Thoughts on Hybrid Classes?

[Khaalis]

I am seeking input on the following topic.

1) Are Hybrid classes an answer to the Multiclass problem?
2) How many people are interested in Hybrid classes (classes that actually perform the function of 2 roles or two power source thematics)?
3) Are TRUE Hybrid classes (those that fulfill two roles) truly viable?

Here are my wandering thoughts that lead to this.

Here we are a few months into the release of 4E and we find that many people (myself included) are unhappy with the current Multiclass System. The primary issue being that the system just does not allow you to feel truly multiclassed in the way older editions did. The second issue being that to come even close via RAW you have to sacrifice a lot of feats and also have to use the Suboptimal PMC (Paragon Multiclass) system [which is generally a worse choice than even the worst Paragon Path]. We have seen various attempts to "fix" the system (including my own clumsy stab at it). However, in every case, the systems have been a failure generally due to the general feeling that they overpower "single class" characters when all is said and done.

It is pretty obvious that the 4E class system, being tied so strictly to Roles and Power Sources, is based heavily on what tabletop gaming has learned from MMOs over the years. The question is, can we take this design philosophy another step to allow for more "Multiclass-Feeling" classes? Currently, the core classes are designed to be primarily of one Role, most being 100% one-trick ponies. However, there are a few classes that cross into a more “Hybrid” realm, at least in feel if not in function though a few do so in function as well.

Additionally, WotC has also stated that the Druid class in PHB2 is defined as “Role: Hybrid”. Can we expound on this?

Currently the core classes fit the following form and function.

Cleric
* Primary Role: Leader – The cleric is a healer and buffer 1st and foremost.
* Secondary Role: The cleric really has no truly focused secondary role. The closest would be a minor focus on divine oriented striker-like powers that allow them to deal some damage and some conditions to enemies in combat so they don’t feel like all they do is heal and buff others while getting no ‘action’ themselves. Also with enough feats spent to re-focus, a cleric can manage to pull off a bit of a Defender feel (durable, toughness, armor proficiency, weapon focus, etc.) in at least the ability to soak up some damage.

Fighter
* Primary Role: Defender – The fighter is a one trick pony. They are designed to keep enemies attention and to take damage.
* Secondary Role: The fighter really doesn’t have a specified secondary role. The closest option is a striker-oriented focus on dealing damage to single opponents, even though they do not do anywhere near as much damage as strikers.

Paladin
* Primary Role: Defender – The paladin is defined as a defender and they do focus on the role with their Divine Challenge and ability to soak up damage.
* Secondary Role: Leader – The paladin is the 1st class that really feels like a Hybrid with a strong secondary role of leader from its association with the divine. Their powers offer a lot of options in the area of healing and buffing. Is this a model of what a Hybrid class should be?

Ranger
* Primary Role: Striker – This is a one trick pony class. The class is all about dealing damage and is arguably the best damage dealer of the classes.
* Secondary Role: There is no real defined secondary role to the ranger, but like the cleric, the closest would be Defender with spending enough of the right feats.

Rogue
* Primary Role: Striker – This class is a one trick pony as well.
* Secondary Role: Undefined. The class’ real secondary role is as a Obstacle-Master or Anti-Controller which is not defined anywhere as a role option. The rogue is even less inclined to the Defender role, even with feats than the Ranger due to its limitations in weapon use and the style of its powers.

Swordmage
* Primary Role: Defender – This class is another damage soaking class and focused on keeping opponents focused on themselves.
* Secondary Role: Arcane Striker/Controller – This class is the 2nd class (after Paladin) that really feels like a Hybrid with a strong secondary role of striker & some controller from its association with the arcane. Their powers offer a lot of options in the area of are burst attack and magical striker-like powers. This class feels like a “gish” Fighter/Mage.

Warlock
* Primary Role: Striker – The class is designed to deal damage to single opponents.
* Secondary Role: The warlock also doesn’t have a defined secondary role but tends to lean toward the Controller as a secondary focus, gaining some controller-like effects along its path if the right powers are chosen.

Warlord
* Primary Role: Leader – This class is almost identical to the cleric in form and function, though it leans more toward buffing than healing, and in many instances the warlord is a better combat buffer than the cleric.
* Secondary Role: The warlord is just as apt to have a Defender feel as the cleric (again, with the right feats).

Wizard
* Primary Role: Controller – This class is all about area damage and conditional controls.
* Secondary Role: The closest option to call a secondary role of the wizard is striker as the wizard focuses on dealing damage, just dealing smaller amounts to a larger number of foes.


So, of the 9 classes we have to date, only 2 of these classes feel like multiclassed “Hybrid” classes: the Paladin, a Divine Defender or Fighter/Cleric and the Swordmage an Arcane Defender or Fighter/Mage. The rest are basically focused on a single role concept. However, with the fact that the Druid is actually defined as a “Role: Hybrid”, will this mean that the class is designed immediately from the start to function as two different roles (perhaps Leader and Striker)?

Can we, or should we, take either the design of the Paladin and Swordmage or the expected path of the Druid a step further? For instance if we want a true Fighter/Rogue feeling class, should we design it as a free-standing Hybrid Class rather than trying to force the feel from a Multiclass system that just doesn’t do the trick? If allowing for a true Hybrid class, what are the design precepts we should focus on?

For instance, as a Hybrid Defender/Striker would a Fighter/Rogue Hybrid Class define a new set of Hit Point and Healing Surge values? Defenders use 15+CON Score +6/Level for HP and Striker 12+CON Score +5/Level. Would a Hybrid use one of these or define its own at say 13+CON Score +5/level? Defenders get 8+CON Mod surges and Strikers get 6+CON Mod – would a Hybrid get 7+CON Mod? Do these changes even make enough difference to be defined?

How would the core function of the class be defined? How “sticky” should a Hybrid Defender be? How much damage should a Hybrid Striker do?

I’ll leave this at this point to get some feedback. I’m curious what other members of the community think on this topic.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think there was a comment from an interview with the designers of 4E (maybe with Mearls?) that mentioned that they noticed that the "Hybrids" they came up with often worked as if they had a "switch". One moment they are X, then they are Y.

I think that is probably the "safest" way to go. For example, the Druids switch would be to shapeshift into an animal form, probably becoming a Striker or Defender, while being a Controller while in human form. (Whether that's what we will actually get in PHB II remains to be seen).

You should avoid creating a Hybrid that just can't fulfill any of the roles he is supposed to fulfill. When the Hybrid is defending, he can't just do it a little bit - he must be able to survive an entire encounter of defending (well, at least no worse then the Paladin or Fighter). But if he can still strike just as well as any other Striker in that time, that would make the class unbalanced. So he must make a choice between the two roles and be unable to fulfill them both at the same time.
He shouldn't be only half as effective as a Defender when defending, and half as effective as a Striker when striking. That would make the class a fifth wheel you'd only pick if you have already covered the rest, and which will often feel less useful.


A possibility to do this might be stances you can change each encounter.

Maybe the Psychic Warrior either assumes a "Defender" Stance, where his attacks mark his opponent, and he can use some of his encounter powers as basic attacks for opportunity attacks. In "Striker" Stance, his powers instead deal more damage, and he gets a Quarry-like ability.
One Idea: Either you choose a "Quarry" or you choose a "Charge" - against a Quarry, you gain damage bonuses, but for the Charge, you get interruption/mark abilities to protect it.

 

[Khaalis]

I think there was a comment from an interview with the designers of 4E (maybe with Mearls?) that mentioned that they noticed that the "Hybrids" they came up with often worked as if they had a "switch". One moment they are X, then they are Y.

[snip]

You should avoid creating a Hybrid that just can't fulfill any of the roles he is supposed to fulfill. When the Hybrid is defending, he can't just do it a little bit - he must be able to survive an entire encounter of defending (well, at least no worse then the Paladin or Fighter). But if he can still strike just as well as any other Striker in that time, that would make the class unbalanced. So he must make a choice between the two roles and be unable to fulfill them both at the same time.

He shouldn't be only half as effective as a Defender when defending, and half as effective as a Striker when striking. That would make the class a fifth wheel you'd only pick if you have already covered the rest, and which will often feel less useful.

Where does the Paladin fall in this then? They do not have a "switch" but they are definitely a hybrid Defender / Leader. They are primarily a defender and do this job well. However, they are also a part time Leader. They get to buff and heal as a leader does, but not as well (half-as-well at best).

My questions are... Can this style of Hybrid be done for other class combinations? Would this fill the need for "multiclass" feeling classes (e.g. Swordmage = Gish Hybrid Fighter/Arcane)? If so, how would we go about designing such classes? What role/class combinations would be the most demanded?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Where does the Paladin fall in this then? They do not have a "switch" but they are definitely a hybrid Defender / Leader. They are primarily a defender and do this job well. However, they are also a part time Leader. They get to buff and heal as a leader does, but not as well (half-as-well at best).

My questions are... Can this style of Hybrid be done for other class combinations? Would this fill the need for "multiclass" feeling classes (e.g. Swordmage = Gish Hybrid Fighter/Arcane)? If so, how would we go about designing such classes? What role/class combinations would be the most demanded?

I think the definition of Hybrid is that he fulfills either role. The Paladin may have "leaderish" abilities, but ultimately, he can't replace a Leader.

 

[BendBars/LiftGates]

I'm shocked that you came up with Cleric as a hybrid Leader and Striker or Defender. It seems pretty overwhelming to me that a Cleric works a lot like a backup Controller. Cause Fear, Flame Strike, Astral Storm, etc.

 

[Runestar]

I'm shocked that you came up with Cleric as a hybrid Leader and Striker or Defender. It seems pretty overwhelming to me that a Cleric works a lot like a backup Controller. Cause Fear, Flame Strike, Astral Storm, etc.

It is possible to build a ranged cleric archer that functions as both a healer/buffer and striker (though it does require you to multiclass into ranger). The playtester has in fact reported some favourable experiences with it, so at least, it appears fairly viable at lower lvs.

 

[77IM]

1) Are Hybrid classes an answer to the Multiclass problem?

Depends on how you frame the problem. For me, the multiclass problem is one of "concept-rules impedance," that is, the effort involved in translating a concept in my brain into a workable rule.

I tend to think in terms of characters that have multiple contradictory elements, or at least orthogonal traits, as opposed to the tightly focussed archetypes of the D&D classes. For example, when I'm thinking of character classes, I never think in terms of "How about a half-elf paladin?" I instantly come up with something like, "How about a half-elf paladin with an infernal pact (he fights fire with fire), and he does two-weapon fighting with a flail in each hand?" That's just the way my brain works. In 4e, that's a tough character to create. Paladin-warlock is a weak multiclass choice, and the TWF feats aren't very good, and it still takes a lot of work to make that character even though he's not going to be that great.

2) How many people are interested in Hybrid classes (classes that actually perform the function of 2 roles or two power source thematics)?

Somewhat. I do think the idea of a jack-of-all-trades character, or highly versatile character, has been unnecessarily abandoned in 4e. I think part of the reason is niche protection; one way to ensure that defenders are the best defenders is to deny that to everyone else. It also helps group cohesion -- party members get along better when they need to rely on one another because every individual has glaring capability gaps. However, these factors aren't as important to all groups (the people I play with aren't that into mechanical niche protection, for example, as much as personality niches).

The other reasoning (given by the designers) that there are no trans-role classes in 4e is that it can lead people to accidentally build characters that are not good at anything. I think this is an implementation problem.

3) Are TRUE Hybrid classes (those that fulfill two roles) truly viable?

Yes. The thing players want when they play a well-rounded character is versatility and adaptability to many situations. The wizard has area-effect spells, but in a solo encounter he's not as useful as a striker. A hybrid striker-controller can fulfill both roles adequately and so he can go where needed as the battle progresses.

I like the "switch" idea. Another way to design the class is surprising powers. For example, maybe your at-will powers are like a defender (causing marks and so forth), your encounter powers are like a controller (area-effects and status ailments), and your daily powers are like a striker (massive single-target damage). Maybe your at-will and encounter powers are a little bit boring but your dailies have more variety (maybe they can be cast multiple ways -- 2d6 as an area attack or 3d6 against a single foe).

-- 77IM

 

[Khaalis]

I'm shocked that you came up with Cleric as a hybrid Leader and Striker or Defender. It seems pretty overwhelming to me that a Cleric works a lot like a backup Controller. Cause Fear, Flame Strike, Astral Storm, etc.

The other reason I see it as more defender/striker than controller is the abundance of their powers are not AoE or environmentally controlling. Most of their powers are STR based melee attacks or single target 'control' type spells, more akin to what a warlock can do than what a wizard can do. Their access to true "controller" powers is very limited.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I was afraid the boards would be awashed with hybrids by now. Luckily this has not happened. I don't think hybrid classes is such a good idea at all. It's a game of roles now and it won't improve by smudging the boundaries.

I'm okay with primary/secondary role of some classes but I think even those should be rare. Since there are already two there is no reason to add more in a long time.

It's a fact that being good at two things will make you a jack of all trades and master of all/none. There is no middleground. We've seen it before.

All new classes should be designed to feel like it's own thing and not a copy of something else. However, making new classes hybrids is designer-cheating.

-But, someone might say, what if I really want a hybrid?
That's okay too. But not in a four-five player game. Call them gestalts so we can avoid them if we want to.

 

[Khaalis]

First - thanks for the comments. I was honestly starting to think no one gave a rat's ... about the topic.

I tend to think in terms of characters that have multiple contradictory elements, or at least orthogonal traits, as opposed to the tightly focussed archetypes of the D&D classes. For example, when I'm thinking of character classes, I never think in terms of "How about a half-elf paladin?" I instantly come up with something like, "How about a half-elf paladin with an infernal pact (he fights fire with fire), and he does two-weapon fighting with a flail in each hand?" That's just the way my brain works. In 4e, that's a tough character to create. Paladin-warlock is a weak multiclass choice, and the TWF feats aren't very good, and it still takes a lot of work to make that character even though he's not going to be that great.

This is the same problem we have with the system. Most of the people in our game group (at least those that started RPing before MMOs) see character design in exactly the same way. We generate a "fantasy character" concept in our head and then sit down and try to mash that concept into the rules system. It simply doesn't work.

Somewhat. I do think the idea of a jack-of-all-trades character, or highly versatile character, has been unnecessarily abandoned in 4e. I think part of the reason is niche protection; one way to ensure that defenders are the best defenders is to deny that to everyone else. It also helps group cohesion -- party members get along better when they need to rely on one another because every individual has glaring capability gaps. However, these factors aren't as important to all groups (the people I play with aren't that into mechanical niche protection, for example, as much as personality niches).

I agree that there really should be no "jack-of-all-trades". This concept is the concept that can break a game. No one should be great at everything, or you simply don't need anyone else. However, WotC broke their own "purist" design philosophy with the Paladin and the Swordmage. These, to me, seem the best example of how to do a "mixed-role" or "hybrid" class that doesn't require an outright "switch" like a Druid's Shapechanging.

I also think the system NEEDS more hybrid role classes like this for the simple fact that not everyone has a 5 person game group. Even for those with a 4 person game group, there is ALWAYS the 1 player stuck playing a character they don't want to play just because someone HAS to play that given role. Its like being in an MMO. I don't want my RPing to be that restricted. If I want to run a game where I don't force someone to be a Defender or a Leader, I want that party to work without having to bend over backwards as a DM to make sure the party isn't hosed every time they turn around.

I also think "hybrid" flavored classes create a more flavorful approach to classes. Swordmage is the perfect example of that. In most cases, it fills the niche for the Fighter/Mage flavor concept. However, where is the Arcane Trickster style class? What about a Shadow Knight? A Theurge?

The other reasoning (given by the designers) that there are no trans-role classes in 4e is that it can lead people to accidentally build characters that are not good at anything. I think this is an implementation problem.

I agree. I personally feel it was wither lazy design, or they simply wanted to hold the concept for future releases, only placing the most basic of classes in the PHB1 for people to learn the game on. Basically the "training wheel" classes, since so much of the business plan for 4E has been about simplifying the game for the "New Generation of Player". In doing so they seriously alienated a lot of the 'old school' players.

Yes. The thing players want when they play a well-rounded character is versatility and adaptability to many situations. The wizard has area-effect spells, but in a solo encounter he's not as useful as a striker. A hybrid striker-controller can fulfill both roles adequately and so he can go where needed as the battle progresses.

This is much more close to the class design I think we need. As I said, not every game group has the happy 4 mix, nor should it need it.

I like the "switch" idea. Another way to design the class is surprising powers. For example, maybe your at-will powers are like a defender (causing marks and so forth), your encounter powers are like a controller (area-effects and status ailments), and your daily powers are like a striker (massive single-target damage). Maybe your at-will and encounter powers are a little bit boring but your dailies have more variety (maybe they can be cast multiple ways -- 2d6 as an area attack or 3d6 against a single foe).

I like the "switch" WHEN it makes sense for a design philosophy. It doesn't fit all class concepts. However, another option for a hybrid is taking the design philosophy of the Swordmage and combine it with the ideas you list above.


For hypothetical example, lets say we want an Arcane Trickster - a rogue with arcane talents.

Role: Hybrid (Striker / Controller)
Power Source: Arcane
Key Abilities: Int, Dex, Cha
Armor Proficiencies: Cloth, Leather
Weapon Proficiencies: Dagger, hand crossbow, shuriken, sling
Implements: Dagger, Wand
Bonus to Defense: +1 Reflex, +1 Will
Hit Points (1st): 12 + Con score
Hit Points (per level): 5
Healing Surges per Day: 6+ Con mod

Trained Skills: Arcana. From the class skills list below, choose five more trained skills at 1st level.
Class Skills: Acrobatics (Dex), Athletics (Str), Bluff (Cha), Dungeoneering (Wis), Insight (Wis), Intimidate (Cha), Perception (Wis), Stealth (Dex), Streetwise (Cha), Thievery (Dex)

Build Options: Assassin, Legerdemain

Class Features:
* Charms (similar to cantrips but refocused to be more rogue-like such as a self-only Light cantrip, an Eavesdrop cantrip that adds to perception checks, etc.)

* Trickster Tactics: A defining ability related to the builds...
--- Assassin (Stealth and Damage focus) - something more stealth and combat focused.
--- Legerdemain (Thievery and Utility focus) - something like using Mage Hand that can be used with Thievery.

* Energy Attack (a magical striker ability that adds extra magical damage to attacks similar to the warlock's +1d6).

* Ritual Caster

Powers would then be a mix of mostly striker abilities with some mix of utility and controller, but keeping to the flavor of the arcane trickster concept. For example instead of Thunderwave, perhaps an attack that instead covers a blast three area with an effect mote like the 3.5E Grease.

Just a thought. Would this style class work?