Hybrid classes - lazy design?

People are beginning to design new classes for 4E. This is all fun but I'm beginning to be bothered about the hybrid classes. In 4E a class should belong to one of four roles; leader, controller, striker, or defender. We have also learned that the druid might become a hybrid; that the druid might be a leader and controller simultaeously. Hybrid classing suddenly looks like a good compromise when designing a new class, to get the flavor just right. But it isn't. In my humble opinion. It's just lazy design. What do you think?

When designing a new class one need to be think twice before making it a hybrid, lest too many new classes will be hybrids. What's the point of having roles then?

Let's say we are designing a knight class and can't decide between leader and defender. Is making the knight a hybrid a good choice? No, I'd rather have both; a leader knight and a defender knight.

I don't know about you but I will think twice before allowing a hybrid into my game. I hope designers will have the determination to steer clear of this potentially game breaking design choice.

"Role" doesn't have any significance within the rules. It's a metagame concept, to help organise the mass of D&D classes. If you know what role a class has, that gives you an idea of what it's supposed to do and how to play it.

I can see that there might be a danger if someone makes a hybrid class without a clear idea of what it's supposed to be doing; or if someone makes a hybrid PC without knowing how to play it. But let's see how things pan out.

In terms of hybrid classes, there are some cases where it just makes sense. The Druid is going to have wild shape as a main component. By it's very nature, you mix elements of probably defender and striker, depending on the type of animal characteristics you wild shape into. I would doubt that leader or controller would be part of it.

Also, we've already seen that, at first, each class will be given two "modes", based on what they will use for their secondary stat. For example, charismatic warlord vs. intelligent warlord. They could easily make the "hybrid" class work in that each of the modes will be based on the roles.

For example, there is the striker/fast druid that, especially in combat, often becomes a predator, while you can also have a defender/tough druid that, especially in combat, often becomes an animal suitable for that type of style, like a bear or similar type.

Ultimately, you'd choose to be one "role", that dabbles in the other area, which is already possible with certain cross class ability training and such.

In general though, defender = a power to 'mark' a target so they can't get away from you, strike = a power to 'mark' a target so you deal more damage to it, leader = a power to activate another players healing surges, controller is a bit more vague, we haven't seen multiple examples to tell what the common theme is, but generally, hitting multiple enemies at once is a big part of it.

So, for a defender/striker ... you can have your "build" choice give you different effects for your marked foe, either a defendery power, or a strikery power.

It's not that big a deal. As a matter of fact, it's from WotC's preview of the Druid that we first got a look at the Hybrid class concept, so I imagine they will be doing at least a few of them.

Remember, by default so far each Class has two Builds to choose from. A Hybrid class could easily fulfill a particular role based upon the Build he chooses. The Build would be your focus and you choose your Powers to compliment your character concept.

Roles are there as a guide to filling out an effective party, not as a straight-jacket to creativity.

The important part of roles is that they serve as an advice how to play the character in combat. What are you supposed to do? What can you bring into the group?

If a class is a Hybrid class, it risks lacking this clarity. Furthmore, it might allow you to make "builds" that are ineffective, since you try to fulfill two rules, leading to the "Jack of Trades, Mater of None" problem.

I think that's why it can work with Druids, but I'd be careful for other classes.
The shape can be used to signify the role you're performing.
If the class needs a Striker, you take shapes that supplement the Striker aspect. If it needs a Defender, you take shapes that supplement the Defender aspect.
Alternatively, Shapeshifting means you're striking (from my experience, 3E Druids are bad at defending, since they lack AC and HP, but their forms can deal a lot of damage), not shapeshifting means you're controlling.

These are two ways to make this work. While levelling up, you don't have to choose between Controller/Striker or Defender/Striker powers. You basically pick powers that can cover both, but in any given encounter, you will probably rely only on one set of powers for one role. So you will never lack a cruical ability to make your role work.

A Knight could have a similar approach. As a hybrid Defender/Striker, you would strike when you're sitting on your horse (you get mobility and a superior attack, fitting for a Striker), and while on the ground, you're defending (wearing heavy armor). That's also a viable approach, I suppose.

AZRogue said:

Roles are there as a guide to filling out an effective party, not as a straight-jacket to creativity.

Click to expand...

Roles are there so each player may bring something special to the game. Hybridization of new classes will lead to players stepping on each others' toes.

Frostmarrow said:

Roles are there so each player may bring something special to the game. Hybridization of new classes will lead to players stepping on each others' toes.

Click to expand...

The idea behind hybrids is that of sacrificing depth for breadth.

The hybrid can do more, sure. But he can't do it as well as a specialist. The hybrid doesn't step on the toes of the specialist, because he can't fill the specialist's role indefinitely. Likewise, the specialist doesn't have the versatility of the hybrid.

Frostmarrow said:

Roles are there so each player may bring something special to the game. Hybridization of new classes will lead to players stepping on each others' toes.

Click to expand...

No more so than if you had two players who want to play Strikers and no one wants to play a Leader. The roles are there to help and to guide, not to act as a hard limit to party creation. WotC's designers obviously feel that certain classes will benefit from being hybrids. We'll have to see how they're implemented, but the idea is sound.

EDIT: And add in what Gnomeworks said.

Also: The current classes aren't just filling a single role as well. But they are focused enough to be classified as part of that role.

For example, the warlock has a bit of a controller-ish bent, as some powers can influence the movement of the target. The cleric and the warlord look pretty different. The warlord can easily double as melee fighter, while the cleric with his "cause fear" has a controller-ish bent. And so forth.

The PHB1 classes seem to be narrow enough to keep being a single role - but other classes may be broader. The trick is, as many mentioned above, to keep them versatile, while not stepping on anybody's toes.

Cheers, LT.

GnomeWorks said:

The idea behind hybrids is that of sacrificing depth for breadth.

The hybrid can do more, sure. But he can't do it as well as a specialist. The hybrid doesn't step on the toes of the specialist, because he can't fill the specialist's role indefinitely. Likewise, the specialist doesn't have the versatility of the hybrid.

Click to expand...

Breadth is not a good concept. We've already seen how that works with the 3E bard. WoTC have said they are deliberatly avoiding jacks-of-all-trades.

No more so than if you had two players who want to play Strikers and no one wants to play a Leader. The roles are there to help and to guide, not to act as a hard limit to party creation. WotC's designers obviously feel that certain classes will benefit from being hybrids. We'll have to see how they're implemented, but the idea is sound.

Click to expand...

Two players picking the same role will step on each others toes, too. But that's manageable. Hybrids will potentially step on two sets of toes and the transparency in how the 'role-system', if you will, will be lost.

I think WoTC will be very careful about hybrids. Maybe we'll see the druid (they are shapechangers after all) as a hybrid but other than that my guess is hybrids will be restricted. This is just my tip to 3rd party publishers and amateur designers. -Stick with the roles.

Well, I've said my piece. Have fun!