Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="slobo777" data-source="post: 6016189" data-attributes="member: 6694877">I've tried hard to use 4E hybrids, as I like the idea, but generally I've been disappointed. They seem to be very hit or miss what works together. IMO you can drive it by looking for mechanical synergies, but not by simply picking what might be a cool combination. It's one of the few areas in 4E where creating a character balanced with his or her team-mates depends heavily on the one starting choices of what and how you combine, and where there are many &quot;trap&quot; options that look good initially, but don't really turn out well. For instance, you need to align the prime stats (or at least have cross-over secondary/secondary), which in 4E are often quite arbitrarily assigned to the 1 of 6 stats that &quot;feels right&quot; for the class solo. It means that many hybrid options that would IMO be quite cool to play suffer from being at a -2 or thereabouts effective penalty to all attacks and damage, just for being a hybrid. And that's before subtracting away most of the class features. This could probably be rescued with some kind of house rule that adds something back for hybrids where primary and/or secondary stats don't line up.So bearing that in mind, and sometimes wanting more choice than just two classes, overall I picked 3E's approach. Provided it can be better balanced:1) Spellcasters should not be heavily penalised for picking up levels in other classes. Especially other spell-casting classes.2) &quot;Dipping&quot; into a class should not get you all of that classes level 1 features. I understand that this is something the designers have already written about and seems covered.3) However, &quot;dipping&quot; a class should not get you useless level 1 features at level 5 either. You should get benefits at a power level roughly equal to staying within a single class, just slightly reduced to offset the extra flexibility you have gained by multi-classing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="slobo777, post: 6016189, member: 6694877"] I've tried hard to use 4E hybrids, as I like the idea, but generally I've been disappointed. They seem to be very hit or miss what works together. IMO you can drive it by looking for mechanical synergies, but not by simply picking what might be a cool combination. It's one of the few areas in 4E where creating a character balanced with his or her team-mates depends heavily on the one starting choices of what and how you combine, and where there are many "trap" options that look good initially, but don't really turn out well. For instance, you need to align the prime stats (or at least have cross-over secondary/secondary), which in 4E are often quite arbitrarily assigned to the 1 of 6 stats that "feels right" for the class solo. It means that many hybrid options that would IMO be quite cool to play suffer from being at a -2 or thereabouts effective penalty to all attacks and damage, just for being a hybrid. And that's before subtracting away most of the class features. This could probably be rescued with some kind of house rule that adds something back for hybrids where primary and/or secondary stats don't line up. So bearing that in mind, and sometimes wanting more choice than just two classes, overall I picked 3E's approach. Provided it can be better balanced: 1) Spellcasters should not be heavily penalised for picking up levels in other classes. Especially other spell-casting classes. 2) "Dipping" into a class should not get you all of that classes level 1 features. I understand that this is something the designers have already written about and seems covered. 3) However, "dipping" a class should not get you [I]useless[/I] level 1 features at level 5 either. You should get benefits at a power level roughly equal to staying within a single class, just slightly reduced to offset the extra flexibility you have gained by multi-classing. [/QUOTE]

Verification