Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorhook" data-source="post: 4326711" data-attributes="member: 58401">Tangential discussion about combat role hybridismI appreciate the response, Ruin Explorer.I disagree that anyone in any party "must" play anything; combat roles don't provide the class concepts (ie: "what [players] want to play"), they simply inform effective contribution in combat.I believe "hybrid" classes are a bad idea because, I believe, such classes invite imbalance. I believe that hybrid-class characters would either have to be fully contributory in both roles (eg: "I'm a good Leader and Striker simultaneously!") or subpar in each role (eg: "I'm an ineffective Leader and an ineffective Striker simultaneously...."); anything other than perfect balance between a hybrid class's multiple roles would make such a class more one role than another, and thus not truly a hybrid, right? This kind of quasi-hybridism already exists in 4E, both in single classes like the Paladin (a Defender with a bit of Leader) or the Warlock (a Striker with a bit of Controller), as well as in multiclass combinations of all types; in these cases, (particularly with multiclassing) the character can be effective in two roles simultaneously, and yet remains more one role than the other.In short, I don't believe that hybrid roles are necessary in any form other than that in which they already exist in 4E, nor do I believe that it would be desirable to include any other form of role hybridism.Feel free to rebut!</blockquote>

Verification