Essentials multiclassing playtest?

[Destil]

Hybrid Slayer will be a tricky one for them to figure, I suspect. Same for all the "I'm barely more than a melee basic" classes.

Got to make sure a hybrid executioner / slayer isn't just a slayer with an extra d8 per tier damage, for example.

Yeah, there's plenty of stuff to look over here, but as far as feedback making sure that you can't double dip something like Slayer/Thief is the most important thing to get right. Unifying all the 'basic attack bonus' features somehow and forcing the hybrid to choose one and only one would be the best way to make it work, I think.

 

[ravenheart]

Repost from rpg.net:

I [] suspect they are reluctant to create hybrid options for the sub-classes that lack a close-to-normal power progression (such as Knights, Scouts, Slayers and Thieves). The Executioners poison uses are effectively daily powers, so I get how they could hybridize it.

The problem is how to balance static bonuses to basic attacks and at-will stances/tricks/special use powers with alternating power selections for hybrids, since there is great potential for abuse there, whether it is intentional or not.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Repost from rpg.net:

I [] suspect they are reluctant to create hybrid options for the sub-classes that lack a close-to-normal power progression (such as Knights, Scouts, Slayers and Thieves). The Executioners poison uses are effectively daily powers, so I get how they could hybridize it.

The problem is how to balance static bonuses to basic attacks and at-will stances/tricks/special use powers with alternating power selections for hybrids, since there is great potential for abuse there, whether it is intentional or not.

I think there's a more fundamental question about hybrids of things like Slayer. WHY would you do it? A Slayer is thematically no more or less than a highly striker optimized great weapon fighter. The whole point of the sub-class was to create a fairly simple 'canned' class build that someone could use who doesn't want a lot of complexity. Why on Earth would you want to hybridize that? If you want some fighter in your whatever, the use the existing hybrid fighter. There is neither a thematic nor a mechanical argument in favor of hybrid rules for the E-martial style classes. No new character concepts are opened up, no really interesting mechanics, nothing. It is no more than a tinkering exercise with no real benefit to the game. I seriously doubt you will see hybrids of these classes.

Cavalier, Blackguard, etc are much more arguable. They may not cover totally unique concepts, but they do have a good chunk of conceptual ground of their own that can be justifiably useful as hybrids (or what I would call 'neo-hybrid' in the case of things like some of the Vampire and Hexblade feats).

 

[KidSnide]

I think there's a more fundamental question about hybrids of things like Slayer. WHY would you do it? A Slayer is thematically no more or less than a highly striker optimized great weapon fighter. The whole point of the sub-class was to create a fairly simple 'canned' class build that someone could use who doesn't want a lot of complexity. Why on Earth would you want to hybridize that? If you want some fighter in your whatever, the use the existing hybrid fighter. There is neither a thematic nor a mechanical argument in favor of hybrid rules for the E-martial style classes. No new character concepts are opened up, no really interesting mechanics, nothing. It is no more than a tinkering exercise with no real benefit to the game. I seriously doubt you will see hybrids of these classes.

Speaking just for myself, I've thought that Slayer would be best used as a hybrid since I first read it. There are many character concepts that would be well served by taking another hybrid class and adding a good chunk of melee striker combat efficacy. The special advantage of the Slayer is that this efficacy comes with very little complexity. As I mostly create characters for other people to play, the ability to create hybrid concepts with an easier-than-normal learning curve would be a major advantage.

-KS

 

[erleni]

The assassin options are terrible. They had a chance to improve both the executioner and the oassassin here, and they failed badly. The only really solid thing about them is that they are, in fact, new feats, which means there's still support for feats (I'd been wondering, given that the races/classes in HoS got basically none).

Fully agree. They are really showing no love for the assassin and the executioner.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Speaking just for myself, I've thought that Slayer would be best used as a hybrid since I first read it. There are many character concepts that would be well served by taking another hybrid class and adding a good chunk of melee striker combat efficacy. The special advantage of the Slayer is that this efficacy comes with very little complexity. As I mostly create characters for other people to play, the ability to create hybrid concepts with an easier-than-normal learning curve would be a major advantage.

-KS

I guess the question is whether or not a messy hybridization between an AEDU and an E-martial class really is in any way 'easier-than-normal'. The original hybrid rules for all the straight PHB style AEDU classes seemed fairly straightforward to me. OTOH looking at these new hybrid rules makes my eyes cross, lol. Speaking for myself I'd have to spend a good chunk of time just experimenting with all the various permutations of swaps and interactions between the core hybrid rules and the various exceptions and modifications that are needed to deal with the less regular Essentials classes. I don't anticipate that building effective PCs hybridized with any of the Essentials classes (let alone the much different E-martial ones) is going to be at all simple or straightforward. What I see is a lot of complex interacting bits which only a rather deep understanding of the rules and careful study is going to let you do the most interesting and effective things with.

Obviously opinions on all of this will vary, but personally I'm not convinced hybridized E-martial classes would have any measurable benefit to the game. More likely they would represent a perpetual minefield to the devs where almost any little change to a class/build/feat/etc is likely to produce some incredibly obscure rules loophole that will then have to be closed up by yet more errata, etc etc etc.

 

[KidSnide]

Speaking just for myself, I've thought that Slayer would be best used as a hybrid since I first read it. There are many character concepts that would be well served by taking another hybrid class and adding a good chunk of melee striker combat efficacy. The special advantage of the Slayer is that this efficacy comes with very little complexity. As I mostly create characters for other people to play, the ability to create hybrid concepts with an easier-than-normal learning curve would be a major advantage.

I guess the question is whether or not a messy hybridization between an AEDU and an E-martial class really is in any way 'easier-than-normal'. The original hybrid rules for all the straight PHB style AEDU classes seemed fairly straightforward to me. OTOH looking at these new hybrid rules makes my eyes cross, lol.

To clarify, I was speaking of the simplicity to play such a character, not to design such a system. I would assume that any essentials multi-classing system would need to break down the character benefits into sets of powers that can be exchanged for some number of encounter or daily powers of a minimum level. I agree that designing such a breakdown would be a total PITA, but I think widening the range of possible characters with fewer powers and more static bonuses is a plus for the game.

-KS

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

To clarify, I was speaking of the simplicity to play such a character, not to design such a system. I would assume that any essentials multi-classing system would need to break down the character benefits into sets of powers that can be exchanged for some number of encounter or daily powers of a minimum level. I agree that designing such a breakdown would be a total PITA, but I think widening the range of possible characters with fewer powers and more static bonuses is a plus for the game.

-KS

Yeah, at the very least such a system would have to exist so we could evaluate that.

IMHO E-martial characters aren't actually easier to play in practice than 'classic' 4e characters. So I don't really see why they would be simpler to play hybrids either. At best I'm pretty skeptical they would be appreciably easier to play than a standard hybrid. In fact by the time you deal with all the odd little quirks of meshing things together they might be harder to play than anything we have now. Who knows though for sure. For all I know the devs have already been through this exercise and rejected the whole concept as just too awkward and not adding anything to the game. Perhaps we'll see, though. If it did work well I don't grudge people their fun. I doubt it would open up any really new concepts though.

 

[AntlerDruid]

Wish the Binder had been a playtest - still a disappointing class - I had wanted to play one til they out , then I found them very lacking.

Hexblade and Binder abilities should be abilities available to any warlock instead of sub-classes - I love the feat that grants the Pact Weapon.

 

[WalterKovacs]

Not sure if this works, but...

Executioner takes Pact Initiate (Warlock MC feat) and chooses a pact, then takes Pact Blade Manifestation from the article, and ends up getting a sweet MBA replacement that uses DEX thanks to the Executioner class feature, and qualifies for Cursed Shadow at the same time?

Seems potentially awesome.

I was just double checking, and the wording of pact initiate seems that you don't actually get a pact that way (you get the pact's at-will, and qualify specifically for paragon path's requiring that pact, but it doesn't actually say you gain the pact).

I was actually thinking the same thing, as it would have made it possible to do weird builds for various E-classes (a half-elf knight, for example, that uses a pact blade and thus charisma for all his MBAs; not to mention a thief that can pick up a +3/d10 light blade) but I don't think you actually get the pact unless you are a 'true' warlock (or at least hybrid). [the Binding Initiate seems to function the same way, giving you things associated with the pact, but not giving you the pact itself].

Seems they may have caught it (or just avoided it accidentally), as there doesn't really seem to be an easy way to mix the pact blade + associated MBA with the Eclasses that riff on MBAs themselves. The closest would be Executioner/Warlock hybrid, which would have some fun, but the only tricks Executioner's do with MBAs is the bits of striker damage, compared to stuff like power strike, backstab, the various stances, etc that the other Eclasses have. They still may want to address the Executioner issue.