Hybrid Classes

[WalterKovacs]

That is what they did for the Swordmage, the Paladin just got its Challenge Damage reduced.

The Divine Challenge also requires you use up an immediate reaction to dish out the damage instead of it happening automatically with a normal divine challenge. This is probably to prevent doubling up on defender interupts.

It seems to be mainly the goal of the hybrid. If you combine two of the same role you get effectively the same defender/leader/striker ability of a single classed, just split between two methods. A ranger/rogue, for example, can go with quarry damage when he doesn't have combat advantage and be arguably better at dishing out constant damage than a ranger or rogue on it's own. The leaders are easy, a dual leader has 2 healing 'words' per encounter when you add each hybrid to the whole. The defender pair would have multiple ways of marking, and multiple things to spend their immediate interupts/reactions on.

 

[Nifft]

Combat Challenge (Hybrid)
This class feature functions as the fighter class feature
(Player’s Handbook, page 76), except that you can only make an immediate basic attack once per encounter.

So after 1 use, your Mark would be non-threatening? That would greatly reduce the Defender aspect.

Combat Superiority (Hybrid)
This class feature functions as the fighter class feature (Player's Handbook, page 76), except that you do not add your Wisdom to your attack bonus with opportunity attacks.

I like it as-is, where a Feat nets you both the +wisdom and the "halt movement".

The hybrid article really did reawaken my gripes about wizard's lack of class features, though. Cantrips, indeed.

Yeah. He should get Ritual Caster for free, at least, and then Spellbook is a very good buy for just one feat.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Lizard]

Wait... with the Hybrid Talent feat, I can combine the fey pact boon with a melee class? Like the Barbarian? A teleporting melee combatant?

You mean, like the Swordmage?

 

[keterys]

So after 1 use, your Mark would be non-threatening? That would greatly reduce the Defender aspect.

I like it as-is, where a Feat nets you both the +wisdom and the "halt movement".

And both aspects _only_ work if you give up your secondary aspects... you're not going to mark on a ton of your attacks and won't get the immediate benefit at all in those circumstances. If you want to spend the feat instead for beastmaster ranger or tempest or battlerager... nope, no combat superiority at all.

And to my mind, the combat superiority is the key for fighter so I'd much rather it was in the hybrid package.

I really need to wrap my mind more around the 'literally like half the time you're just not getting the abilities from the other class at all' for fighters and strikers.

On the other hand, looks like leader hybrids are pretty golden at least until mid-Paragon where they'll start falling behind.

 

[Cadfan]

You mean, like the Swordmage?

Not nearly enough teleportation, and too much of it has obligatory destinations.

 

[Eldorian]

It's a cool idea. I hear dual classing will be in phb 3, this is probably a playtest for it.

They need to remove the ability to take any class feature with the feat, and instead make a larger list of hybrid class features for each class, and let each character choose 1 from each class, feat for third.

 

[fissionessence]

To solve the fighter issue, we would first need to determine exactly what they were trying to 'fix' by watering it down. Assuming they didn't want a constantly-marking scorching burst, I think the following idea would work. That is, make the restriction, "You can't use this feature with at-will powers from your non-fighter class."

That would allow you to mark with encounter and daily wizard powers, for example, but not constantly run around marking with scorching burst and thunderwave. If that still proved problematic, then just cut the whole other class . . . but do it exclusively, so that the fighter/X could still mark with basic attacks and dragon breath.

Also, deadsmurf's idea from several posts ago was pretty much what I was going to suggest. My version's a bit different, so here it goes: tag the 'striker' class features with some kind of keyword, like some of the features are currently tagged [hybrid]. Then say that only one [striker] feature can be used per round. Under this method, the avenger's oath could also be tagged [striker], so as to be mutually exclusive with hunter's quarry, etc. For things like the barbarian's howling strike, the power could be specifically keyed in the barbarian hybrid section as counting as a [striker] feature, so as not to function with warlock's curse, etc.

Keterys stated he thought deadsmurf's version of the idea was broken, but I'm not sure why. I don't think it excludes striker/striker combinations from being viable, in that having two different [striker] features just makes you more versatile in applying your damage (or whatever). I guess warlock/ranger would be kind of silly . . . but that's true for many reasons Sneak attack/warlock's curse would be great; curse when you don't have combat advantage, and otherwise do sneak attack. Even if you had CA all the time, cursing could still be useful for some powers/effects. Also think of a barbarian/avenger, who would howling strike when charging, but otherwise roll twice when his oath would apply. These combinations are more versatile in their striker-ness, just as a defender/defender has more versatile (but not stacking) marking.

This method also solves the problem Asmor brought up a few pages ago (which is also something I had considered before reading this whole thread -_- ), which is the prospect of some future supplement introducing cross-class powers. That is, a power that is available to both rogues and rangers, and is therefore accessible to both classes, and is therefore benefited by the [striker] feature of each, according to the current hybrid rules. I guess this is kind of weird design space that may never actually develop, but the fact that at least two people have considered it means it's something to watch out for.

An alternative would be a derivation of my above fighter suggestion . . . just specifically exclude the 'other class' from gaining benefits of your [striker] feature. This way you could still apply one or the other to your basic attacks and whatnot. Then the issue is if you multiclass into a third class and can apply both [striker] features to powers of that class since it isn't either of your 'other classes' . . .

Another thing . . . my version of the pdf shows the warlord gaining a second use of his word at level 16, but not the cleric. Is this intentional? Perhaps to prevent a warlord/cleric from having four words at level 16? Perhaps because the cleric's Healer's Lore is considered to be powerful enough to make up for it? Or maybe it's just an oversight one way or the other . . . thoughts?

Anyway, I'm really excited about these rules overall, and it's something I've wanted from the multiclass system since before 4E came out, so I'm really pretty excited . . . plus I'm excited about some possible designs it opens up for writing third-party products . . .

As a final note to everyone who's said they were making hybrid versions of PH2 classes: none of you has stated what you did with the druid's beast-form/non-beast-form at-wills. What were your solutions? You can't just make the druid choose one or the other. Maybe one of each?

~ fissionessence

 

[Lizard]

Not nearly enough teleportation, and too much of it has obligatory destinations.

Shrug. There's a Swordmage NPC who occasionally pals around with our group of cutthroats and ne'er-do-wells, and he bloops all over the battlefield like a frakkin' pinball. But you're right, his choice of destination is limited.

I guess my point, if I had one, is:
a)Teleporting melee is already a concept in-game.
b)Based on my ranger experience, mobility is not that important to melee, once you've closed with your foe; I shrug off slowed/immobilized effects most of the time with a "So? I'm right where I want to be." (We mostly fight in relatively close quarters due to it being a city game; this is one reason my DM is ending it at level 10, he has decided 4e doesn't "work" in cities because the game system really assumes vast tracts of land. So I need to make a new character. Sigh.) IOW, a melee teleporter won't be dramatically more effective; at best, he'll be better at keeping up with a fleeing foe or getting to high spaces, a nice advantage but not an overwhelming one.

 

[Plane Sailing]

These multiclass rules do the #1 thing I want in a multiclass.

* at-wills from two different classes.

This alone gives tonnes of flexibility and promise in developing new characters.

I'd actually be quite happy with a fighter/wizard multiclass. Getting the wizard cantrips means I can play my 'jedi knight' character now!

• at-wills: cleave and thunderwave (aka 'force push')
• mage-hand at-will as my 'force telekinesis'
• ghost sound at-will to distract the guards while I disable the tractor beam
• Featherfall or jump for those big force-based jumps

I could have a lot of fun with a character like this

 

[Cadfan]

Shrug. There's a Swordmage NPC who occasionally pals around with our group of cutthroats and ne'er-do-wells, and he bloops all over the battlefield like a frakkin' pinball. But you're right, his choice of destination is limited.

I guess my point, if I had one, is:
a)Teleporting melee is already a concept in-game.
b)Based on my ranger experience, mobility is not that important to melee, once you've closed with your foe; I shrug off slowed/immobilized effects most of the time with a "So? I'm right where I want to be." (We mostly fight in relatively close quarters due to it being a city game; this is one reason my DM is ending it at level 10, he has decided 4e doesn't "work" in cities because the game system really assumes vast tracts of land. So I need to make a new character. Sigh.) IOW, a melee teleporter won't be dramatically more effective; at best, he'll be better at keeping up with a fleeing foe or getting to high spaces, a nice advantage but not an overwhelming one.

I didn't say that a melee teleporter would be dramatically more effective. I fully expect that it won't, given that existing melee strikers are loaded with powers that let them shift long distances.

I expect it to be dramatically more awesome.

I will rely on my general skills at optimization to make the sub par choice more effective. I'm thinking a lot of two handed weapon, close burst 1 melee attacks, with teleportation to get in and out of position.

My condolences on your DM being crazy.

Slowed and immobilized really have only three purposes.

1. Annoying skirmishers.
2. Use on the first round so that only some of the enemy can close distance, splitting them and denying some their attacks.
3. Use on someone you intend to move away from, traveling far enough that they cannot catch up and attack in the same round.

They take a little finesse. Our dragonborn fighter makes pretty good use of steel serpent strike, she hits with it, and shifts back a space. Just as good as a stun against a foe with only melee attacks.