of Enmity. So, the hybrid Swordmage - Avenger could use hybrid talent to go for either Swordmage Warding or Armor of Faith, but couldn't have both. Since the character is crossing roles and primary attack attributes it would be far from an optimal hybrid.
Having played with the system a bit and built a few sample characters, I like the system more and more. My dual-mace wielding favored soul from 3.5 converts very nicely into a cleric-fighter hybrid with a ranger multiclass feat. I've also built a sweet dual-hand crossbow wielding drow rogue-ranger (and my first 4E characters, a paladin multiclass warlock of the raven queen works much better as a paladin-warlock hybrid). The best builds are comparable to a standard character. The worst builds have the same problems heavily multiclassed characters can run into (MAD), but it's molified somewhat by the implement crossover. Since it's likely to be a system that only appeals to more experienced players, it works fairly well.
Avengers do have a hybrid of Oath of Enmity. The only difference is that the two attack rolls granted by the Oath can only be used in conjunction with Avenger powers or Avenger PP powers. They also have a hybrid version of the Censure which can be used once each encounter (twice once you hit level 16) and you can burn a hybrid Talent feat on it to grant the Censure ability just as the full Avenger class has it
PHB2 hybrid classes are already out actually. I can't find the official adobe file on a cursory search on the net, but you can find the stats for them here
Avengers do have a hybrid of Oath of Enmity. The only difference is that the two attack rolls granted by the Oath can only be used in conjunction with Avenger powers or Avenger PP powers. They also have a hybrid version of the Censure which can be used once each encounter (twice once you hit level 16) and you can burn a hybrid Talent feat on it to grant the Censure ability just as the full Avenger class has it
It's not official, just homebrew.
They arent "already out" as far as I can tell. The linked thread only has some house rules a DM wrote up for his group. The PHB2 classes were not included in the playtest article. And that playtest isnt final anway, I hope they either scrap the idea (and improve/expand the existing MC rules) or rewrite alot of the Hybrid rules. The current version just doesnt feel like a natural part of 4E imo, it's too clunky and forced.
Yea, I guess that's right. You can find some other homebrew versions of the new hybrids here (the officialness of that document is what had me confused)
Yea, I guess that's right. You can find some other homebrew versions of the new hybrids here (the officialness of that document is what had me confused)
Haha, its not official, I promise you. ;)
They arent "already out" as far as I can tell. The linked thread only has some house rules a DM wrote up for his group. The PHB2 classes were not included in the playtest article. And that playtest isnt final anway, I hope they either scrap the idea (and improve/expand the existing MC rules) or rewrite alot of the Hybrid rules. The current version just doesnt feel like a natural part of 4E imo, it's too clunky and forced.
A little clunky, but only in the chargen stages ... the final character plays as well as any. I definately don't think it should be scrapped, although a little rewriting is warrented. The MC is fairly good, but I don't see them improving it in directions beyond what they've done already. Hybrid classes provide options that the MC system just doesn't handle well.
Hybrid classes provide options that the MC system just doesn't handle well.
Case and point: at-will powers
That said, others feel different. I have one player in my group who absolutely despises 4e with the reason being he can't "really" multiclass. I think just the ability to advance in two classes at once will help with people like that.
The thing about Hybrids that worries me is that it plainly tosses the 4E character design strategy out the window; once you hybridize, you can no longer guarantee that your character will be effective in their role, because they have no clear role. Thus, the first house-rule I've made regarding hybrid classes is that both classes must be of the same role: Controller, Defender, Leader, or Striker. This way, at least the hybrid character will remain effective.
I thought about this and realized that such a rule leads to unfun for the player, so I decided to restrict hybrids to parties larger than four in which all roles are already covered or that there at least two hybrids in a group that ensures all roles are covered.
Bel
The thing about Hybrids that worries me is that it plainly tosses the 4E character design strategy out the window; once you hybridize, you can no longer guarantee that your character will be effective in their role, because they have no clear role. Thus, the first house-rule I've made regarding hybrid classes is that both classes must be of the same role: Controller, Defender, Leader, or Striker. This way, at least the hybrid character will remain effective.
...but all that really means is that you shouldn't try to hybridize a class if you don't know what you doing...if you're new to the game then it's not for you, but if you're an experienced player wanting to try something different then it's gold o.o. Sure it carries the possibility of being useless, that's why no one should go into it blindly. Personally, I was gonna do a wizard/warlord hybrid build, then I realized that it was just a whole lot of work to do so I think I'll just do strait wizard now. Not to say that a wizard/warlord can't work, I just don't want to go through the trouble of making it work.
The thing about Hybrids that worries me is that it plainly tosses the 4E character design strategy out the window; once you hybridize, you can no longer guarantee that your character will be effective in their role, because they have no clear role. Thus, the first house-rule I've made regarding hybrid classes is that both classes must be of the same role: Controller, Defender, Leader, or Striker. This way, at least the hybrid character will remain effective.
To be honest, it isn't really different in this regard than the current multiclass system. Heavily focusing in multiclassing can severely underpower a character if you don't know what you're doing - and it's presented as an advanced option accordingly. Hybrids aren't anything new in that regard. While a hybrid character may not be as effective in a given role as a single class character, that's not the same as saying that a hybrid character is ineffective. Hybrids are supposed to be multitaskers - forcing them to maintain a single role defeats the purpose of hybridizing to start with.
I agree that you probably do want to fill a party with a few dedicated role characters - but that's party dynamics and shouldn't limit the design of individual characters. Hybrids are best suited for filling a fifth (or posibbly fourth) slot, after all the key roles have already been filled.
Dwarf Fighter/Warlock level 2+ (HT: Battlerager) with 16 strength and 18 Con, with Crushing Surge and Eltrich Blast (w/reaper's touch) w/ a Pact Hammer.
On your turn, curse the target crushing surge. If you hit, yay, more damage and more temp HP. Miss, and the target is still marked. You're a battlerager so attacking you is pointless... but if they don't, they eat d10 +d6 +con from Eltrich blast.
EDIT: At higher levels, dual wield a pair of Pact hammers, with TWF, TWO, Dual Implement Caster, and anything else that seems interesting. Every time an effect generates a MBA, use Eltrich blast, giving you effectively D10 offhand weapons)
To me this whole idea is catering to the power gamer, those types seem to forget that D&D is a roleplaying game first and a combat system second. To me hybrids do not add much to the roleplaying aspect of the game but does add to the combat part of it. If that is the majority wants so be it, but if wizards is smart it will remain a optional rule so that a DM does not have to house rule that he does not want it in his game. This will make a DM look less like the villian to players.
The counterpoint to this argument is the simple fact that most hybrids are inferior in combat to single role characters - and the best hybrid builds are about even.
On the flip side, class systems are always highly limiting to roleplaying. There are always going to be character concepts that don't fit within a class based system. While 4E classes are designed to be as broad as possible, there's only so far they can go. Hybridizing geometrically increases the number of character concepts available to play - meaning you have a better chance of being able to play the character you want to play and not having to make compromises to work within the system.
Any evaluation of the hybrid system shows it's not a combat-optimized system. However, I was able to use it to recreate two character concepts that did not work within 4E previously - this is a major roleplaying benefit.
- Wolf Brother: A character who leads wolves as a wolf. This concept can barely be covered by a ranger/druid as the character can only attack in wild shape form once an encounter.
- "Bear"serker: A warrior who becomes a raging beast in battle. This can be covered at paragon by the Bear Warrior, but hybriding the barabarian with either a druid or a warden lets you do that right out the gate.
- King of Thieves: A master thief who is also a leader of their motley band. Yes, a rogue could pick up warlord powers, but they couldn't command their men to attack in their place.
- Arcane Trickster: A magic wielding thief. Yes, the rouge could pick up a few spells, but it's ironically access to cantrips (the mechanically weakest spells) that really help give this combo it's flavor. A con-man with prestidigitation and ghost sound is ripe with role playing possibilities.
- Arcane Priest: A priest of a god of magic or arcane knowledge.
- Fey Shifter: Either a symbol of nature's fury with a touch of fey power or a fey trickster with a talent for shapeshifting (ex. "Puck" from classic folklore)
- "Gandalf": Less a concept and more a specific character example. He had magic from simple cantrips to more impressive effects, but the majority of his in combat actions were swordfighting.
* Wolf Brother: A character who leads wolves as a wolf. This concept can barely be covered by a ranger/druid as the character can only attack in wild shape form once an encounter.
That's a druid. You don't even need to multi-class.
* "Bear"serker: A warrior who becomes a raging beast in battle. This can be covered at paragon by the Bear Warrior, but hybriding the barabarian with either a druid or a warden lets you do that right out the gate.
Easily done with a PP, as you've said.
It can also be done by a Druid who MC into a Barbarian. Even without taking any Rage Daily power, the 'feature' of the Barbarian MC is a mini-rage in and out of itself.
It can also be done with a plain old Warden who's daily Transformation power are re-fluffed to be bear like.
* King of Thieves: A master thief who is also a leader of their motley band. Yes, a rogue could pick up warlord powers, but they couldn't command their men to attack in their place.
The big question is - why would he need to make his ally attack as a power for the concept to fit? A lot of being a 'leader' is about role playing and so forth and doesn't need to be filled in with powers that makes your friends attack and so forth.
A high Charisma Rogue (Artful Dodger) who takes the Guild Master PP already cover this. MC'ing into Warlord isn't even necessary, but I suppose it could help.
* Arcane Trickster: A magic wielding thief. Yes, the rouge could pick up a few spells, but it's ironically access to cantrips (the mechanically weakest spells) that really help give this combo it's flavor. A con-man with prestidigitation and ghost sound is ripe with role playing possibilities.
A high charisma rogue who MC into Sorcereror (And dagger happens to be a Sorcerer implement). While you won't get cantrip this way - you can pick from a wide selection of Sorcerer Utility that can help you out feels like a mystic tricksters.
Although I'll grant you this is the most solid example for rolling an Hybrid in the one you've given, since the Sorc/Rogue combo doesn't feel 'tricky'.
* Arcane Priest: A priest of a god of magic or arcane knowledge.
You take a Cleric. You worship Ioun or Corellon.
* Fey Shifter: Either a symbol of nature's fury with a touch of fey power or a fey trickster with a talent for shapeshifting (ex. "Puck" from classic folklore)
I'll start by pointing out that the Hybrid system also fails at doing this well, since Warlorck/Druid is going to be one of the worse possible combination you can go with...
But I'm not sure what prevents you from rolling up a Druid or a Warlock and MC'ing into the other in order to do this.
* "Gandalf": Less a concept and more a specific character example. He had magic from simple cantrips to more impressive effects, but the majority of his in combat actions were swordfighting.
The best way to stats up Gandalf is to make him a low level 3.5 Wizard who's run out of spell by the first few hundred page of the saga. Magic is notoriously low key in Tolkien's Book and some of the most 'powerful' effect we see are very weak effect when translated in D&D.
Despite the fact that Gandalf is the archetypical wizard, he couldn't spam Arcane Missile all day long. That's just not how magic worked in tolkien's world. The Hybrid system of going Fighter/Wizard would fail him just as badly - you'd be a terrible character (there is zero synergy between the 2 classes), and you'd still be a hell of a lot flashier than Gandalf ever was - half your abilities will include blowing stuff up with fire, lightning and cold.
For the most part, Gandalf could be done as a Swordmage, who picks At-will that do not do visible energy damage (luring strike & Sword Burst) and focus on Encounter/Daily that are equally non-flashy. Oh, and pick ritual casting.
What is the power comparison like between a hybrid character and a multiclass character? (by 'power comparison' I am curious what the balance looks like, and if a hybrid character can adventure with normal characters and not throw off the balance of the game)
What is the power comparison like between a hybrid character who multiclasses and a regular MC character?
Can you multiclass into a hybrid class? Could I, for example, be a fighter and MC into a barbarian/warlord hybrid?
When you Hybrid:
- You have to combine the hp value given in both Hybrid's class entry to get your starting HP.
- You have to combine the hp value given in both Hybrid's class entry to get your 'hp per level'.
- You get both classes weapon proficiency.
- You only get an Armor proficiency if both classes have it (So yes, Wizard/Fighter only have Cloth armor).
- You have to pick 50% of your power (At-will, Encounter, Daily, Utility) from 1 class, and 50% from the other.
- You qualify for feats and paragon path for either class.
- You only gain SOME class features (Those are explained in the hybrid class's page) and quite often your Hybrid version is weaker than the original. A good example - Hybrid paladin get Divine Challenge, but not channel divinity or lay on hand.
- You can get a feat to get 1 class feature you're missing.
- You can multi-class into a 3rd class.
My knowledge of Hybrid Classes is very limited, so I have a few questions.
What is the power comparison like between a hybrid character and a multiclass character? (by 'power comparison' I am curious what the balance looks like, and if a hybrid character can adventure with normal characters and not throw off the balance of the game)
What is the power comparison like between a hybrid character who multiclasses and a regular MC character?
Can you multiclass into a hybrid class? Could I, for example, be a fighter and MC into a barbarian/warlord hybrid?
I can only answer knowledgeably to the third question: no you can't, for the simple reason that it would be like cheating and taking MC into two different classes...
The second question, I think the answer clearly depends on balance of hybrids altogether, but additional MC should not impact, because feats are the same. The only thing I could say is that probably a hybrid is going to take Hybrid Talent at first level, to benefit of a good class feature, so to boot it will have "one feat less" to invest in MC. Note that the fact that you can only choose ONE extra class feature via that feat is one of the mechanics that guarantee balance...
As for balance of hybrids per se, I also wait for that answer. The numbers speak good and I'm doing a beautiful Fighter/Warlock based on Con and the Eldritch Strike new melee at-will and the awesome White Lotus Academy feats. A master of basic attacks...
Seems very powerful as of now, but not so much because of the hybrid thing as because of the synergy between white lotus feat, Eldritch Strike and it being a basic melee attack.
It mostly sounds to be balanced, but I'll have to wait and see it firsthand.
One major issue is that some combinations are better than single-class versions. A good example is the cleric|warlord, who has every single feature of the warlord, but can choose powers from both the cleric and the warlord.
The fundamental reason for this is fairly simple: you're giving away feats for free. The problem is that these characters essentially have all the multiclassing feats for free, and have no feature "cost" for it in some cases. The restrictions on their power choices are meaningless. They also have very powerful class features, and are allowed to combine them with classes with very strong powers - a recipe for disaster.
To make them weak enough, you have to essentially cripple them in very cludgy ways, which is what the whole "You only get these benefits if you're using a X power" restriction comes from. This works okay, but the issue is that it strongly favors classes whose features aren't dependent on using their powers to gain their feature bonuses. In particular, clerics, warlords, swordmages, paladins, and wizards gain all their class feature bonuses all the time, which means they're stronger than other types of characters. But turning their features off when they're not using the appropriate type of power feels very cludgy... of course, the whole thing is cludgy.
The loophole that some classes are limited in using their features in conjunction with their class powers while others aren't needs to be fixed, and it needs to be changed so that they all function in this manner.
The other issue is the Hybrid Talent feat. It gives you the ability to grab a lot of class features which you cannot give away with a feat. In particular, you've got class features such as Combat Superiority, which is simply not fair to allow in feat form, as well as the Warlord class features (Tactical Warlord, for example). Some are okay to grab in feat form, but many aren't, and it shouldn't be possible to grab them in this way. Instead, it'd be better if they simply limited you to the same feats as multiclassed characters who want to pick up other class features - you can grab the first strike rogue feature with a feat, which is fine, but you shouldn't be able to grab Combat Superiority or Tactical Warlord or numerous other features in this manner.
That's a druid. You don't even need to multi-class.
Nope, that only gives you shape shifting. To get your wolf pack mate you need to a ranger for the animal companion.
The main problem I see (trying to judge without any experience) is that it sounds as though hybrid classes are better than paragon multiclassing.
Seeing as paragon multi-classing is probably the single weakest option for paragon this doesn't worry me too much. If anything I'd be tempted to let a character who multiclasses that heavily just convert to a hybrid at paragon.
The problem with Hybrid classes is that they're just a bad idea. The reason is simple: filling two roles is going to cause issues. Either you're inadequate at both, which makes you feel underpowered, even if you're not, or you're adequate at both, which makes for an overpowered character who outshines other party members.
Or they could be adequate at both without excelling at either. It's a tricky target to hit, but there is a middle ground. That being said, mixed role hybrids are probably best as a fifth character to fill in weak spots as needed.
One major issue is that some combinations are better than single-class versions. A good example is the cleric|warlord, who has every single feature of the warlord, but can choose powers from both the cleric and the warlord.
The playtest warlord does gain more class features than they should. If they loose Combat Leader in the final version that should bring them on par with the other hybrids.
The other issue is the Hybrid Talent feat. It gives you the ability to grab a lot of class features which you cannot give away with a feat.
Hybrid Talent is effectively a "feat tax" on hybrids which helps pay for their versatility. It has the nice side effect of letting the character get a build choice class feature (Implement Mastery, Fighter Talent, ect..) while only giving you one of those signature features.
Nope, that only gives you shape shifting. To get your wolf pack mate you need to a ranger for the animal companion.
ah, I see.
You said 'lead wolves as a wolf' tho, which could easily be done with a Druid... have the upcoming summon spells re-fluffed as his wolf pack swooping in.
[*]Arcane Trickster: A magic wielding thief. Yes, the rouge could pick up a few spells, but it's ironically access to cantrips (the mechanically weakest spells) that really help give this combo it's flavor. A con-man with prestidigitation and ghost sound is ripe with role playing possibilities.[/LIST]
I'd just do that as a Wizard MC into Rogue with a couple of feats to pick up key skills like Stealth. You don't even need to take any of the power swap feats.
You want to see a "powerful" Hybrid?
Dwarf Fighter/Warlock level 2+ (HT: Battlerager) with 16 strength and 18 Con, with Crushing Surge and Eltrich Blast (w/reaper's touch) w/ a Pact Hammer.
On your turn, curse the target crushing surge. If you hit, yay, more damage and more temp HP. Miss, and the target is still marked. You're a battlerager so attacking you is pointless... but if they don't, they eat d10 +d6 +con from Eltrich blast.
EDIT: At higher levels, dual wield a pair of Pact hammers, with TWF, TWO, Dual Implement Caster, and anything else that seems interesting. Every time an effect generates a MBA, use Eltrich blast, giving you effectively D10 offhand weapons)
I would bet that the Combat Challenge (Hybrid) will be edited to you can only make the attacks with Fighter powers.
The main problem I see (trying to judge without any experience) is that it sounds as though hybrid classes are better than paragon multiclassing. Normally, with paragon multiclassing you can't also take a paragon path. From what I read of Hybrid Classes, you can pretty much do what you can do with PMCing (i.e. combine two classes,) gain class features from both classes, and still take a paragon path on top of all of it. Granted, I understand that you don't get all of the features of both classes, but it still sounds as though Hybrid Classes are a bit better than the current option of Paragon Multiclassing. Right now this is mainly just a 'kneejerk' reaction though since I have no first-hand knowledge of or experience with hybrid classes.
It mostly sounds to be balanced, but I'll have to wait and see it firsthand.
The problem with PMC is that it is ultimately a failed mechanicsm. PMC does not let you gain class features from both classes, doesn't provide basic elements of the paragon tier and completely fails to represent a character who is roughly equally invested in two classes. While WotC has gone to lengths to make PMC a fair option in a handful of extremely specific cases, on the whole it is not a successful capstone to the multiclass system.
While the multiclass system is good as a whole, it simply doesn't allow for combing classes on the level of the hybrid system. The two systems compliment each other nicely - they have contrasting strengths and weaknesses, and they don't really overlap. Even if PMC were fixed (which is doable), hybrid classes are sufficiently different in scope to be justified as a system.
The other issue is the Hybrid Talent feat. It gives you the ability to grab a lot of class features which you cannot give away with a feat. In particular, you've got class features such as Combat Superiority, which is simply not fair to allow in feat form, as well as the Warlord class features (Tactical Warlord, for example). Some are okay to grab in feat form, but many aren't, and it shouldn't be possible to grab them in this way. Instead, it'd be better if they simply limited you to the same feats as multiclassed characters who want to pick up other class features - you can grab the first strike rogue feature with a feat, which is fine, but you shouldn't be able to grab Combat Superiority or Tactical Warlord or numerous other features in this manner.
I'd actualy argue that hybrid talent should be a feature of the hybrid system, and not have an additional feat cost. Base hybrids are shortchanged in terms of class features - particulary since the features they do get don't synergize as well as a single-class characters features will. Having a 1 feat 'tax' for the ability isn't bad, but it definately pushes hybrids towards the 'suboptimal' category as a base.
So, when the bard is around, the hybrid PC tanks with the pally. When the bard isn't around, the hybrid can still tank, but also helps with healing and tactical stuff too. It's been great. As far as balance goes, the PC as a hybrid is much more effective in combat than as a warlord, (granted the player also rebuilt the PC, so that should be taken into account, but the rebuild was to work with the hybrid build). Anyway, the PC is effective without being unbalanced or overpowered.
We've really liked how hybrids have worked out so far, and none of us are hardcore power-gamers and ultimate optimizers. We will take a feat for flavor, have a low ability score because of the PC's background, or do things that a power-gamer might not do just for fun.
I would bet that the Combat Challenge (Hybrid) will be edited to you can only make the attacks with Fighter powers.
It does say that you can only mark with fighter powers. And it generates Melee Basics, which are weaker than fighter powers.
However, Reaper's Touch is a feat that allows you to use a specific warlock power as a Melee Basic. This allows you to use Curse damage when Combat Challange is triggered.
While it's true it does not specifically say you can spend more than one feat, it also doesn't limit a player to taking the feat just once. In fact, the article implicitly states a player can take multiple hybrid feats in the paragraph describing the differences between hybrid and multiclass characters:
(p.4, emphasis mine)
Except there is a general rule that a feat cannot be taken more than once. There are some feats that declare themselves to be exceptions to this general rule, such as Weapon Focus, but Hybrid Talent does not.
Except there is a general rule that a feat cannot be taken more than once. There are some feats that declare themselves to be exceptions to this general rule, such as Weapon Focus, but Hybrid Talent does not.
Yea, that. I'd imagine that the rules Kevtar quoted were referring to class specific feats. So, yea, unfortunately only one Hybrid Talent feat per character.
I'd actualy argue that hybrid talent should be a feature of the hybrid system, and not have an additional feat cost. Base hybrids are shortchanged in terms of class features - particulary since the features they do get don't synergize as well as a single-class characters features will. Having a 1 feat 'tax' for the ability isn't bad, but it definately pushes hybrids towards the 'suboptimal' category as a base.
Well, I find that the one hybrid character in my game currently does not have Hybrid Talnet and I find he does quite well. With so many possible combinations and more to come, certain hybrid combos will be pretty good and become better with Hybrid Talent. Others will be quite weak. He's only at level 2 right now, so the performance of his character may change as we go up in levels.
While it's true it does not specifically say you can spend more than one feat, it also doesn't limit a player to taking the feat just once. In fact, the article implicitly states a player can take multiple hybrid feats in the paragraph describing the differences between hybrid and multiclass characters:
(p.4, emphasis mine)
That quote is talking about how multiclass characters spend feats to get benefits, and how hybrid characters get roughly the same benefits without spending feats. That isn't talking about hybrid characters taking hybrid talent more than once.It's not really that hard to think of concepts that are hybrid friendly:
- Wolf Brother: A character who leads wolves as a wolf. This concept can barely be covered by a ranger/druid as the character can only attack in wild shape form once an encounter.
- "Bear"serker: A warrior who becomes a raging beast in battle. This can be covered at paragon by the Bear Warrior, but hybriding the barabarian with either a druid or a warden lets you do that right out the gate.
- King of Thieves: A master thief who is also a leader of their motley band. Yes, a rogue could pick up warlord powers, but they couldn't command their men to attack in their place.
- Arcane Trickster: A magic wielding thief. Yes, the rouge could pick up a few spells, but it's ironically access to cantrips (the mechanically weakest spells) that really help give this combo it's flavor. A con-man with prestidigitation and ghost sound is ripe with role playing possibilities.
- Arcane Priest: A priest of a god of magic or arcane knowledge.
- Fey Shifter: Either a symbol of nature's fury with a touch of fey power or a fey trickster with a talent for shapeshifting (ex. "Puck" from classic folklore)
- "Gandalf": Less a concept and more a specific character example. He had magic from simple cantrips to more impressive effects, but the majority of his in combat actions were swordfighting.
I agree that some of these are tricky to build right now, although several posts above give good suggestions. However, the design effort invested in Hybrid rules could be poured into improving PMC rules instead, keeping the "mixing classes" shtick within the same rules system. I'm thinking of some improvements to the power swap feats to keep the feat tax low and better PMC level feats with class features, expanding on what Arcane Power started to do. The hybrid rules are still limiting because you can only get certain class features (some of them hybridized) and not mix and match those you need for your character concept. And even then many of them only work on half your character (striker features, fighter marks, etc). If it's just about getting the At-Will earlier and the (example) beast companion class feature, they can provide balanced feats for both cases without artifically halving all existing classes in the middle.
The problem with PMC is that it is ultimately a failed mechanicsm. PMC does not let you gain class features from both classes, doesn't provide basic elements of the paragon tier and completely fails to represent a character who is roughly equally invested in two classes. While WotC has gone to lengths to make PMC a fair option in a handful of extremely specific cases, on the whole it is not a successful capstone to the multiclass system.
While the multiclass system is good as a whole, it simply doesn't allow for combing classes on the level of the hybrid system. The two systems compliment each other nicely - they have contrasting strengths and weaknesses, and they don't really overlap. Even if PMC were fixed (which is doable), hybrid classes are sufficiently different in scope to be justified as a system.
Point is there is a set of rules for mixing classes: The multiclassing rules. They should work with that instead of providing a similar but seperate ruleset. There's no need to bloat up the character building options with duplicate rulesets. And while right now they look different, give the PMC some love instead of pursuing hybrid rules and Multiclass/PMC rules can do the same job. Like you say, PMC can be fixed. I just think if they fix it (I'd rather say expand on it) having a second ruleset like Hybrid would be unnecessary, and we'd still have more options while preserving the initial design of 4E. IMO 3/3.5 suffered greatly from too many sub-rulesets and I'd hate for 4E to go down that road.
The best idea I've seen in the homebrewed discussions about PMC is a Paragon Path that represents PMCing in that class, and where you get similar features at 11th and 16th level that regular Paragon Paths get. That way you still pay for having two fleshed out classes (by losing the Paragon Path option), but you are fully capable of your first class and have most features of the second. You avoid the whole "half hitpoints rounded down stink for some matchups, armor/weapon proficiencies loss, can't mark with half the powers" issues hybrid rules bring.
The best idea I've seen in the homebrewed discussions about PMC is a Paragon Path that represents PMCing in that class, and where you get similar features at 11th and 16th level that regular Paragon Paths get. That way you still pay for having two fleshed out classes (by losing the Paragon Path option), but you are fully capable of your first class and have most features of the second. You avoid the whole "half hitpoints rounded down stink for some matchups, armor/weapon proficiencies loss, can't mark with half the powers" issues hybrid rules bring.
Actually, that's very close to what my Consolidated Multiclass Patch does. (In fact, it might be my patch that you're talking about - if so, thank you). While it is a good approach that resolves many of the issues of Paragon Multiclassing - there are issues that simply cannot be addressed by fixing multiclassing. First and foremost, multiclassing forces you to wait until Paragon tier to fully realize playing a dual-class character. While that is fine for some characters, conceptually there are some characters I'd prefer to have a mix from 1st level. It also requires a huge investment of feats and coopts the choice of a paragon path - which means fewer options to personalize the character you are playing.
While it does avoid some of the issues that the hybrid rules have, it creates different ones. A system like my consolodated multiclass patch requires as much effort and resource expenditure as the hybrid system does - but it does not accomplish the same goals. Realistically, I believe multiclassing does more or less what WotC wants it to do and I don't see them taking it in that direction (on the outside, they might do a simplified version like my Alternate Paragon Multiclass Rule, but even that's hoping a bit.)
Ultimately though, having the hybrid system does not in any way prevent them from improving the multiclass system - the houserules I've developed are fully compatible with the hybrid system. Having more than one way of doing things is a good thing and the two systems compliment each other niecely. I can't see it as a wasted effort.
You avoid the whole "half hitpoints rounded down stink for some matchups, armor/weapon proficiencies loss, can't mark with half the powers" issues hybrid rules bring.
Let's keep in mind that the hybrid rules are in playtest for a reason. It's very unlikely that the final version will look the same.
1.) Ripe for abuse. There are people in my LFR and home group already crunching the numbers for ways to get the "be-all, end-all, one man army" PC with which to dominate a gaming session.
2.) The Multi-Class Feats do a great job at keeping balance and allowing PC's to access the powers and abilities from other classes at the cost of sacrificing powers from the primary class. I loved this idea!!!!
With hybrids, there's no sacrifice, hybrids get the best of both worlds. I did read the restrictions on armor and weapons etc. for hybrids, but it's not enough. Also, hybrids can take a multi-class feat and gain access to a third class and it's benefits as well. Also, the bard could become a lot of people's favorite class for a hybrid PC. Combine the Multi-Class Versitility of the Bard with any other class, for example a Sorcerer, and then take multi-class feats for a Fey Pact Warlock, a Rogue, a ranger and say a Wizard. Then take the Combat Vertuoso feat to allow all multi-class attacks to key off charisma and well you get the idea. Also don't forget to make him a human to get an extra at-will and extra starting feat or half-elf to gain access to yet another at-will power from a different class to use as an encounter power.
3.) When they're legal for LFR, it's going to become a contest to see who can pile up the most the class and multi-class feat combos to make the most cheesy PC at the table and destroy game balance at the same time. Thus, rendering single-classed PC's effectively obsolete in game play. Because why would anyone want to play a plain old rogue, when you could play a rogue/warlock hybrid with the fey pact who has the ranger multi-class feat? The hybrid would get to curse, get sneak attack and quarry dice to attacks and go invisible. If they get the Predatory Action feat, they add quarry damage a second time with an action point.
I'm not looking forward to hybrids at all.
why would anyone want to play a plain old rogue, when you could play a rogue/warlock hybrid with the fey pact who has the ranger multi-class feat? The hybrid would get to curse, get sneak attack and quarry dice to attacks and go invisible. If they get the Predatory Action feat, they add quarry damage a second time with an action point.
Um...because a pure rogue would have more focus and would probably actually be better than the character you suggest? Your suggested character's advantages are 1) versatility and 2) can do a bunch of damage to exactly one creature per encounter. As opposed to a pure rogue who would do less damage (because he only has sneak attack, but no curse or quarry) to, probably, most enemies he attacks (so long as he gets combat advantage). Remember, a hybrid character has the hybrid version of sneak attack and warlock curse which only do their damage if used in conjunction with a rogue power or a warlock power respectively, and the ranger multiclass feat has hunter's quarry usable only once an encounter. Also, you'd be wasting two feats on that build, Hybrid Talent and the ranger MC feat, whereas a pure rogue could spend those feats on something that further hones his roguish abilities, most likely making him stronger in the long run.
Basically, this character you suggest might make a better one on one character with the bonus quarry damage, but in the long run I'd say your damage potential over a long encounter would be easily outshined by another pure striker, especially considering the feat support that other striker would have.
1.) Ripe for abuse. There are people in my LFR and home group already crunching the numbers for ways to get the "be-all, end-all, one man army" PC with which to dominate a gaming session.
Can't be done. The underlying structure of the character is unchanged. You gain no additional powers, have reduced class features and fewer innate synergies. You gain versitality, but everything you can do is less effective overall. 4E is about teamwork, a hybrid character just has more ways in which to die if he decides to go it alone.
2.) The Multi-Class Feats do a great job at keeping balance and allowing PC's to access the powers and abilities from other classes at the cost of sacrificing powers from the primary class. I loved this idea!!!!
Hybrids do the exact same thing. You don't gain any new powers, so any powers you gain from one class come out of the powers you have available for the other. Also hybrids are forced to make this sacrifice - with multiclass characters it's always an option.
And yes, a hybrid can multiclass and get a selection of powers from 3 classes - but there's really a diminish in returns here. Unless all 3 classes are tightly focused you'd be spreading yourself way to thin to be effective.
I'm concerned with Hybrid Classes, regarding Half Elves. Their extra at will seems to become largely redundant with the advent of hybrid classes, when you can simply have the at wills of any two classes from the start of the game now.
I disagree...a half-elf wizard, for example, can be all a wizard can be with the added addition of having an at-will from a different class as an encounter power (and later as an at-will if they want to spend a feat on it). Whereas a hybrid wizard doesn't have a spellbook, ritual caster, or implement mastery making them significantly worse at being a wizard with the addition of added versatility from whatever class they hybrid into. It's also important to note that the power gained by the half-elf racial feature is in addition to their other at-wills, as opposed to the hybrid character's split of at-wills between the classes. I wouldn't say it's more powerful. If anything I'd say it's less so.