Hybrid classes - lazy design?

[am181d]

A hybrid class shouldn't be any better or worse than a focused class, it should simply have a broader (important: not *larger*) range of options. Theoretically, you should be able to play four hybrid classes that, between them, cover all the basic functions of a party, even if sometimes the mostly-striker is doing controller things or the mostly-controller is doing leader things.

This bit of logic is, I presume, going to be more relevant to the execution of multi-class rules (which will be in the PHB) than to hypothetical new classes (which will, by virtue of their hypotheticality, not be).

 

[Dausuul]

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.

My understanding was that roles are also there to guide the designers, so they don't create a class that a) steps on another class's toes or b) can't pull its own weight in the party. In which case a hybrid completely defeats the point.

 

[DreamChaser]

A hybrid class shouldn't be any better or worse than a focused class, it should simply have a broader (important: not *larger*) range of options. Theoretically, you should be able to play four hybrid classes that, between them, cover all the basic functions of a party, even if sometimes the mostly-striker is doing controller things or the mostly-controller is doing leader things.

This bit of logic is, I presume, going to be more relevant to the execution of multi-class rules (which will be in the PHB) than to hypothetical new classes (which will, by virtue of their hypotheticality, not be).

The problem with broad is that we are talking about fixed resources.

As we know that each class gains 15 powers (and 2 at will and various "class feature" abilities), a broad class is incapable of filling a give role as well as a narrow class UNLESS his individual powers are more effective than the similar powers of the specialist. Thus, there is the option of a controller / striker who has 2 each encounter / daily powers related to each role (one of each must be paragon so more related to the hybrid role) and 7 utilities, 3 or 4 from each role. This being the case, he could never "strike" as well as a rogue nor "control" as well as a wizard (unless his powers were disproportionately powerful compared to the rogue's or wizard's)

That's the point, you might say. But this is where the problem lies. The half of each role he lacks must either but filled by another character (placing a burden for double roles on another player or requiring that everyone play a hybrid) or the party will be lacking some core firepower (like having a bard as your healer in 3e).

Thus, my assertion that a sub-role works but a true hybrid is problematic at best.

DC

 

[Voss]

This is one case where WoW offers a very, very good example (*gasp*). Previous to patch 2.0 or so, most of the "hybrid" classes in WoW were wanted only as healers. Druids had a tanking and physical damage talent tree and a spellcasting damage tree, paladins could build their talents around being able to heal, tank, or do damage, but the problem was that Blizzard had approached theese classes with the logic 3e jack of all trades were built around. In exchange for being able to fill any role in the game, they weren't as good as "pure" tanks or damage dealers. And, of course, nobody wanted paladins or druids that did damage or tanked, because other classes did those jobs much better.

Since then, Blizzard has changed their attitude, and (for example) tanking paladins and druids are equal to tanking warriors. To the point that paladins and druids have successfully tanked every high end raid boss in the game with a couple exceptions; some bosses have abilities that make a particular class impractical as a tank for it. They're all about equally good, with small advantages in specific situations.

This actually why I think hybrids are a bad idea. It's bad when they aren't good enough at any role, but its just as bad (for the rest of the party) when they can do your job just as well, and fall back on their other abilities when those are more advantageous. The question changes from 'Why be a druid?' to 'Why be anything but a druid?'. Sort of the problem in the 3rd edition now- the full casters can handle any single problem the other classes are specifically designed for, and still do their own thing.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I really don't like the idea of a proliferation of "Hybrid" classes either. Unless the designers make a conscious effort to make a class useful to the party in a certain way, then it is likely to be far less useful than it should be. Not to mention that an excess of hybrids would cloud up the role terminology that is otherwise useful for building a team. Classes have more than enough flexibility in any given role to warrant creating hybrid roles.

That said, I don't think we need to get up in arms about this yet. Keep in mind that we have only heard about the Druid's "Hybrid" role from the Druid's designer. The druid he wrote still has to go through the WotC development process, which is well known for its tendency to sometimes drastically alter a designer's creation, sometimes beyond recognition. I am fairly confident that the Druid will have a clear role by the time it is published in a book.

 

[MerricB]

There are big differences between the 3e hybrid and the 4e hybrid.

In 3e, you had the druid:
* Melee abilites that were on par with the fighter's, and could go as long (that is, indefinitely).
* Spell abilities that were on par with the wizard's, and could go as long (that is, until they ran out of spells).

Add them together and you had a class that could go twice as long at top speed (and often outclass everyone else).

Then you had the 3e bard.
* Melee abilities that were on par with... well, above the Wizard but worse than everyone elses.
* Spell abilities that were on par with... below any casting class. Better than the paladin's, but that's not saying much.

So the bard was *inferior* to any specialist class in combat. Occasionally, very occasionally, you'd get a monster the bard worked well against, but it was rare.

In 4e, any hybrid class will have an entire suite of abilities that will be on par with everyone else's: their daily power will track with the power-level of other classes' daily powers, and they'll have the same number of powers as everyone else.

What they won't have is the same number of specialist powers as a dedicated specialist. Instead of having two daily powers that are "Striker", they may have one daily power that is "Striker" and another that is "Defender".

Of course, I expect that you could specialise in Defender powers if you really wanted to...

However, the existence of At Will and Encounter powers mean that they can fulfill the lesser part of their role consistently... and at a level only slightly less than a true specialist could.

So, I don't see hybrid classes being the same nightmares as in 3e. I do think a hybrid Controller/Defender as being problematic (HP/Armour), but the power level of a hybrid won't be such a problem. Instead, it's merely how long they can fulfill the requirements of their role.

Cheers!

 

[lutecius]

First, I don’t believe in roles. Assuming that a party needs some muscle to protect spellcasters and a good “first aid kit” (be it one healer, several minor healers or potions) is enough for me. Striker, controller and buffer overlap anyway, so hybrid roles don't bother me that much.

But if you do subscribe to that role philosophy and “shifter druid” and “weather controlling druid” end up being two builds with different roles, like some here seem to think, why lump them together at all?

Without the elemental and animal control powers, they no longer have that unifying “nature priest” theme going on and don’t have much to do with each other anymore.
Just make some shamanic-shifter-totem-warrior class and some weather-mage-raindancer-and-maybe-plant-controller class.

Thematically, wizards and warlocks have more in common and yet they are different classes.
So it's not lazy, it's inconsistent

(well, removing the druid's summoning spells because of that extra action "problem" is lazy design)

 

[Darth Cyric]

Removing the Druid's summoning spells was done because it was an aggravating factor toward 3.5 Druids destroying Tokyo on a minute-by-minute basis.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I'm going with Merric B.

The Role functions as a test.

Once you've put together the ethos and basic mechanics of the class, you ask yourself, 'Does it fulfill a role? If so which one?' and then go back and revise the class so that whatever else it does it fulfills a role effectively and compellingly.

So a hybird result is simply one where instead of having a lot of options to fulfill one role you have the same number of options spread across two roles.

So a Druid might be a very interesting character with whole lot of options, but it's not going to be as interesting a Striker as a Warlock or as interesting a Controller as a Wizard.

It's still as effective at either role, but where a Wizard when faced with a problem might say, 'Wait, I've got another controller solution,' the Druid says, 'I've used all of my controller options so I'm going to use my striker option to turn into a griffin and go sickhouse on them'

I don't think hybrid is interesting as as design goal. I wouldn't want to see the big book of hybrids, for instance. But I do think it will function as a good way to build an interesting character.

 

[lutecius]

Removing the Druid's summoning spells was done because it was an aggravating factor toward 3.5 Druids destroying Tokyo on a minute-by-minute basis.

... or not
I think it's more about other players having to wait while his allies destroy Tokyo. That's why they've completely reworked Summon Monsters and why we'll have to wait for them to work this out before we get classes with minions like the necromancer.