Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gargoyle" data-source="post: 4411328" data-attributes="member: 529">The paladin and fighter seem different enough from each other, as are the ranger and rogue.  I don't think it takes too much imagination to create new powers that feel different yet have the same goal.Well, that's not a hybrid class, and it demonstrates that you don't need a hybrid class to play a character with versatility using just the PHB.Idiot proof sounds pretty harsh.  I want a game that's designed not just for experienced players, but also for newbs and casual players.  My friends aren't idiots, but some of them make choices for roleplaying reasons, or they just don't see the point of spending hours min/maxing.  I like it when they can't make choices that drag the rest of the group down in combat and result in TPKs.I realize of course, that some people don't want a game that is "idiot proof" and like that there are strategic challenges in building effective characters.  I'm just not one of those people.I think hybrids are pretty much inevitable, to be honest, whether I like the idea or not.  If WotC doesn't create them, there will be plenty of third party hybrid classes out there, and some of them will probably be brilliantly designed and fun.I just don't think that the few good ones will be worth the poorly designed ones.  I guess my point is game design needs to be more idiot proofed in 4e, not necessarily game play.  Roles help that IMO.  By focusing classes into specific roles, it's much simpler to create a balanced fun class because you can compare them directly to existing classes.I can hope that if the druid or monk is a hybrid in PHB II, they will be well designed hybrids and provide examples for other WotC and third party designers.  I'm just not too optimistic about it.</blockquote>

Verification