Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 5739952" data-attributes="member: 48965">Contrary to your belief... Yeah, for the most part they are. I mean if I want to be a sub-par controller then yeah I can play a warlock and try to do controllery things... or if I want a sub-par striker I can play a wizard and do strikery things... but then a sub-optimal choice isn't really a choice is it? At least that was the philosophy behind 4e in the beginning. Hybrids bring in a whole host of other issues I don't even want to go into and can royally screw you if you don't know what you are doing when building them. Furthermore even a well built hybrid can have gameplay issues that the designers/developers are aware of and discuss in PHB 3.  Along with again, the problem of having to dillute or change one's concept in order to get out of a specific combat role. My suggestion awhile back was to have different combat roles based upon build and power selection. Something 4e is just now starting to do, cotrary to the cries of that doing exactly this will ruin the game. My only problem with some of these builds is that they are so narrow, yet the only way to break out of the over-arching class combat role. In other words don't make the only striker paladin a blackguard (which has a ton of specific story fluff, conotations and flavored mechanics to go along with it.).</blockquote>