Hybrid classes - lazy design?

[jtrowell]

Note that as a hybrid, the druid will probably not be both roles at the same time : I expect the druir to be able to be eitheir a competent controller in normal forme (spellcasting) *or* a competent striker (or maybe defender) in beast form.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Note that as a hybrid, the druid will probably not be both roles at the same time : I expect the druir to be able to be eitheir a competent controller in normal forme (spellcasting) *or* a competent striker (or maybe defender) in beast form.

Sorry, I edited (the shapechanger bit) while you were typing.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

I disagree. The goal of the role is to ensure that what ever your role is, you do it well enough so that others can rely on you. If a hybrid can't do it, we're back to 3E Bards that just really fulfill any role competently*, or Mystic Theurge that look great (overpowered**) on paper, but actually aren't that good in real play.

The best design idea for hybrid classes is to ensure that, at any given time, they will fulfill only one role, and do that just as well as any one else that covers that role.
That's why a Druid or maybe a mounted Knight can work as a hybrid. The balance mechanism can only be "opportunity cost", not competency.


*Yes, I know, Bards are fun and a great concept, and I like them. One of my first 3E characters was a Bard, and I enjoyed it at a lot. But that doesn't change the fact you're usually better off having a non-Jack of Trades character, even if he's covering a role that's already fulfilled.

** I myself was certain they were overpowered - losing only one to two spell levels for more spells per day? Casting from two spell lists? Totally overpowered... But then, I thought the Monk to be very powerful (but not directly overpowered) at first, too. I at least used to be bad at this stuff. I hope I've learned.

 

[Darth Cyric]

Druids are kinda tricky. In AD&D they were Clerics (in 2e, specialty priests) with generally more offensive spellcasting and the ability to shapeshift. In 3.x, and especially 3.5, that deal got blown out of proportion to a grotesquely overpowered extent. Looks like for 4e, they have to have a Druid be a hybrid to be recognizable at all, but it also looks as if they're only limiting it to a couple of the roles. My guesses would be for the Controller (offensive Primal spells) and Striker (shapeshifting).

That said, I think the Druid will probably be the ONLY hybrid class ever. And I'm fine with the Druid as a hybrid as long as:

a) He's actually an effective representative of both roles, BUT ...

b) ... and I do repeat, BUT, never simultaneously. And, if it can somehow be helped, never in the same encounter. For the Druid, make him an effective Striker when shapeshifting, but disable his equally as effective Controller powers until he reverts back to humanoid form (and for the love of Bahamut, NO NATURAL SPELL! EVER! NOT EVEN IN EPIC TIER!).

The Warlord article prelude mentioned the Shaman as a Leader class, so I'd expect that to be the Primal Leader. The Shaman, and not the Druid as in editions past, gets to handle all the buffing and healing.

 

[vagabundo]

Looking at 3e and the "hybrid" classes that existed there. Namely the bard and monk.

My players just didn't like them, they weren't good at anything, just okay at lots of stuff. Usually things that were covered by another party member.

In summery, I'm not convinced with hybrid classes.

 

[Darth Cyric]

3e Bard and Monk = a little bit of everything = a whole lot of nothing.

3e Druid (esp. 3.5) = everything of everything + all at once = CoDzilla's better half.

4e Druid = All Controller OR All Striker (or Defender, maybe), at different times, and (hopefully) ne'er the twain shall meet.

 

[arscott]

Jack of all trades is a poor concept. But the hybrid doesn't have to be a jack of all trades to be effective.

It doesn't have to be a master-of-all trades, like the 3.5 cleric or druid.

It doesn't even have to use an either/or dichotomy like the 4e druids and knights suggested above.

Take the 3e Barbarian. It lies somewhere between Defender and Striker--mobile and hard-hitting, but still able to take punishment on the front line. Is it weak? Is it broken? Must it choose one role or the other to function properly? Of course not. It's just something that, while effective, evades easy classification.

 

[Jhaelen]

I'm also wary about the concept of hybrid classes. If a class doesn't seem to fit any of the four roles, then maybe it's not a good class concept for a D&D 4E base class.

The stated reason for explicitly mentioning roles was to give players a hint, what their role in combat should be. It was also mentioned that no matter what choices you made when selecting powers for a character, he would still be able to fill his role.

So what is a hybrid class before that background?
Is it good at 2+ roles at once? Then it's probably overpowered and stealing the limelight of non-hybrid classes.
Can it be good in one of several roles depending on choice of powers? Then a player will have to be extra careful when choosing powers. A bad selection of powers might mean you end up with a character that cannot fill any role because he can only do a little bit of anything.

 

[Darth Cyric]

Can it be good in one of several roles depending on choice of powers? Then a player will have to be extra careful when choosing powers. A bad selection of powers might mean you end up with a character that cannot fill any role because he can only do a little bit of anything.

It looks as if each class is going to head down two main routes (Rogue: Artful Dodger/Brutal Scoundrel, Warlord: Inspiring/Tactical), and choices of powers do best to fit one of those two.

So perhaps for the Druid, it'd be Shapeshifter or Spellcaster ... and that choice would be even more significant than for most other classes because it would determine the Druid's very role in the party as well.

 

[Darth Cyric]

Take the 3e Barbarian. It lies somewhere between Defender and Striker--mobile and hard-hitting, but still able to take punishment on the front line. Is it weak? Is it broken? Must it choose one role or the other to function properly? Of course not. It's just something that, while effective, evades easy classification.

Probably not the best example, as the Defender/Striker line was very blurry in 3e, anyway. Anything with Power Attack was going to deal some hurt in a pinch, more reliably and often for more, period, than Sneak Attack.

In fact, the Striker/Anything line was blurry in 3e. Why do damage when you can make something at a distance die in one spell?

Moreover, the "iconic" Striker, the Rogue, was actually quite miserable at his supposed combat role half the time in 3e, a glaring issue 4e is looking to fix.