Jan 10, 2010 -- 9:36PM, kinevon wrote:

Jan 10, 2010 -- 1:58PM, Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:

Jan 10, 2010 -- 12:58PM, Keithric wrote:

Jan 10, 2010 -- 6:23AM, Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:

But when a melee opponent has a Spirit Companion floating on top of him

I've been increasingly curious how many tables this would be allowed at, lately. I bet there's huge table variation.

Not sure why there'd be table variation - from PHB2, page 220, on conjurations:
"The conjuration does not need to be supported by a solid surface, so it can float in the air."

Whether or not you can move it from the ground to above someone might be in question, but there shouldn't be any table variation about summoning it right on top of someone. 

Of course there isn't. It can only be summoned in an unoccupied square in range. On top of someone is an occupied square.

So in other words, a flying creature can't fly into that square on top of someone because it is considered occupied and by flying directly over him, they'd be sharing the same square? How far up does that occupying of squares go? 1 square? 10 squares? 20 squares? New way to deal with the harpy 20 squares up - surround it on the ground and force it to be unable to move horizontally. For that matter, if squares are only on the ground, how do flying creatures move up squares in the first place?

Or do you mean to say that you can't target area attacks into the air, because they don't count as squares?

Sounds more like a language confusion. You do not summon the spirit on top of somebody, but directly above somebody. The argument about spirits having no fly speed, and not telling how high the spirit hoovers above the ground are much better if you want to prevent this particular manouver.

The Spirit Companion doesn't have a speed, just a number of squares it can move, its movement is governed by the conjuration rules. Yes I think there are a lot of problems with the spirit companion.

No I'm not worried about Hybrids.

Uber Defence of Doom doesn't bother me like it does other people. Btw when comparing Optimised Paladin defences best to use the Champion of Corellon Paragon Path with its easily obtained +2 to AC, and use Shield Expertise over Plate expertise (easier reqs) and don't leave off the Force Shield  seeing we are in Paragon (34 AC for 1 feat. 33 after being hit, and and at 14th are at 38 with +4 Warplate, even better in Epic when you can get you'll take the Tarrasque Plate for the Resist 5 All and same AC as other Paladins in Godplate, good luck with the Resist 5 All for your Cloth armor).

Now if people are going to start talking about Hybrids that are going to start outputting exceptional damage combined with exceptional defence then I guess there would be cause for concern, but so far I haven't seen that happen.

Oh incidently I prefer my Half-Elf Swordmage MC Wizard to the builds I've cooked up so far that involve Hybrids. That said this change to Hybrid legality will totally make a character concept for a Wizard/Swordmage (ie Controller with Defender not Defender with Controller) I have been messing around with work for which I am grateful.

Jan 8, 2010 -- 2:31PM, Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:

There are also some issues with implements, armor and at-wills.

I think this is going to win for understatement of the year. The much of the ridiculous stuff I've read about on CharOps is due to shenanigans with weapons and weapon enchants being used as implements. The worst:

• Polearm Gamble & Momentum being used with an alfsair spear by a druid in beast form
• A disrupting whip being used by an invoker to give all enemies in a burst -2 to hit.

The problem, too, is that PH3 is introducing classes like the monk, which physically hit people with their implements. If too much hybrid cheese leads to this being fixed, I'll be much happier in the long run.

Also, when you compare your uber AC of doom to a paladin, remember that heavy armor classes generally can't get as high an AC as light armor classes anymore. See also the 400+ post thread on CO about Hide Armor Expertise and how Rageblood Barbarians can do ridiculous AC with fewer feats than your Swordmage|Avenger.

I'm not terribly concerned about hybrids, mostly because I think most of the real cheese can be countered with social pressure, and because it's not like someone's first D&D character is going to be a hybrid. If you only use the PHB for your rules (as someone mentioned above), will adding hybrids to 4E change that?

Finally:

Jan 8, 2010 -- 11:38PM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

I paragon multiclassed with one character and was working a second toward the same thing. Those characters are drastically inferior to hybrid versions of the same thing. This isn't something I can fix with money/time/retrains. Is any consideration being given to characters in this situation?

Paragon multiclassed characters are drastically inferior to all characters, not just hybrids (power-level wise, RP value notwithstanding). If you choose to PMC, you did it knowing you were taking a power cut. PMC should be an optimizable option, but it's no fault of the hybrid system that it is not.

Barring being a half-elf PMC was the only way to get another classes at-will attack powers. Now every character has easy access to all the top tier at-will attack powers (Magic Weapon, Twin Strike, Righteous Brand, etc).

If players aren't offered some sort of method to, over time/levels, convert to hybrid I will likely be retiring from LFR indefinitely. I just cannot justify starting the majority of my characters over again.

Jan 11, 2010 -- 5:26AM, Mind_Flayer_Monk wrote:

Jan 11, 2010 -- 1:46AM, gomeztoo wrote:

Puh-lease. So every time a book comes out with a new class, or paragon path, or race, you then also need to have the option to 'retrain'  in that class? 

The idea would be to roll hybrids into the class retrain. So if someone makes a bad hybrid cleric they would have the option to retrain as a normal cleric under the normal ccg. If someone makes a healing cleric  and decides what they really wanted was a hybrid cleric, then they would be able to use the class feature retrain (still only once) to train into a hybrid cleric.

I think this is a good idea. I share other peoples concerns that they will see bad hybrid characters (I recently saw a Str/Wis paladin with challenging strike and ardent strike as her at-will powers and ardent strike set to key off charisma rather than strength--I shudder to think what a hybrid created with a similar level of savvy would look like). The point of the retraining rules is, at least in part to allow people who made bad build decisions to fix their existing character rather than have to create a new one to stop sucking. It would be good for hybrid characters to have that opportunity too.

Jan 11, 2010 -- 10:31AM, Elder_basilisk wrote:

Jan 11, 2010 -- 5:26AM, Mind_Flayer_Monk wrote:

The idea would be to roll hybrids into the class retrain. So if someone makes a bad hybrid cleric they would have the option to retrain as a normal cleric under the normal ccg. If someone makes a healing cleric  and decides what they really wanted was a hybrid cleric, then they would be able to use the class feature retrain (still only once) to train into a hybrid cleric.

I think this is a good idea. I share other peoples concerns that they will see bad hybrid characters (I recently saw a Str/Wis paladin with challenging strike and ardent strike as her at-will powers and ardent strike set to key off charisma rather than strength--I shudder to think what a hybrid created with a similar level of savvy would look like). The point of the retraining rules is, at least in part to allow people who made bad build decisions to fix their existing character rather than have to create a new one to stop sucking. It would be good for hybrid characters to have that opportunity too.

I was initially against the idea of retraining into/out of hybrid classes, but have mostly been convinced that treating it as a class feature retrain would probably be perfectly fine.

Jan 11, 2010 -- 9:46AM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

Barring being a half-elf PMC was the only way to get another classes at-will attack powers. Now every character has easy access to all the top tier at-will attack powers (Magic Weapon, Twin Strike, Righteous Brand, etc).

If players aren't offered some sort of method to, over time/levels, convert to hybrid I will likely be retiring from LFR indefinitely. I just cannot justify starting the majority of my characters over again.

I think you are entitled to play the game however you would like and for whatever reasons. But, you should realize that only a minority of players feels that it is this important to be able to use top-tier at-wills or to be at the top level of uber-anything.

Jan 11, 2010 -- 10:47AM, amysrevenge wrote:

Jan 11, 2010 -- 10:31AM, Elder_basilisk wrote:

Jan 11, 2010 -- 5:26AM, Mind_Flayer_Monk wrote:

The idea would be to roll hybrids into the class retrain. So if someone makes a bad hybrid cleric they would have the option to retrain as a normal cleric under the normal ccg. If someone makes a healing cleric  and decides what they really wanted was a hybrid cleric, then they would be able to use the class feature retrain (still only once) to train into a hybrid cleric.

I think this is a good idea. I share other peoples concerns that they will see bad hybrid characters (I recently saw a Str/Wis paladin with challenging strike and ardent strike as her at-will powers and ardent strike set to key off charisma rather than strength--I shudder to think what a hybrid created with a similar level of savvy would look like). The point of the retraining rules is, at least in part to allow people who made bad build decisions to fix their existing character rather than have to create a new one to stop sucking. It would be good for hybrid characters to have that opportunity too.

I was initially against the idea of retraining into/out of hybrid classes, but have mostly been convinced that treating it as a class feature retrain would probably be perfectly fine.

I disagree. Sure, I've seen bad builds. But, to be honest, generally the problem is really around tactics. There isn't a whole lot you can do about ability scores or race without completely abandoning any semblance of living reality. In living games you typically try to preserve the PC concept. You aren't Dalek the Orb Barbarian one moment and Dalek the gnome psion the next and then three levels later Dalek the Deva Invoker.

So long as you preserve that identity, I don't see why a hybrid to non-hybrid should be allowed. Race and class and ability scores seem like minimal controls that make sense to keep a living aspect.

In my experience, LFR is not nor ever should be so difficult that you could not play it with a fairly poor build, outside of the utter ridiculous. I have a dwarven taclord, dwarven rogue, dwarven ranged bard... they all play wonderfully. I've made choices that strengthen them (such as being a crossbow rogue), but they all sound like poor ideas at first. I could make a PC with a 16 starting primary stat and life would not come to a crashing halt. You can take steps to mitigate those types of 'problems', such as prioritizing enhancement bonuses as item picks, using higher proficiency weapons, choosing powers that target low defenses, tactics, etc. It all works.

When considering whether hybrids should be part of retraining, I would go through this logic:

1. LFR uses core rules. Do core rulse allow retraining from/to hybrid? Should LFR deviate in this case?
2. What is the reason for deviating? Is it because these choices are unplayable and cannot be corrected to make a playable and enjoyable PC?
3. Is every player entitled to a continual state of top-tier optimization? Is that good for the campaign?
4. As a player, is LFR more fun when you are at the top-tier of optimization?

Allowing hybrid retraining is not about allowing a continual state of top-tier optimization (at least not entirely). I argue that it is good for the campaign.

As I mentioned earlier I have characters who either are PMCed or are planned for PMCing. Being 'optimized' was clearly never an issue for me. I wanted access to a gimmick badly enough that I was willing to pay four feats and a paragon path for it. Playing with characters who also have my gimmick who did not pay four feats and a paragon path very much does detract from the fun of LFR for me.

I'm sure some people will use a hybrid retrain to rebuild their character into Fey Charger version XIII but those are probably the same people who play in Rust Monster MYREs. There is no stopping them anyways.

Jan 11, 2010 -- 11:56AM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

As I mentioned earlier I have characters who either are PMCed or are planned for PMCing. Being 'optimized' was clearly never an issue for me. I wanted access to a gimmick badly enough that I was willing to pay four feats and a paragon path for it. Playing with characters who also have my gimmick who did not pay four feats and a paragon path very much does detract from the fun of LFR for me.

Did you start these characters after the first Hybrid Playtest was released?

If so I am curious as to why you didn't just wait? Hybrid was always intended for PHB3 this year, such concepts could have always waited for it and you could have played different characters in the meantime.

Now what you are saying is "because I have a corner case, everyone should be able to change so I can have the optimal output for my corner cases".

LFR Admin need to make the best choices for the campaign as a whole, and I'm a long way from convinced that allowing everyone the ability to retrain into Hybrid as if it was a Class Feature retrain. That said I do think that people that have PMC multiclassed characters should be given the option to retrain as Hybrids, so I'm not entirely against it as an option, just as it being given equivalence to a normal Class Feature retrain.

I simply think that going hybrid (or back) is a lot, lot more complex than a clas sfeature retrain (which allows 2 other elements to be retrained).
You really cannot just 'retrain' into hybrid if you can only change two powers. what people ask when they want to 'retrain' into hybrid is a total rebuild. That is why we should not allow it as a 'retrain'.

Gomez

Jan 11, 2010 -- 11:56AM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

Allowing hybrid retraining is not about allowing a continual state of top-tier optimization (at least not entirely). I argue that it is good for the campaign.

As I mentioned earlier I have characters who either are PMCed or are planned for PMCing. Being 'optimized' was clearly never an issue for me. I wanted access to a gimmick badly enough that I was willing to pay four feats and a paragon path for it. Playing with characters who also have my gimmick who did not pay four feats and a paragon path very much does detract from the fun of LFR for me.

I'm sure some people will use a hybrid retrain to rebuild their character into Fey Charger version XIII but those are probably the same people who play in Rust Monster MYREs. There is no stopping them anyways.

This helps me understand your perspective much better, thanks! I'm not sold on allowing the change, but I do understand your point.

Jan 11, 2010 -- 11:56AM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

Allowing hybrid retraining is not about allowing a continual state of top-tier optimization (at least not entirely). I argue that it is good for the campaign.

As I mentioned earlier I have characters who either are PMCed or are planned for PMCing. Being 'optimized' was clearly never an issue for me. I wanted access to a gimmick badly enough that I was willing to pay four feats and a paragon path for it. Playing with characters who also have my gimmick who did not pay four feats and a paragon path very much does detract from the fun of LFR for me.

I'm sure some people will use a hybrid retrain to rebuild their character into Fey Charger version XIII but those are probably the same people who play in Rust Monster MYREs. There is no stopping them anyways.

I'm not sure where I come down on allowing or disallowing retrains when new options open.  (yes, I was strident about allowing retrains on errated/altered powers feats and class features, but I do feel that that was an entirely different case).

I do understand your feeling though.  We had a home game where I played a barbarian under the playtest.  I was really sold on the concept that the barbarian puts it all out there, and in exchange gets temp hp to help him survive.

Untill the Battlerager was published in Martial Power.  Wow.  The battlerager did everything that the barbarian was billed as being, and more.  Okay, no problem.  Grumble.  Grumble.

Then we had a player join the game playing the battlerager.  Suddenly, my character and his entire role and schtick were buried away, as we had somebody who could do everything I did, and not spend every encounter bloodied.

In a flair of drama, the barbarian elected to jump off a cliff, and I reentered the campaign with an entirely different character (bard) a couple of levels lower.

I was happier playing the struggling bard, than playing the now-irrevelent barbarian.

Jan 11, 2010 -- 11:20AM, Alphastream1 wrote:

When considering whether hybrids should be part of retraining, I would go through this logic:

1. LFR uses core rules. Do core rulse allow retraining from/to hybrid? Should LFR deviate in this case?
2. What is the reason for deviating? Is it because these choices are unplayable and cannot be corrected to make a playable and enjoyable PC?
3. Is every player entitled to a continual state of top-tier optimization? Is that good for the campaign?
4. As a player, is LFR more fun when you are at the top-tier of optimization?

1. LFR uses core rules. Do core rulse allow retraining from/to hybrid? Should LFR deviate in this case?
 Should is secondary. LFR does retrain and thats what is important. Since it does, the implementation of LFR and retraining should be to do the best does possible, not into deciding whether retraining is good or bad.
Just my personal opinion,  but I don't like retraining/bulk retraining/trading in items of any kind-but I understand those are my opinions on how my home game should be run. I want the best home game and the best LFR.  Some goals are very different (for example my home game doesn't seek to have 5 tables going simultaneously) and some are very similar (my home game wants to be fun).  

I feel allowing retraining, hyrbid retrains, class feature retrains, and mass rebuilds after errated powers help keep players interested in their characters and in developing their characters. I also feel that this encourages the purchase and use of newer products (for example products containing hybrid paragon paths or hybrid feats).  I don't have any evidence, but my general feeling that if LFR play generates more cash flow through related purchases, this will impact the campaign in a positive way.  Due to this, I feel that LFR should deviate in this case.

2.  What is the reason for deviating? Is it because these choices are unplayable and cannot be corrected to make a playable and enjoyable PC?
The reason for deviating is to keep LFR players able to use all of the features and ideas that are being made from the new products. There are lots of good ideas and having the option to do one or two new things from a shiny new book is fun.  I also feel that many people enjoy playing with the same group of people throughout the levels, this allows people playing with their friends (for example everyones at level 5 now) to use new articles and books without having to split up from their normal group. Hybrid PCs will be a new feature once the PHB3 is released. Being able to retrain into them or retrain out of them is the best practice for integrating new features with the existing campaign.
I do not feel that these choices would make a character unplayable, but there is a post saying there is a chance it could make an unplayable character that they do not want to sit at the table with. Can they be corrected? A normal PC can, but under the current rules a hybrid PC could not be corrected under the current ccg.

3. Is every player entitled to a continual state of top-tier optimization? Is that good for the campaign?
I don't think every player is entitled to top-tier optimization. I honestly don't know if top-tier optimization is good for the campaign or not. I am not sure if thats the answer you were looking for in your question but I don't want to make any incorrect assumptions.

4. As a player, is LFR more fun when you are at the top-tier of optimization?
Wow alphastream, thats a tough question and its hard to make a general "yes or no" answer. Its a tough question because I should know, but I don't know if its more fun. There are certainly times when its fun having just the right power at just the right situation to help the whole party-combined with the right optimization (Healers Mercy or Beacon that saves the parties Bacon); but there are times when not being optimized is fun too (like rolling a 20 in that untrained skill check-you know when your 8 CHA barbarian has to roll a 19 or 20 on a diplomacy check and does).  
 
These are all good questions and I tried to give the best answers I could.

Jan 12, 2010 -- 11:57AM, Mind_Flayer_Monk wrote:

The reason for deviating is to keep LFR players able to use all of the features and ideas that are being made from the new products.

I personally think this is the wrong reason to allow rebuilds (sorry, but they are not retrains).
Or that LFR is the wrong campaign to do this in.

Gomez

Jan 12, 2010 -- 12:19PM, gomeztoo wrote:

Jan 12, 2010 -- 11:57AM, Mind_Flayer_Monk wrote:

The reason for deviating is to keep LFR players able to use all of the features and ideas that are being made from the new products.

I personally think this is the wrong reason to allow rebuilds (sorry, but they are not retrains).
Or that LFR is the wrong campaign to do this in.

Gomez

Good points and if thats the direction the campaign takes thats fine. The campaign will still be good. I am not going to quit DMing or playing because of this issue.  I am giving my opinion (through what I have observed) on the hybrids. 

As for rebuild vs retrain, this is a valid point and I sat down and thought about this for a little bit before replying to your point. My conclusion is the retrain seems to work fine for PCs level 2-7, after that it becomes harder and at paragon it seems to be more trouble than its worth. But thats a decision a player would have to make. 

Regarding the LFR is the wrong campaign for this: I was generally against any kind of changes-I felt it made DMing a little too challenging (way too much going on, too many new rules). I recently DMed at a convention post Dec 19 Update and what I really saw was allowing the new stuff in and retrains kept people playing together. Some were father-son combos, some were casual players that were in the same home game and LFR was a side activity, and another was a group that carried a sign saying "PCs 47, Monsters 0."  I think this is valuable.

This is an anecdote, and I don't know what the state of global LFR play is in general. There could be  tons of broken characters running around Maryland I am unaware of. I can only tell you what I am observing in my area and what seems to be working. I hope people will consider what I am saying as  "additional data" and not arguing or unfair criticism.

Jan 12, 2010 -- 11:57AM, Mind_Flayer_Monk wrote:

1. LFR uses core rules. Do core rules allow retraining from/to hybrid? Should LFR deviate in this case?
 Should is secondary. LFR does retrain and thats what is important. Since it does, the implementation of LFR and retraining should be to do the best does possible, not into deciding whether retraining is good or bad.
Just my personal opinion,  but I don't like retraining/bulk retraining/trading in items of any kind-but I understand those are my opinions on how my home game should be run. I want the best home game and the best LFR.  Some goals are very different (for example my home game doesn't seek to have 5 tables going simultaneously) and some are very similar (my home game wants to be fun). 

My thought here was more along the lines that LFR is supposed to (under the new vision for the RPGA) follow core rules. Via core, I cannot (as far as I know) retrain from one class to another, nor from one class (or class and MC/PMC) to a hybrid. Because the core rules do not allow it, LFR would have to take a specific stance to deviate from that core rule. That would be pretty impressive policy-wise. Not impossible, but unlikely. The reason for the deviation should be compelling.

Jan 12, 2010 -- 11:57AM, Mind_Flayer_Monk wrote:

4. As a player, is LFR more fun when you are at the top-tier of optimization?
Wow alphastream, thats a tough question and its hard to make a general "yes or no" answer. Its a tough question because I should know, but I don't know if its more fun. There are certainly times when its fun having just the right power at just the right situation to help the whole party-combined with the right optimization (Healers Mercy or Beacon that saves the parties Bacon); but there are times when not being optimized is fun too (like rolling a 20 in that untrained skill check-you know when your 8 CHA barbarian has to roll a 19 or 20 on a diplomacy check and does). 

I agree, it is a tough question. I wrestle with it myself. I know I don't want to come to a table "soft". That is, I'm not looking to gimp my PC or ignore good build options on purpose. I know that blowing an adventure away can be just fine - RP is where a lot of the good emotions come from at my table, not some sense of superiority. When we blow stuff away that is fine, and we just RP more. A game with low tension is good. But, too many of those get a bit dull. I think LFR is giving me mixed messages. My experiences at paragon make me want to go fairly off-the-wall with PC choices so as to be less optimal, because optimization seems unnecessary. But, the heroic tier experiences temper that. Regardless, nothing in LFR makes me feel like I should increase optimization. My dwarves do just fine as rogues and taclords, for example. I think, finally, I find a mix of challenges most fun, and optimization can prevent that. I want balanced rules that limit optimization and a variety of challenges from adventures so LFR isn't a deathtrap nor a cakewalk.

A lot of my original thought on the questions came from misunderstanding Ferol to be saying we should be entitled to the most powerful options. He may be saying that to some extent, but is also saying that a concept can take many feats/choices and then be invalidated by something new that makes that happen. It seems an unavoidable reality. Reading the list of ranger paragon classes previewed recently, there is a swarm ranger... does that invalidate a swarm druid that went with ranged weapons? The massive publication rate for 4E just says that options will always be raining down upon us - it is unavoidable that any concept you enable through something now might be captured better by new rules options. Does that qualify us for continual retrains? If the campaign says yes, will the next argument be to lift the 1/PC limit on class feature retrains, etc.?

I have tried to see the other perspective, but I come back to preferring to stick with what you choose. Abilities, class, race - these should not be retrained. These define the PC and a living campaign should have some PC stability if the concept of a PC is supposed to at all be living.

Try looking at the issue in the same light as the big wave of errata we had in the past few months. In almost all instances players were given free retrains, refunds, and at the very worst the option to modify a chosen item slot for things that were updated by the errata. This was regardless of the fact that those things were all fixable with retrains/money according to the rules we already had.

If you think of hybrids as a replacement for the paragon multiclass system shouldn't characters in a similiar situation be allowed the same leeway?

Jan 12, 2010 -- 2:35PM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

Try looking at the issue in the same light as the big wave of errata we had in the past few months. In almost all instances players were given free retrains, refunds, and at the very worst the option to modify a chosen item slot for things that were updated by the errata. This was regardless of the fact that those things were all fixable with retrains/money according to the rules we already had.

If you think of hybrids as a replacement for the paragon multiclass system shouldn't characters in a similiar situation be allowed the same leeway?

I don't think of hybrids as a replacement for the paragon multiclass system.  I think of hybrids as an alternative approach to a similar, but not identical, character build.  Neither system is purely optimal to the other and both have advantages and disadvantages.

For example, a fighter paragon multiclassed into a wizard can mark with wizard powers.  A hybrid fighter/wizard cannot (and in fact, possibly cannot mark at all).  It is disingenous to claim that hybrid is simply a replacement or improvement on paragon multiclassing.  It may be simply better for the purpose that you chose to multiclass, but that standard is simply too weak.  Any new class, feat, power, paragon path, etc can conceivably be optimal to a choice made towards a specific end.  Retrains or trade-ins or etc should not be provided whenever a new option is added.

If you could convince me that hybrids are actually fully designed to replace paragon multiclassing or are always optimal, I might agree with you.  I have read the rules and you will never convince me that is the case.

-SYB

Jan 12, 2010 -- 2:35PM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

If you think of hybrids as a replacement for the paragon multiclass system shouldn't characters in a similiar situation be allowed the same leeway?

Given this premise, I almost see where you are coming from.  The problem is that it is a flawed premise.  When the Ardent became playable, you couldn't retrain your Druid into an Ardent, even though both are Primal Controllers.  Hybrids are not an errata to Paragon Multiclassing, they are a new class.

I'm sure you meant Seeker and not Ardent, but Seeker isn't a druid++. The only simliarity between the two is that they are both primal controllers. Seekers don't have wild shape, summons, or any of the other tricks druids have. If Seekers had access to the druid's powers and feats in addition to other stuff this would be more appropriate.

A hybrid character is, with a few exceptions, a better version of a paragon mulitclassing character. You get the same (and in many cases better) access to powers/feats, you get access to class features from both classes, and three feat slots back (it's safe to say that one feat will be spent on Hybrid Talent).

Jan 12, 2010 -- 2:35PM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

Try looking at the issue in the same light as the big wave of errata we had in the past few months. In almost all instances players were given free retrains, refunds, and at the very worst the option to modify a chosen item slot for things that were updated by the errata. This was regardless of the fact that those things were all fixable with retrains/money according to the rules we already had.

If you think of hybrids as a replacement for the paragon multiclass system shouldn't characters in a similiar situation be allowed the same leeway?

Do you really want to get into this again?

Nothing that happened in the errata was really fixable with retrains or money according to the rules that we already had. (As I said before, if a home game DM said, "oh, by the way, I've decided to change the way that armor proficiencies work--your paladin is too hard to hit so divine challenge now only works in chainmail or light armor... no, you can't make any changes to your character until you reach the next level and you don't deserve any special deals on that black iron armor that is now useless to your character and can't be transferred to chainmail. Suck it up," most players would consider the DM to be a bad DM and would think long and hard before playing another session with him or her, if they didn't just pick up their bags and leave the table right then and there. That is essentially what happened with the errata (though it is more balanced than the hypothetical DM's houserule, it is no less arbitrary)). The rules for retraining do not exist to fix characters when the rules change under them midstream and are not universally sufficient for that purpose in any event. And using the retraining rules to address changes produced by errata prevents retraining from serving its actual purpose.

On the other hand, hybrid characters are an entirely different matter. As far as I can tell, all of your paragon multiclass characters will work exactly the same way they worked before. Not a single point of their AC, NADs, attack bonuses, powers, or feats will change. The characters will work exactly the same way they did before hybrid characters became legal. Hybrid characters may exist to fill a similar purpose to paragon multiclass characters (to allow players to combine the abilities of multiple classes in a manner which we hope is balanced), but they do not change the other characters. Thus, while incorporating sweeping errata into the game without making any allowances for changing PCs would violate the basic social contract between the players and DM (or, in the case of LFR, the campaign administration), adding hybrid characters without an option to retrain into or out of hybridness would not violate that contract.

Personally, I still think that the campaign should allow a retrain (perhaps a class feature retrain) into or out of hybrid class status. Hybrid character creation seems likely to be complex enough that a lot of players will probably need undo buttons when they realize that they've created characters who aren't any good at anything. And allowing them to have that undo button will probably be better for the campaign than insisting that they start new characters if they don't like their hybrids anymore. But, just because it's a good idea and it involves changing characters does not mean that it is the same as the changes occasioned by the errata.

Jan 12, 2010 -- 4:18PM, Elder_basilisk wrote:

Do you really want to get into this again?

Nothing that happened in the errata was really fixable with retrains or money according to the rules that we already had. (As I said before, if a home game DM said, "oh, by the way, I've decided to change the way that armor proficiencies work--your paladin is too hard to hit so divine challenge now only works in chainmail or light armor... no, you can't make any changes to your character until you reach the next level and you don't deserve any special deals on that black iron armor that is now useless to your character and can't be transferred to chainmail. Suck it up," most players would consider the DM to be a bad DM and would think long and hard before playing another session with him or her, if they didn't just pick up their bags and leave the table right then and there. That is essentially what happened with the errata (though it is more balanced than the hypothetical DM's houserule, it is no less arbitrary)). The rules for retraining do not exist to fix characters when the rules change under them midstream and are not universally sufficient for that purpose in any event. And using the retraining rules to address changes produced by errata prevents retraining from serving its actual purpose.

On the other hand, hybrid characters are an entirely different matter. As far as I can tell, all of your paragon multiclass characters will work exactly the same way they worked before. Not a single point of their AC, NADs, attack bonuses, powers, or feats will change. The characters will work exactly the same way they did before hybrid characters became legal. Hybrid characters may exist to fill a similar purpose to paragon multiclass characters (to allow players to combine the abilities of multiple classes in a manner which we hope is balanced), but they do not change the other characters. Thus, while incorporating sweeping errata into the game without making any allowances for changing PCs would violate the basic social contract between the players and DM (or, in the case of LFR, the campaign administration), adding hybrid characters without an option to retrain into or out of hybridness would not violate that contract.

Personally, I still think that the campaign should allow a retrain (perhaps a class feature retrain) into or out of hybrid class status. Hybrid character creation seems likely to be complex enough that a lot of players will probably need undo buttons when they realize that they've created characters who aren't any good at anything. And allowing them to have that undo button will probably be better for the campaign than insisting that they start new characters if they don't like their hybrids anymore. But, just because it's a good idea and it involves changing characters does not mean that it is the same as the changes occasioned by the errata.

Characters who were hit with errata were fixable. It may not have been cheap, simple, or fair but with enough time and levels you could get your character back to where you wanted him/her to be. I have no problem spending the next 20 levels worth of retraining if that is what it took to get characters where they should be. This is not a matter of the solution being reasonable this is a matter of there being no solution at all (short of just starting over).

As far as the campaign rules replacing a home game judge, I see introducing hybrids as the exact same problem. I'm sure most home game judges would allow a player to rebuild their character into a hybrid if their current character was close enough in concept. You're right. If I was in a home game and the judge wouldn't allow me to rebuild my character into a hybrid I would think long and hard about coming back if not walking away on the spot.

Lumping hybrid retrains in with class features is a good solution since they serve a similar goal. That is, new stuff came out that you think is cooler/funner/otherwise better than your current stuff and the basic retrain rules don't cover it.

Jan 12, 2010 -- 4:01PM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

A hybrid character is, with a few exceptions, a better version of a paragon mulitclassing character. You get the same (and in many cases better) access to powers/feats, you get access to class features from both classes, and three feat slots back (it's safe to say that one feat will be spent on Hybrid Talent).

Justify this broad generalization of a statement.  And, do it without simply resorting to a handful of specific examples.  So far, I have only seen two very specific builds used to prove this point: the avenger/swordmage AC god and the ranger/shaman build.  And, a large amount of counterevidence has been shown for the first build (including that it no longer has any strong striker or defender qualities and that the high AC masks average to pitiful NADs).

I'd like to see any actual strong or conclusive evidence that hybrids are better versions of paragon multiclassing character in the general case.  The only evidence provided has been specific cases.  Otherwise, this is simply a fallacious argument with no grounding, whatsoever.

-SYB

Well I'm afraid I don't really understand what kind of evidence you're asking for but I'll try my best to give some general examples.

Hybrids gain access to feats and other tricks that multiclassing characters cannot because multiclassing in general does not give access to actual class features.

A Class X / paragon mulitclassed ranger can never be a Battlefield Archer. A hybrid ranger can.

A Class X / paragon multiclassed warlock cannot use any of the feats or items centered around the target of your curse. A hybrid warlock can.

A Class X / paragon multiclassed fighter can never take improved tempest technique or marked scourge. A hybrid fighter can.

A Class X / paragon multiclassed sorcerer cannot use Storm Magic. A hybrid sorcerer can.

Hybrids also have ridiculous flexibility with their implements, something other characters (especially multiclassed characters) have to otherwise invest feats into or use specific magic items to compensate for. All this access/flexibility is on top of having more free feats (since a hybrid doesn't have to spend four to paragon multiclass).

You are correct in that hybrids have short-comings in certain areas. For example, a hybrid fighter can only mark with fighter powers. However, these weakness are, for the most part, very easily circumvented. A hybrid fighter simply takes utilities that mark a target, uses feats that give extra marking, or chooses powers from his hybrid class that mark a target (see Divine Challenge). The reverse is not true. A non-hybrid fighter cannot invest in feats/magic items/utility powers to get access to Channel Divinity or Lay on Hands.

As for the weaknesses of the hybrid avenger swordmage those are completely untrue. The avenger swordmage has the same net NADs as non-hybrid swordmages (since wisdom and int are seperate defense groups) and still retains the Avenger's true striker quality - Oath.

Jan 12, 2010 -- 7:03PM, SYB wrote:

I'd like to see any actual strong or conclusive evidence that hybrids are better versions of paragon multiclassing character in the general case.

I think it depends on the build. Paragon Multiclassing's most powerful builds revolve around optimizing one classes' at-will around another one's class feature. An Avenger PMC Ranger can do Twin Strike and Oath of Enmity at the same time. A Fighter/ PMC Swordmage/Wizard(Windrise Ports) can do Fighter multimarking on a burst 3 attack. If you don't do that, most of the builds tend to be really poor, especially if they're not a half-elf. Half-Elves aren't that bad. 3 different at-wills from 3 different classes?

Hybrid on the other hand, their most powerful builds involve picking up a primary role, but optimizing around the class powers/features remaining to amp up that build. The strongest builds seem to pick up either Striker or Controller and then work with some other class that provides benefits regardless of whether or not the powers of the 2nd class are being used to attack.

Examples:
Invoker/Striker or Invoker/Leader - provides control or damage or control or leader.
Ranger/Leader - provides striking and leader
Barbarian/Warden - striker damage + weak mark at low cost.
Paladin/Ranger - one feat for Plate defenses for Str/Wis build.

I think a way of looking at it is that PMC forces you to optimize or be greatly suboptimal, where Hybrid is mainly about making sure you still fill a role - and if you do that, odds are you're above average. 

Jan 12, 2010 -- 4:01PM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

A hybrid character is, with a few exceptions, a better version of a paragon mulitclassing character. You get the same (and in many cases better) access to powers/feats, you get access to class features from both classes, and three feat slots back (it's safe to say that one feat will be spent on Hybrid Talent).

It isn't better, it's different.  I won't go into it because the points have all been laid out previously.  The idea that they are better because they pop up in CharOp a lot is erroneous as well.  Sure, they show up in many of the wild builds they dream up to try to push the limits of some part of a build (DPR, AC, ongoing damage, etc.), but many of them would tell you that for an every day character Hybrids aren't all that great.

Jan 12, 2010 -- 7:34PM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

As for the weaknesses of the hybrid avenger swordmage those are completely untrue. The avenger swordmage has the same net NADs as non-hybrid swordmages (since wisdom and int are seperate defense groups) and still retains the Avenger's true striker quality - Oath.

No, not quite. The Avenger does 5 things to be a striker:
Oath

Censure - Censure damage doesn't always happen, but when it does, it can really up damage by a lot.

Use big weapon. Preferably a superior axe or hammer. Avenger/Swordmage is struggling to find a feat slot to pick up Bastard Sword which is doing 5.5 per W instead of an average of about 8 per W.

Take multi-attack powers from outside Avenger.

Gain a benefit from their paragon path. Such as better chance at a crit or +wis to damage. Avengers really take advantage of an improved crit chance.

Without those other options, an Avenger is an incredibly weak on the damage side striker.

Jan 12, 2010 -- 8:22PM, Dragon9 wrote:

Sure, they show up in many of the wild builds they dream up to try to push the limits of some part of a build (DPR, AC, ongoing damage, etc.), but many of them would tell you that for an every day character Hybrids aren't all that great.

I think they're better than average for every day use - you just need to be prepared to take advantage of utility over raw optimization. And you also need to be able to handle multiple class features.

I think DDXP is going to be wild, simply because so many people won't understand what their characters can legally do or not do. 

Jan 12, 2010 -- 7:34PM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

Hybrids gain access to feats and other tricks that multiclassing characters cannot because multiclassing in general does not give access to actual class features.

It qualifies you for the pre-reqs.  Says so right in the MC feat rules.

"These feats can qualify you for other feats; for example, a warlock who takes Sneak of Shadows can use the rogue’s Sneak Attack class feature, which means that he meets the prerequisite for the Backstabber feat."

Based on your examples below, according to you, a Class X/MC Rogue could not take Backstabber because they don't have the Sneak Attack class feature.  The RAW says otherwise.

A Class X / paragon multiclassed warlock cannot use any of the feats or items centered around the target of your curse. A hybrid warlock can.

Not true.  The Student of Malediction MC feat gives you access to Warlocks Curse so you would qualify for these feats/items just like the Sneak Attack example from the book.

It's true that many f them do not name class features and so you wouldn't get them.  But again, it's a difference between dabbling in another class and splitting yourself between two classes.  Not better, just different.

Jan 12, 2010 -- 8:24PM, Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:

Jan 12, 2010 -- 7:34PM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

As for the weaknesses of the hybrid avenger swordmage those are completely untrue. The avenger swordmage has the same net NADs as non-hybrid swordmages (since wisdom and int are seperate defense groups) and still retains the Avenger's true striker quality - Oath.

No, not quite. The Avenger does 5 things to be a striker:
Oath

Censure - Censure damage doesn't always happen, but when it does, it can really up damage by a lot.

This is worth mentioning because it also will tend to happen when oath does not. I've run a few mods for a player of an avenger recently and he seemed to think that because deadly stride let him walk into the back ranks of the monsters, it was a good idea to do so. Well, the long and the short of it was that he ended up getting surrounded and taking a savage beating that dropped him to negatives in pretty much every fight. It also ended up preventing him from using his oath of enmity bonus (being surrounded tends to make that hard to get). But, boy did he build up that censure of retribution and when he hit, my poor monsters felt it.

Stop me for being gloomy, but here's what I see five-to-eight months from now if they allow a one-time retrain for hybrids (and even if they don't).

"But there are so many new options! Sure we should get one more class feature / hybrid retrain per PC..."

My point being, where does it end? Is no decision related to a PC core to what the PC is and therefore fixed? Are we not being myopic in that the slew of classes and paragon paths and feats will always mean something more appropriate is around the corner?

I lean against a retrain for the simple reason that there is so much LFR to be had.  Characters level faster than they did in LG.  You can play at home.  There are more modules available for play.  I played one LG character off and on for 6 years (pretty active for 3 years of that) and finished at 14th level.  I have been playing LFR for 18 months and I have 4 paragon level characters already (and several more in heroic).  It just isn't very hard or time consuming to level up another character to take advantage of new material that can't be worked into an existing character within retrain rules.

Jan 12, 2010 -- 8:50PM, Alphastream1 wrote:

My point being, where does it end? Is no decision related to a PC core to what the PC is and therefore fixed? Are we not being myopic in that the slew of classes and paragon paths and feats will always mean something more appropriate is around the corner?

This same problem plagued LG.  There will always be those who see their PCs as a collection of numbers and data rather than characters who want their PCs to have the newest shinies.

Jan 13, 2010 -- 5:25AM, Dragon9 wrote:

There will always be those who see their PCs as a collection of numbers and data rather than characters who want their PCs to have the newest shinies.

And of course that is bad and wrong, and if it was encouraged it would somehow reduce the fun for folks who feel the opposite way...

Jan 13, 2010 -- 9:21AM, amysrevenge wrote:

Jan 13, 2010 -- 5:25AM, Dragon9 wrote:

There will always be those who see their PCs as a collection of numbers and data rather than characters who want their PCs to have the newest shinies.

And of course that is bad and wrong, and if it was encouraged it would somehow reduce the fun for folks who feel the opposite way...

Well. Actually, rewriting characters I play with frequently does hurt my fun; sorry about that. If a regular player in my group rewrote from a paladin to a hybrid paladin/sorcerer or something, it'd detract, yeah.

I'm not saying my fun's more important than your fun. I'm just saying that PC continuity is a big deal to me. It's already weak enough in LFR so that I'd personally hate to see it weakened further.

On the other hand, if it happened, I'd suck it up.

I'm waiting for people to argue that as long as they ever had a character hit X-level, they should be able to create any new characters at X-level instead of having to start over.

The game changes. If you like the new stuff, start a character with the new stuff. Who really needs to rewrite an existing character just to make sure he's min-maxed enough to be better than a potential new character that still going to need leveling up just to even play in the same adventures? That's not fun, that's a job.

Personally, I didn't really see the appeal of hybrids until I thought to build a Tiefling Bard/Warlock (I could name him Voltaire!). The entire concept (infernal powers summoned/powered by music) has a huge appeal to me and there appears to be enough compatability to make it work.

Jan 12, 2010 -- 8:39PM, Dragon9 wrote:

Jan 12, 2010 -- 7:34PM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

Hybrids gain access to feats and other tricks that multiclassing characters cannot because multiclassing in general does not give access to actual class features.

It qualifies you for the pre-reqs.  Says so right in the MC feat rules.

"These feats can qualify you for other feats; for example, a warlock who takes Sneak of Shadows can use the rogue’s Sneak Attack class feature, which means that he meets the prerequisite for the Backstabber feat."

Based on your examples below, according to you, a Class X/MC Rogue could not take Backstabber because they don't have the Sneak Attack class feature.  The RAW says otherwise.

A Class X / paragon multiclassed warlock cannot use any of the feats or items centered around the target of your curse. A hybrid warlock can.

Not true.  The Student of Malediction MC feat gives you access to Warlocks Curse so you would qualify for these feats/items just like the Sneak Attack example from the book.

It's true that many f them do not name class features and so you wouldn't get them.  But again, it's a difference between dabbling in another class and splitting yourself between two classes.  Not better, just different.

I did say 'in general' when referring to the availability of picking up class features of other classes when multiclassing. I did not use sneak attack as an example because rogue is one of the classes that you actually can multiclass to get access to class features for. Please let me know if there is a feat somewhere that I missed that gives you Combat Challenge, Archery Combat Style, Spell Source, Censure, or Bravura Presence.

As for Student of Malediction, you are correct, I missed that one. Although I wouldn't call it even a fraction as powerful as a hybrid Curse, a Student of Malediction character can curse (and deal damage) once per encounter. Certainly that is similar to the cursing capabilities of a hybrid warlock.

These couple examples does not disprove my issue. Hybrids have vastly more options that non-hybrids of the same class can never gain access to.

Jan 13, 2010 -- 10:00AM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

I did say 'in general' when referring to the availability of picking up class features of other classes when multiclassing. I did not use sneak attack as an example because rogue is one of the classes that you actually can multiclass to get access to class features for. Please let me know if there is a feat somewhere that I missed that gives you Combat Challenge, Archery Combat Style, Spell Source, Censure, or Bravura Presence.

As for Student of Malediction, you are correct, I missed that one. Although I wouldn't call it even a fraction as powerful as a hybrid Curse, a Student of Malediction character can curse (and deal damage) once per encounter. Certainly that is similar to the cursing capabilities of a hybrid warlock.

These couple examples does not disprove my issue. Hybrids have vastly more options that non-hybrids of the same class can never gain access to.

I wasn't trying to disprove your statement/feelings on the issue.  Merely pointing out that those statements were incorrect.  (Oh, and I forgot to mention your statement about MCing not grating channel divinity, which is also incorrect.  There are several PMC feats in Divine Power that grants it, as well as a MC feat that only has prereqs of Wis 13 and trained in Religion)

As I've said, they're different.  Not better.  True, no MC feat gives Combat Challenge, a Ranger Combat Style, a Spell Source or a Warlord Presense.  That doesn't mean that MCing is bad and Hybrids are great.  Heck, you have to spend a feat as a Hybrid to get those features anyway (except combat challenge).  Which doesn't make it that much different than MCing.  PMCing is a whole different story.

Me personally, I don't like Hybrids.  I doubt I would ever build one myself.  To me you give up way too much for a little bit of utility and possibly having access to some Paragon Paths you couldn't qualify for before which, if you didn't qualify for them in MC, probably wouldn't have been a good fit anyway.  I challenge the idea that they can do more because they don't have more features/powers than a single class character or a MC character they're just more varied.  But even if you spend the HT feats to get the extra two Features of a class, quite often they are more limited that a straight class character, and a little better than a MC.  A MC warlord uses Inspiring Word as a Daily were a Hybrid uses it as an Encounter power (and not 2x per encounter like a full blown Warlord).  You can get the Presence but it's an Encounter feature as well.

If you HPMCed in such a way you're not as good as a full blown Warlord (1/2 the powers and reduced efficacy of class features) and whatever your other class is has been neglected and you won't be as good at that either.

Hybrids make decent utility characters, but they aren't a replacement for a straight class character (with or without MC) in party makeup because they won't be able to fulfill their role as well.

Well I wasn't arguing hybrids vs normally multiclassed characters at this time. My more recent posts have been in response to Syb's request (back on page 12 I believe) for reasons why hybrids are generally better than PMCing.

Hybrids being better than single class characters, or minimally multiclassed characters, is an entirely different discussion.

Jan 13, 2010 -- 10:53AM, Dragon9 wrote:

Me personally, I don't like Hybrids. 

I think of hybrids as best for non-optimal reasons. You really want the concept of something that delves in two areas. You aren't doing it to optimize, but to be a bit of this and a bit of that. Now, I would argue that the enormous number of classes already allow us to do this, but I can still see someone wanting to really be a Warden|Warlock for concept reasons. When I read optimization guides I just skip the hybrid posts because they don't resemble something I would want to play. But, that's just me. Playing a hybrid for any reason is valid for other people!

Jan 13, 2010 -- 10:53AM, Dragon9 wrote:

Hybrids make decent utility characters, but they aren't a replacement for a straight class character (with or without MC) in party makeup because they won't be able to fulfill their role as well.

I think that's very dependent on role. A Striker functions about as well as a regular Striker minus a feat. A Controller does the same. A Sorcerer/Paladin who pretends to be a Sorcerer, but spends a feat on Plate/Shield proficiency is going to do very well for himself - he'll fill the role of a Striker and his ability to divine challenge will drive enemies nuts and make up for the minor loss of the Sorcerer specials.

The Defenders have issues because they can't establish their marks as well and they're usually forced to spend their hybrid talent feat on getting Defender defenses. Leaders are down the heal and often important class abilities attached to their hybrid talent feat. I think if you're trying to fill a Defender or Leader role, you need to pick a class that has a very strong kind of role in that regard and if you go outside of it, pick another class that at least has it as a secondary.

As an example, a Paladin is a secondary Leader. So a Paladin/Cleric hybrid isn't a half-bad Leader who happens to have a couple of odd non-Cleric things going on. Not great Leader, though by any means and who will want to take Leader abilities over any other choice available.

Jan 13, 2010 -- 10:00AM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

Please let me know if there is a feat somewhere that I missed that gives you Combat Challenge, Archery Combat Style, Spell Source, Censure, or Bravura Presence.

Sorcerus Power, Arcaner Power Feat.

You can't get Archery Style (which is rather worthless outside of qualifying for Paragon Paths, which you've already given up), you can get Prime Shot (Courageous Shooter), which is honestly a much better class feature, and might be worth the Paragon path for the right build.

You can get Challenge once per encounter (Battle Awarness), and you can get full on Superiotiy (Battle Acumen). If your already a defender, Superiority is a much better feature to pick up.

For Censure, your SOL. You can get Channle Divinity.

Can't get Bravura Presence, but you can get Combat Leader all encounter and Insipiring or Tactical Presnce once per encounter (which is, by the way, all you can get with hybrids).

Don't take this the wrong way, but If your going to make an arguement, you may want to read up on it first just to make sure half your examples are not flat out wrong.

None of these come at the cost of class features. They come at the cost of feats and Paragon Path features, but it doesn't gimp any class features. Its much better for an Avenger to Multiclass than Hybrid save for niche Fey-Charging builds. Hybrid Wizard|Fighters kind of blow. It all comes down to what you pick and how you build your character.

Jan 13, 2010 -- 7:20PM, Nyronus wrote:

Jan 13, 2010 -- 10:00AM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

Please let me know if there is a feat somewhere that I missed that gives you Combat Challenge, Archery Combat Style, Spell Source, Censure, or Bravura Presence.

Sorcerus Power, Arcaner Power Feat.

You can't get Archery Style (which is rather worthless outside of qualifying for Paragon Paths, which you've already given up), you can get Prime Shot (Courageous Shooter), which is honestly a much better class feature, and might be worth the Paragon path for the right build.

You can get Challenge once per encounter (Battle Awarness), and you can get full on Superiotiy (Battle Acumen). If your already a defender, Superiority is a much better feature to pick up.

Well, Ferol has a point on these because the ones you mention don't actually grant the class feature.  Sneak of Shadows says you can use the Sneak Attack class feature once per encounter.  Student of Malediction says you can use the Warlock's Curse class feature once per encounter.  This qualifies you for feats that say you need the feature.  Battle Awareness, while giving you the function of it, doesn't actually say you use the class feature.  Same with Battle Acumen.  That's where those feats fall short on granting access.

Just as well - we're better off not handing out Marked Scourge to every Warden, mm?

People have made the argument that as previously errata'ed feats and powers have entitled people to retrain, thatin this case they should also be allowed to retrain.

However, Paragon Multiclassing is not being errata'ed. Hybrids are an entirely new class. So,  even if Paragon Multiclassing becomes obsolete for some reason because of this, this still does not entitle a retrain. People may not like it, but they should just deal with it and move on.

Jan 14, 2010 -- 9:53AM, Aesurtiel wrote:

People may not like it, but they should just deal with it and move on.

They won't.

Jan 14, 2010 -- 10:04AM, MatteBlack wrote:

Jan 14, 2010 -- 9:53AM, Aesurtiel wrote:

People may not like it, but they should just deal with it and move on.

They won't.

Maybe they'll get what they want.

Maybe they won't.

And if that's the case, maybe they'll move on and maybe they won't. But, in any event, I would guess that the number of paragon multiclassed characters is very small--probably much, much smaller than the number of tempests with double weapons, characters gaining losing proficiency with one end of their urgrosh, or avengers wearing leather or hide armor. And I don't think it's clear that they have a reasonable claim that they are entitled to a retrain option since nothing in their builds has changed. Most people recognize a difference between having the rules change under you so that what you were doing no longer works and having new rules come out that may (or may not) present a more efficient way of doing what you might have been trying to do. (In the much more restrictive Living Greyhawk campaign, for example, the first kind of change usually allowed a limited rebuild (for example, upon the replacement of 3.0 builder book prestige classes with 3.5 prestige classes of the same name)) but the second did not (such as when Complete Champion, etc rolled around)). So, if the ruling goes against those people and they don't get over it, I'm not going to lose much sleep over the issue. It doesn't impact me and I think it would be fair to rule either way.

Were those who are opposed to allowing a hybrid retrain opposed to the class feature retrain prior to it being implemented?

Keithric and/or Dragon: Any idea on if we can hope to see a decision from the PtB next Tuesday when this goes live?

Jan 14, 2010 -- 11:41AM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

Were those who are opposed to allowing a hybrid retrain opposed to the class feature retrain prior to it being implemented?

I was opposed to general 4E retraining, period. Actually, even 3.5 retraining. I came around on 4E retraining because of the massive quantity of choices made as you level - it is a different system than 3.5 and some retraining of powers and so on seems ok. Class feature retrain seems really weird to me, but I can see where others want it. I just like sticking to a PC concept - the personality matters. Now, I see some people doing things like saying that a Battlerager was what they wanted all along, but I could say that for people making a high Con Paladin back in early 4E - they don't get to change their class. Meh. I'm just in the "stick with who you are" mentality.

*Insert Grumpy Old Man from Saturday Night Live voice*
"In my day, we used to be 'n elf. And ye couldn't change yer class, 'cause it was yer race. And ye couldn't change yer race, 'cause it was yer class. And ye cried 'boo-hoo', and ye bled from yer eyeballs, but the dwarf couldn't do it neither, and ye both bled from being killed by yer DM 'cause he was makin' up the rules. And we liked it. We liked it just fine."

Jan 14, 2010 -- 11:41AM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

Were those who are opposed to allowing a hybrid retrain opposed to the class feature retrain prior to it being implemented?

Keithric and/or Dragon: Any idea on if we can hope to see a decision from the PtB next Tuesday when this goes live?

One more vote for retrain with hybrid in LFR!

Jan 14, 2010 -- 11:41AM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

Keithric and/or Dragon: Any idea on if we can hope to see a decision from the PtB next Tuesday when this goes live?

All we can do is shake the tree.  I would suspect it's somethign that will be discussed among the PtB so my guess is that we won't see somethign when it goes live, but I'll get the poke machine going.

I'm dreading the influx of hybrids already.

Jan 14, 2010 -- 3:35PM, Alphastream1 wrote:

*Insert Grumpy Old Man from Saturday Night Live voice*
"In my day, we used to be 'n elf. And ye couldn't change yer class, 'cause it was yer race. And ye couldn't change yer race, 'cause it was yer class. And ye cried 'boo-hoo', and ye bled from yer eyeballs, but the dwarf couldn't do it neither, and ye both bled from being killed by yer DM 'cause he was makin' up the rules. And we liked it. We liked it just fine."

Which reminds me of:

www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0222.html

Jan 12, 2010 -- 7:34PM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

Hybrids also have ridiculous flexibility with their implements, something other characters (especially multiclassed characters) have to otherwise invest feats into or use specific magic items to compensate for.

No one yet has mentioned that this flexibility is indeed ridiculous, and emphasizes one of the most poorly-defined section of the 4E ruleset. If they do not introduce clarification on how weapons as implements work along with hybrids, than I'm in favor of anything that discourages them. Builds like the disrupting whip controller or the polearm momentum wizard make absolutely no sense and the game is worse for them.

Jan 15, 2010 -- 9:35AM, RCanine wrote:

Jan 12, 2010 -- 7:34PM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

Hybrids also have ridiculous flexibility with their implements, something other characters (especially multiclassed characters) have to otherwise invest feats into or use specific magic items to compensate for.

No one yet has mentioned that this flexibility is indeed ridiculous, and emphasizes one of the most poorly-defined section of the 4E ruleset. If they do not introduce clarification on how weapons as implements work along with hybrids, than I'm in favor of anything that discourages them. Builds like the disrupting whip controller or the polearm momentum wizard make absolutely no sense and the game is worse for them.

The basic idea of flexible implements isn't that bad - a hybrid should not have to buy two implements to use all their basic powers. The issue is when one implement clearly isn't designed around being easy to use as another kind of implement.

Given that mdonais(a R&D designer at WotC) is the person who came up with one of the weapon implement things in the 1st place(using a net as an implement), I'd suspect that's not going to be a problem area...

The problem isn't that hybrids can do this. It's that hybrids can do it and non-hybrids cannot. A shaman/wizard can never use a fullblade as an implement for shaman powers. A shaman|wizard does it at level 1 with one feat.

But there is no point in arguing against hybrids being allowed into the game at this point. As MFM already stated, no amout of logic will fix this. Hybrids are coming. All I ask is that the campaign try to minimize the pain.

Jan 15, 2010 -- 10:54AM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

The problem isn't that hybrids can do this. It's that hybrids can do it and non-hybrids cannot. A shaman/wizard can never use a fullblade as an implement for shaman powers. A shaman|wizard does it at level 1 with one feat.

But there is no point in arguing against hybrids being allowed into the game at this point. As MFM already stated, no amout of logic will fix this. Hybrids are coming. All I ask is that the campaign try to minimize the pain.

A Shaman|Wizard can't do it either. A Shaman can use Wizard implements for Shaman powers, but AIP doesn't give you the ability to use a heavy blade as a Wizard implement; instead, you can use it as an implement for arcane powers.

Jan 15, 2010 -- 10:54AM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

The problem isn't that hybrids can do this. It's that hybrids can do it and non-hybrids cannot. A shaman/wizard can never use a fullblade as an implement for shaman powers. A shaman|wizard does it at level 1 with one feat.

That's my point - hybrids are extremely unlikely to be able to do this after the revision. When one of R&D is breaking the system by adding Slow to all attacks, there's going to be a fix.

That was just a random example I came up with. Looking at it now it looks like you might be right. There is plenty of room to argue that you can do it with AIP but even if you are correct couldn't you also do it easily with Wizard of the Spiral Tower?

Jan 15, 2010 -- 11:17AM, Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:

Jan 15, 2010 -- 10:54AM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

The problem isn't that hybrids can do this. It's that hybrids can do it and non-hybrids cannot. A shaman/wizard can never use a fullblade as an implement for shaman powers. A shaman|wizard does it at level 1 with one feat.

That's my point - hybrids are extremely unlikely to be able to do this after the revision. When one of R&D is breaking the system by adding Slow to all attacks, there's going to be a fix.

 
Did you read the thread where the net-wizard originated? Mike wasn't concerned about nets being useable as implements. He was was excited about it.

Edit:

Here is the thread in question.

community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...

Does this sound like the response of a game designer recognizing a balance issue?

Jan 15, 2010 -- 11:09AM, Sithobi1 wrote:

A Shaman|Wizard can't do it either. A Shaman can use Wizard implements for Shaman powers, but AIP doesn't give you the ability to use a heavy blade as a Wizard implement; instead, you can use it as an implement for arcane powers.

Er, yeah.  But then the Hybrid rules come along and say "if either class can use it as an implement, both can".   Mike's Net-izard used Hybrid implement inheritance with a Divine class to use a weapon as a holy symbol -> as an implement for wizard powers

(Edit: Personally, I think they need to clean up Implement proficiency to be the same as weapon proficiency.  I don't care how you came to be proficient, but you are.  So you can use it for any implement powers.  MC feats, Hybrid, base class, Arcane Implement Proficiency, etc, should all just give Implement Proficiency.  And no one should care the type of class the power comes from: we don't say limit Weapon Proficiency by class.)

Jan 15, 2010 -- 11:18AM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

Did you read the thread where the net-wizard originated? Mike wasn't concerned about nets being useable as implements. He was was excited about it.

Edit:

Here is the thread in question.

community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...

Does this sound like the response of a game designer recognizing a balance issue?

Yes, it does.

Remember, a lot of game designers are very, very interested in the mechanics and math of the rules. If they weren't working at WotC, they'd already be on CharOps(and probably post a lot more frequently) And he's breaking something in a way that CharOps hadn't yet done. So there's a cool factor going on there which is the excited part.

Well I guess this Tuesday will be the moment of truth than.

If the new hybrid rules don't address this how will it affect your view of them?

Jan 15, 2010 -- 1:06PM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

Well I guess this Tuesday will be the moment of truth than.

If the new hybrid rules don't address this how will it affect your view of them?

Probably not significantly - it is a problem, but anyone trying to exploit it in LFR is asking for it in the worst kind of way. It is an obvious hole in the rules and anyone trying to exploit it is eventually going to get nerfed.

Jan 15, 2010 -- 11:18AM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

That was just a random example I came up with. Looking at it now it looks like you might be right. There is plenty of room to argue that you can do it with AIP but even if you are correct couldn't you also do it easily with Wizard of the Spiral Tower?

Well Spiral Tower only works for Longswords, and I haven't found any uber combos for them (and you are talking Paragon tier).

You can do Polearm Momentum tricks with a Human Wizard at level 4, level 6 for any other race without Hybrids. The only difference being able to start as a Hybrid Wiz/Ftr is that a human can (technically) pull the combo off at level 1 and focus on their Wizard powers after that (especially if they Hybrid for Tome of Readiness). But frankly the stat distribution is so bad that they might as well forget it and go the slower route because they are not going to be using their Fighter powers much at all quite frankly. That being one of the big things, some of the wilder supposed Hybrid abuses are so MAD that they are going to be much worse off than if they were built as multi-class characters.

If you give a mouse a cookie...........

4th edition had a significant paradigm shift.  Players didn't like failing a fortitue save on an 18 and being paralyzed for 1d10 minutes (meaning sitting out of a 2 hour long high level 3.0/3.5 combat)....so they made things save ends/until end of next.  And people complain that's ridiculous.  In fact, people complain that daze is so horribly not fun.....but relative to 3.0/3.5 it could be viewed as "I've been crowd controlled....but I still get to do something? Yay!" But if you give a mouse a cookie...

People were upset that dying somewhat common in 3rd ed.  So they made dying less frequent.  People complained that de-levleling was not fun.  Now the "death penalty" is basically a joke, and death is a minor inconvenience. 

Slight tangent: (I've died 3 times in LFR, and only once been upset.  Honestly, when my artificer died in the last fight of EAST 1-3 last week, I was happy.  The other two times, I didn't see the combat do anything because they were blendered by strikers before they got turns.  I'm happy that that combat is actually challenging.  I'm sad though that death doesn't really matter in the campaign, so even an actually deadly fight doesn't make me worry, in the rare event it happens.  Sorry for the tangent.)

So people were upset about missing out on new splat in the previous editions, and they put in retraining.  Then they want to retrain class features. 

Now you're talking about retraining class entirely.  If they do that, people will argue, "since my class is changing I want to change ability scores for my new hybrid build."  If they do, other people will argue, "the hybrid guys got to change stats, so I want to as well."  Then people will want to change paragon paths, ETC.  It doesn't end...............

I say no farther!  Or they'll keep opening doors, and it will get more silly.  (So basically I agree with Alphastream. Back in my day, death was bad!  And it happened to adventurers frequently.....)

Jan 16, 2010 -- 12:05AM, Ughman wrote:

4th edition had a significant paradigm shift.  Players didn't like failing a fortitue save on an 18 and being paralyzed for 1d10 minutes (meaning sitting out of a 2 hour long high level 3.0/3.5 combat)....so they made things save ends/until end of next.  And people complain that's ridiculous.  In fact, people complain that daze is so horribly not fun.....but relative to 3.0/3.5 it could be viewed as "I've been crowd controlled....but I still get to do something? Yay!" But if you give a mouse a cookie...  

The problem with daze is that characters often get forced to do the same thing over and over again. One of the big changes of 4e from 3x was that characters should almost always have different things to do each round and that was one of the big complaints about 3x.

So being dazed an entire combat removes that feature.

Jan 16, 2010 -- 12:05AM, Ughman wrote:

People were upset that dying somewhat common in 3rd ed.  So they made dying less frequent.  People complained that de-levleling was not fun.  Now the "death penalty" is basically a joke, and death is a minor inconvenience. 

It wasn't an inconvenience in 3x - either it would force you to retire your character from the game or it was a benefit. 

While from a game mechanic point of view (i.e. same gear, lower level) dying in 3.5 was a benefit, it definitely felt like a penalty - losing a level.  It could also be a real inconvenience too.  I remember a few times where someone was one mod from 8th level and they had an APL 10 game scheduled for a few days later.  Then they would play the latest "Sheldomar/Keoland Mod of Death" and end up at level 6.  lol

Daren

Jan 16, 2010 -- 7:07AM, Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:

[snip]
It [death] wasn't an inconvenience in 3x - either it would force you to retire your character from the game or it was a benefit. 

The slippery slope argument is a terrible fallacy.  It's essentially saying "we shouldn't have police, medical or firefighting government agencies because next the mice will demand a cookie agency that goes to your house and spoon-feeds people.  People need to put out their own fires, exact their own vigilante justice and practice their own medicine!  Harumph!"  Then you sit in a staid environment and wonder why people are leaving your country because it never changes for the better.

All considerations should be made based on their merits, which includes the net gain after any detriments it brings.  D&D isn't a precious faberge egg that will break at the slightest disturbance, and no, hybrids aren't any more broken than non-hybrids (when you can deal infinite damage, there's no topping that).  Broken-ness will be errata'ed, there's no point sitting around pointing out cases that will be brought in line.

I may not be a fan of hybrids, but there is a significant benefit of drumming up support for it through allowing an RPGA class feature retrain.  The minor cases of hybrid abuse are simply not good enough to deny most people their fun and enjoyment.  Most hybrids require very specific feats and powers anyways.  The casual player won't be using such builds, and the min/maxers will certainly spend more time buying more books.  The system benefits everyone.

Jan 16, 2010 -- 1:12PM, crabcrouton wrote:

The slippery slope argument is a terrible fallacy.

Saying it's a fallacy is a fallacy.  We see it happen in real life all the time.

Jan 16, 2010 -- 1:12PM, crabcrouton wrote:

The slippery slope argument is a terrible fallacy.

And yet it's still true. The more gets allowed, the less people will accept any prohibitions that might still exist.

Jan 16, 2010 -- 1:12PM, crabcrouton wrote:

All considerations should be made based on their merits, which includes the net gain after any detriments it brings.  D&D isn't a precious faberge egg that will break at the slightest disturbance, and no, hybrids aren't any more broken than non-hybrids

And PHB2 classes and PHB3 classes aren't anymore brocken than PHB1 classes. So why not allow that one guy to just change his 12th level paladin into a 12th level avenger. After all he only has the paladin because the avenger class was simply not yet exisiting when he started his LFR character and unfortunately he hasn't that much opportunity to play LFR and couldn't affort to waste all the mods already played with his paladin. Or that wizard guy who would have been a sorcerer if the class had been avaible from the start? Or ...

Jan 16, 2010 -- 12:05AM, Ughman wrote:

If you give a mouse a cookie...........

4th edition had a significant paradigm shift.  Players didn't like failing a fortitue save on an 18 and being paralyzed for 1d10 minutes (meaning sitting out of a 2 hour long high level 3.0/3.5 combat)....so they made things save ends/until end of next.  And people complain that's ridiculous.  In fact, people complain that daze is so horribly not fun.....but relative to 3.0/3.5 it could be viewed as "I've been crowd controlled....but I still get to do something? Yay!" But if you give a mouse a cookie...

That was not my experience with 3rd edition or any of its derivatives and I played quite a bit across all the levels, in different campaigns, in and out of organized play, and in lots of different locations. Nine times out of ten, what usually happened was you rolled a 4 and succeeded on the save (and if you failed, at high levels (13+), you used a not this time card (if it was an RPGA game) or a luckblade to try again) or the cleric busted out the scroll of remove paralysis/remove fear/freedom of movement that you gave him at the beginning of the mod and fixed you before you lost a single action. (It was almost certainly fixed before you lost two actions). Or you were spelled up and immune to the effect to begin with. In any event, repeated control of the type common in 4th edition was rare to non-existant. Creatures usually had any given ability only a few times per day and in any case whatever action your party took to fix the condition often made you immune to future instances of it. For all that people talk about being out of a fight in 3rd edition, I've only seen it actually happen a few times and only once for a reason other than a character dying. That one instance, featured a paladin being subdued by greater command for ten to twelve rounds straight, failing to save every single round and it is ironically one of the instances where 3rd edition worked most like 4th edition--the character got a save every round and had a better than 50% chance to make the save. Save ends stun or immobilization could work out exactly the same way and I've already seen it do so on several occasions, despite having played 3rd edition more frequently and for many more years than I have yet played 4th edition.

The key reasons for the differences in the promotion of 4th edition (characters aren't out of fights for entire combats) and the reality (half the party is often kept from doing anything useful for periods far longer than a combat would usually last in previous editions) are these:
1. Action denying abilities for monsters are usually at-wills, auras, or recharge (and often monsters will have multiple action denying recharge abilities which makes them likely to be able to use one every round). This means that rather than being used once per combat and then the monster moving on to other abilities, the conditions are reapplied every round.
1.5 Condition infliction is also a far more common ability for monsters than it was previously. Some creatures did inflict negative levels or ability damage or paralyis on hits, but they were few and far between. The vast majority of creatures just hit you and did damage. The next tier--grappling you on a hit accounted for at least half of the status inflicting attacks but was uncertain (in many cases) and preventable or escapable.
2. Immunity to conditions is extremely rare in 4th edition. (Heart of the Titan (Wld 22) and Justicar (Paladin PP) are the only ways I can think of off the top of my head to gain actual immunity to conditions). Thus PCs cannot prevent the conditions from being reapplied to them or their party members except by killing the monsters that do it.
The end result: even though 4th edition conditions are theoretically less debilitating and shorter duration than conditions were in the previous edition, in my experience, characters lose a lot more actions to conditions than they used to--even in heroic tier play.

Jan 16, 2010 -- 3:11PM, Mirtek wrote:

Jan 16, 2010 -- 1:12PM, crabcrouton wrote:

The slippery slope argument is a terrible fallacy.

And yet it's still true. The more gets allowed, the less people will accept any prohibitions that might still exist.

Jan 16, 2010 -- 1:12PM, crabcrouton wrote:

All considerations should be made based on their merits, which includes the net gain after any detriments it brings.  D&D isn't a precious faberge egg that will break at the slightest disturbance, and no, hybrids aren't any more broken than non-hybrids

And PHB2 classes and PHB3 classes aren't anymore brocken than PHB1 classes. So why not allow that one guy to just change his 12th level paladin into a 12th level avenger. After all he only has the paladin because the avenger class was simply not yet exisiting when he started his LFR character and unfortunately he hasn't that much opportunity to play LFR and couldn't affort to waste all the mods already played with his paladin. Or that wizard guy who would have been a sorcerer if the class had been avaible from the start? Or ...

I, and I'm sure other people as well, see hybrids as being more of a complicated class feature than an entirely different class. The fact that they take the class features from both classes and can draw on the powers of both classes (without spending four feats) creates that perception.

I wouldn't be a big fan of allowing paladins to retrain into avengers either but, if it existed, I wouldn't hold it against someone who wanted to retrain into a paladin option that gave Oath in place of Lay on Hands.

The 4E monsters are not really the problem, nor is the way that encountes work in 4E - it is the fequency such things will be encountered in LFR. In LFR it is more common to hit such fights simply due to the ability to replay a module, people might hit the same encounter 3 or 4 times. Multiply that across modules and the effect becomes pronounced.

As to the slippery slope fallacy, the fact we see changes in reality that seem to reflect it happening doesn't make the argument not a fallacy. One needs to look at the definition for argumentive fallacy to see why.

Case by case assessment of new options and how they will be treated is the correct approach to the admission of new concepts into the game.

Personally I'm in favor of allowing charactes with a Multiclass Feat to retrain into Hybrid if they want, and yes some people will abuse that, but I'm not in favor of allowing wholesale retraining into Hybrid, and if given the choice of all or nothing would pick nothing.

LFR makes levelling simple if you have access to a regular play group that does a range of modules - it takes no more than 8 modules to get through H1 band and start H2, it probably takes no more than 9 H2 modules to get to level 7. Drop some Specs in there or do Scepter Tower and that takes even less time. (2 1-4's gets you to second, Sceptor Tower should then put you at 6th, 3 more 4-7's should give you 7th and access to 7-10s - overall under 20 sessions to get into Paragon.) Hence why I think nothing is an acceptable answer.

So, while I know the admins are/were discussing this, I decided that since the updates are due soon (the CB/AT Update servers are offline even as I type this), I'd go to the man himself, and ask Chris.

Short version?

Hybrids are being treated like any other new class.  If you want to play a Hybrid, they start at level one, and progress accordingly. 

By all means - feel free to continue the discussion on whether this should/shouldn't be the case, and the VCL's and I will do our best to capture good points on each side of the debate, but for the moment, this is the ruling we've got.

Jan 19, 2010 -- 9:27AM, WolfStar76 wrote:

Hybrids are being treated like any other new class.  If you want to play one, they start at level one, and progress accordingly.

This is the obvious and correct choice.  Commence Paragon Multiclassers complaints in 5... 4.... 3...

Jan 19, 2010 -- 9:30AM, Atras wrote:

Jan 19, 2010 -- 9:27AM, WolfStar76 wrote:

Hybrids are being treated like any other new class.  If you want to play one, they start at level one, and progress accordingly.

This is the obvious and correct choice.  Commence Paragon Multiclassers complaints in 5... 4.... 3...

I'm fine with it, and I've got a PMC character. Some things you can do with PMC you can't do with hybrids, and vice versa.

Jan 19, 2010 -- 10:15AM, Sithobi1 wrote:

Jan 19, 2010 -- 9:30AM, Atras wrote:

Jan 19, 2010 -- 9:27AM, WolfStar76 wrote:

Hybrids are being treated like any other new class.  If you want to play one, they start at level one, and progress accordingly.

This is the obvious and correct choice.  Commence Paragon Multiclassers complaints in 5... 4.... 3...

I'm fine with it, and I've got a PMC character. Some things you can do with PMC you can't do with hybrids, and vice versa.

Well, what can you do with a PMC character that you cant do with a hybrid? Other than spend 4 feats to do the same thing.  People PMC to get an at-will from another class(half-elves break this too, but atleast then you suffer from stat issues), now there is absolutely no choice if you want another at-will w/o suffering for it. Everyone can get twin-strike/righteous brand/magic weapon, etc....


BTW, swordvengers with 34 ac at 12th or 38 ac at 14th, will be everywhere now. A soldier at that level will have +20 to hit. Totally balanced right? And dont forget people will have Netizards. I believe someone said Netizards would be shot down?

Jan 16, 2010 -- 3:11PM, Mirtek wrote:

And PHB2 classes and PHB3 classes aren't anymore brocken than PHB1 classes. So why not allow that one guy to just change his 12th level paladin into a 12th level avenger. After all he only has the paladin because the avenger class was simply not yet exisiting when he started his LFR character and unfortunately he hasn't that much opportunity to play LFR and couldn't affort to waste all the mods already played with his paladin. Or that wizard guy who would have been a sorcerer if the class had been avaible from the start? Or ...

Because no one here is asking nor insinuating that a feature retrain should be allowed for a Paladin => Avenger conversion.  When it comes up, we'll look at it on the basis of its merits.  And you know what?  If it does come up at a point when it makes sense for the game to accept such changes, then it's a good decision to allow such a thing.

Scaremongering about what could happen down the line based on today's paradigm is why the slippery slope argument is blind to its weakness.  Used to be, parents wouldn't let their kids play D&D -- not because there was anything inherently wrong with D&D that they could see, but the fact that it practiced magic gave them the notion that their kids were on a slippery slope to actual real ~witchcraft and devil-worshipping~.  To make a slippery slope argument is to accept the very same basis of logic as these parents.

Jan 19, 2010 -- 1:39PM, ARlife wrote:

Well, what can you do with a PMC character that you cant do with a hybrid?

You can't make a Genasi wizard with Elemental Empowerment and then take PMC to qualify for Sorcerous Power.  This will create a Wizard that deals XdY damage + Int modifier + Str modifier + Str modifier on a majority of Wizard spells.

Jan 19, 2010 -- 9:27AM, WolfStar76 wrote:

So, while I know the admins are/were discussing this, I decided that since the updates are due soon (the CB/AT Update servers are offline even as I type this), I'd go to the man himself, and ask Chris.

Short version?

Hybrids are being treated like any other new class.  If you want to play a Hybrid, they start at level one, and progress accordingly. 

By all means - feel free to continue the discussion on whether this should/shouldn't be the case, and the VCL's and I will do our best to capture good points on each side of the debate, but for the moment, this is the ruling we've got.

Well the wrong response is better than no response at all, thanks.

I have no intention of starting a 12th level character over again. I'll just retire all of my PMCing characters.

Jan 19, 2010 -- 1:45PM, crabcrouton wrote:

Jan 19, 2010 -- 1:39PM, ARlife wrote:

Well, what can you do with a PMC character that you cant do with a hybrid?

You can't make a Genasi wizard with Elemental Empowerment and then take PMC to qualify for Sorcerous Power.  This will create a Wizard that deals XdY damage + Int modifier + Str modifier + Str modifier on a majority of Wizard spells.

Ok, thats good. But is it worth 6 feats, 3 stat points(which you run low on since your pumping str), and a paragon path? All to do 2d4+int +2xstr on most of your spells? Which means, you have 1 heroic feat, so give up leather or expertise(which adds to damage in its own right), weapon focus/arcane implement prof, and dual implement casting? You gain, say +4 from PMC sorc, but you just lost as much as 5 damage and 6 feats. In your case, being a hybrid would be leagues better.

Jan 19, 2010 -- 1:49PM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

I have no intention of starting a 12th level character over again. I'll just retire all of my PMCing characters.

This just seems silly to me.  You've played them to this point, and they have obviously played just fine up until now.  Retiring them just seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Jan 19, 2010 -- 1:39PM, crabcrouton wrote:

Because no one here is asking nor insinuating that a feature retrain should be allowed for a Paladin => Avenger conversion.

It's the exactly same situation. It's a new option that's much better at capturing the spirit of what was tried to be created in the first place and the only reason why a different class was chosen was because the new class was simply not available at that time. Exact the same situation as with the paragon multi class character to be changed into a hybrid character. Both function exactly as before, yet both have a new option that would have been much better for them if it had been available from their start.

Jan 19, 2010 -- 1:39PM, crabcrouton wrote:

  When it comes up, we'll look at it on the basis of its merits.  And you know what?  If it does come up at a point when it makes sense for the game to accept such changes, then it's a good decision to allow such a thing.

And it makes the player happy and more likely to buy new books. Same merits as converting an PMC-character into a hybrid-character.

Jan 19, 2010 -- 1:39PM, ARlife wrote:

Well, what can you do with a PMC character that you cant do with a hybrid?

Twin strike your Oath of Enmity target.

Take that face!

Yes, these characters are fully functional. They are a bit underpar but I was at peace with that because it was what I had to do to get what I wanted for the characters.

Hybrids gain access to what I wanted for these characters at minimal cost. I was okay with being underpowered when it was the cost to achieve my goals. I am not okay with doing it when it's not necessary.

Imagine if you couldn't retrain from Brute Strike into Lasting Threat.

Imagine if you couldn't retrain from Healing Hands into Devoted Paladin.

Imagine if you couldn't retrain from Nimble Spirit into Sudden Call.

The first time I sit down with a fighter|warlock with Eldritch Strike I will be frustrated.  I know it is said that other player's characters shouldn't affect your fun but that simply isn't true. When other characters do your schtick better than you it is frustrating. This is especially true when they do it with the same powers and feats as you. Rather than go through that I would rather just retire these characters and focus on ones that aren't completely invalidated by hybrids.

For the record these are the highest level characters I'm losing:

Basav - Level 8 Fighter/Ranger - Was going to PMC for Twin Strike and Prime Shot.
Juggernaut - Level 12 Fighter/Warlock - Is PMCed for Eldritch Strike.

Jan 19, 2010 -- 1:39PM, ARlife wrote:

Well, what can you do with a PMC character that you cant do with a hybrid?

Mark up to 9 enemies with Thunderwave (16 with a feat).

-SYB

Jan 19, 2010 -- 3:00PM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

Take that face!

Yes, these characters are fully functional. They are a bit underpar but I was at peace with that because it was what I had to do to get what I wanted for the characters.

Hybrids gain access to what I wanted for these characters at minimal cost. I was okay with being underpowered when it was the cost to achieve my goals. I am not okay with doing it when it's not necessary.

Imagine if you couldn't retrain from Brute Strike into Lasting Threat.

Imagine if you couldn't retrain from Healing Hands into Devoted Paladin.

Imagine if you couldn't retrain from Nimble Spirit into Sudden Call.

The first time I sit down with a fighter|warlock with Eldritch Strike I will be frustrated.  I know it is said that other player's characters shouldn't affect your fun but that simply isn't true. When other characters do your schtick better than you it is frustrating. This is especially true when they do it with the same powers and feats as you. Rather than go through that I would rather just retire these characters and focus on ones that aren't completely invalidated by hybrids.

For the record these are the highest level characters I'm losing:

Basav - Level 8 Fighter/Ranger - Was going to PMC for Twin Strike and Prime Shot.
Juggernaut - Level 12 Fighter/Warlock - Is PMCed for Eldritch Strike.

You don't want to play Juggernaut ever again, that is your perogative.  But, keep in mind that the fighter/warlock hybrid you play with (I would put money on you never actually sitting at a table with one while playing Juggernaut, but different discussion) can't mark with Eldritch Strike.  So, he isn't just better than Juggernaut.  He is different.  I assume, unless you are doing something very gimmicky, that marking is still important to your character.

-SYB

Ok, if that was so good, wouldnt we see more fighter/wizards with thunderwave? I mean, its cute, inflicting -2 to attacks vs 8 of those 9 enemies.  But that doesnt make you good at defending and isnt worth 4 feats and your PP. Esepcially since you can only punish 1 of them. However, a swordvenger can punish their aegis target from far away, and is nigh invulnerable, so attacking him is a waste of an action. Why be another defender? I mean, I already felt sad when my guardian fighter(sword and board) fighting alongside a normal avenger who already had better defenses/hp/ damage/accuracy/ skills/ everything than me. Imagine that same avenger who can now mark and punish that mark target?

It's not hard to mark targets without attacking with fighter powers and Eldritch Strike isn't for using on my turn anyways. On my turn I use a fighter power or in the event that I want to use Howl of Doom, Arms of Hadar, or Summons of Khirad I just use Create Opening or Daring Shout (which he already has).

Jan 19, 2010 -- 9:27AM, WolfStar76 wrote:

Hybrids are being treated like any other new class.  If you want to play a Hybrid, they start at level one, and progress accordingly. 

I don't see this decision sticking.

I predict a full year of Dragon magazine content based around hybrid PC-hybrid feats, hybrid feature options (yes you will be able to mark with all your powers in a future Dragon magazine article), hybrid paragon paths and more.  I think this is the bulk of the content they plan to market to us in 2010. 

Eventually hybrids and the retraining feature, along with the errata policies are going to have to be integrated into the campaign, and a way to move in and out of hybrid from a normal class is going to be 100% necessary.

Jan 19, 2010 -- 3:11PM, ARlife wrote:

Ok, if that was so good, wouldnt we see more fighter/wizards with thunderwave? I mean, its cute, inflicting -2 to attacks vs 8 of those 9 enemies.  But that doesnt make you good at defending and isnt worth 4 feats and your PP. Esepcially since you can only punish 1 of them. However, a swordvenger can punish their aegis target from far away, and is nigh invulnerable, so attacking him is a waste of an action. Why be another defender? I mean, I already felt sad when my guardian fighter(sword and board) fighting alongside a normal avenger who already had better defenses/hp/ damage/accuracy/ skills/ everything than me. Imagine that same avenger who can now mark and punish that mark target?

Seriously. Enough hyperbole. Your AC is 1 above an AC-optimized swordmage. Remember that you can only wear cloth, so with identical int, enhancement, Warding feats, etc:
Rhythm Blade Spiked Shield: +2 AC and Reflex
Leather Armor: +2 AC
Coronal Guard: +1 AC

vs

Improved Armor of Faith: +2-3 AC
Armor of Faith: 3 AC

You're giving up +2 Reflex, Improved Silver Shield, and Swordshield Action, and an extra feat for +1 AC. It's not even a particularly good trade.

Not likely, unless they get rid of having to level your characters completely.  Just create whatever, whenever.

Jan 19, 2010 -- 3:24PM, nightwalker450 wrote:

Not likely, unless they get rid of having to level your characters completely.  Just create whatever, whenever.

Otherwise...

I play avenger... I retrain to Avenger/Paladin Hybrid...   I retrain to Paladin...   I retrain to Paladin/Shaman Hybrid...  I retrain to Shaman.

Well the theoretical retrain would just take the place of your class feature retrain. So one time ever. Your nightmare scenario wouldn't be a problem.

And since none of this is officially tracked anyways, whats the point after this?  It would be the death of LFR for the most part.

Well using that logic LFR is already dead since there is nothing from stopping people from doing whatever they want now.