Hybrid Roles (Amalgam Classes) - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Hybrid Roles (Amalgam Classes)

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
raven1272
Apr 20, 2010 22:53:51
I have an undirected question.

Why was the concept of hybrid roles dropped?

Surely the hybrid rules effect the same basic principal. You could be one thing, you might be another, or you might be a hodgepodge of uselessness, or you could be a volatile cocktail of unstable power combinations.

Recently I have been looking at the large number of classes and wondering if they couldn't be consolidated and merged into a smaller number classes with broader concepts. An example would be merging the paladin and the avenger into some sort of templar. I see no reason why some templar might be knights while other templar might be zealous assassins.

Obviously you can merge the hybrid paladin features in with the hybrid avenger features to effectively create a new base class. Then you merge the power lists with or without the alternating selection restriction. That sounds like a decent working foundation to build a hybrid role amalgam class. If you really wanted to go for broke you group starting powers. Defender templars get these abilities, striker avengers get these abilities, hybrids get these few abilities and you can spend a feat to get one more from the other sets. Smooth out the implements a bit, and you have a beta version of an amalgam class capable of defender or strike depending on the players desire.

I realize asking this is for people to speculate on authorial intention, but does anyone know some of the thought processes behind the death of hybrid role mechanics?

#2
inarai
Apr 20, 2010 23:02:47 ... Why is less classes "good"? Doesn't that just decrease variety?

As for hybrid roles... Wouldn't that just be having a very strong secondary?
#3
rampant
Apr 21, 2010 2:17:32 I think you're confused. We have a hybrid class system, where by you can fuse two classes with different roles. Thus your Templar could simply be Avenger-Paladins.

As to why some templar are pallys and some are assassins, reflect on the differences between Galahad and the Operative.
#4
pluisjen
Apr 21, 2010 3:29:34 You could always call both the Paladin and the Avengar a "Templar" and when you build a Templar, you first choose whether you want to be a Paladin, an Avengar, or a hybrid Paladin/Avenger.

Kinda like choosing whether you want to be an Artful Dodger Rogue or a Brutal Scoundrel Rogue.
#5
babyj
Apr 21, 2010 6:08:34 Indeed. With this method that Pluisjen describes, I like to think I am able to make new classes from everything. Shameless plug:

Example: I made a class for a 4th ed Star Wars campaign setting, and I just changed implements to Ki Foci for swordmage, and then let them pick their builds as a Centered Breath Jedi Knight, Stone Fist Jedi Knight (both monk class choices), Assault Jedi Knight, Ensnaring Jedi Knight, or Shielding Jedi Knight (all swordmage class choices). Either way, their class was considered Jedi Knight, but one might have a different set of powers.
The consulars were similarly handled but by giving them two classes (leader and controller), one that was composed from Psions and Wizards, the other from the Ardent and a (nonvocal) Bard. All also could only use ki implements.
MCing between a leader consular and a controller consular, same as MCing, just hide it behind the names.
BTW: All a ki implement is, is a way to say the jedi has to keep training to increase his power (ie-spend coin to go from +1 to +2).

Point is..
This changing of naming convention accomplishes exactly what you describe as your intent, I think. Sounds like an excellent idea if templar fit into your campaign.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 raven1272 Apr 20, 2010 22:53:51	I have an undirected question. Why was the concept of hybrid roles dropped? Surely the hybrid rules effect the same basic principal. You could be one thing, you might be another, or you might be a hodgepodge of uselessness, or you could be a volatile cocktail of unstable power combinations. Recently I have been looking at the large number of classes and wondering if they couldn't be consolidated and merged into a smaller number classes with broader concepts. An example would be merging the paladin and the avenger into some sort of templar. I see no reason why some templar might be knights while other templar might be zealous assassins. Obviously you can merge the hybrid paladin features in with the hybrid avenger features to effectively create a new base class. Then you merge the power lists with or without the alternating selection restriction. That sounds like a decent working foundation to build a hybrid role amalgam class. If you really wanted to go for broke you group starting powers. Defender templars get these abilities, striker avengers get these abilities, hybrids get these few abilities and you can spend a feat to get one more from the other sets. Smooth out the implements a bit, and you have a beta version of an amalgam class capable of defender or strike depending on the players desire. I realize asking this is for people to speculate on authorial intention, but does anyone know some of the thought processes behind the death of hybrid role mechanics?
#2 inarai Apr 20, 2010 23:02:47	... Why is less classes "good"? Doesn't that just decrease variety? As for hybrid roles... Wouldn't that just be having a very strong secondary?
#3 rampant Apr 21, 2010 2:17:32	I think you're confused. We have a hybrid class system, where by you can fuse two classes with different roles. Thus your Templar could simply be Avenger-Paladins. As to why some templar are pallys and some are assassins, reflect on the differences between Galahad and the Operative.
#4 pluisjen Apr 21, 2010 3:29:34	You could always call both the Paladin and the Avengar a "Templar" and when you build a Templar, you first choose whether you want to be a Paladin, an Avengar, or a hybrid Paladin/Avenger. Kinda like choosing whether you want to be an Artful Dodger Rogue or a Brutal Scoundrel Rogue.
#5 babyj Apr 21, 2010 6:08:34	Indeed. With this method that Pluisjen describes, I like to think I am able to make new classes from everything. Shameless plug: Example: I made a class for a 4th ed Star Wars campaign setting, and I just changed implements to Ki Foci for swordmage, and then let them pick their builds as a Centered Breath Jedi Knight, Stone Fist Jedi Knight (both monk class choices), Assault Jedi Knight, Ensnaring Jedi Knight, or Shielding Jedi Knight (all swordmage class choices). Either way, their class was considered Jedi Knight, but one might have a different set of powers. The consulars were similarly handled but by giving them two classes (leader and controller), one that was composed from Psions and Wizards, the other from the Ardent and a (nonvocal) Bard. All also could only use ki implements. MCing between a leader consular and a controller consular, same as MCing, just hide it behind the names. BTW: All a ki implement is, is a way to say the jedi has to keep training to increase his power (ie-spend coin to go from +1 to +2). Point is.. This changing of naming convention accomplishes exactly what you describe as your intent, I think. Sounds like an excellent idea if templar fit into your campaign.