|
4 years ago ::
Apr 06, 2009 - 6:43AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Jan 26, 2009
|
@CyberianHusky
Hybrid talent has no clause saying you can take it more than once, so you cannot.
*shrug* well yeah, that's how you interpret a feat once its been published, but this is still at the playtest stage so Im not sure what the intent is, it could actually be an unintentional omission... I dont think it would be OP'd to be take-able more than once, but Im not fussed either way.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 06, 2009 - 6:58AM
#12
|
|
|
I was actually greatly impressed by this article. This had the potential to be completely broken or completely balanced, but instead, we have actually struck almost the perfect note.
There are of course some minor issues that need to be worked through, which is not surprising, seeing as these rules were not due to see print for many, many months, but I think that on the whole they hit the right note.
The Hybrid Talent feat can only be taken once, which is the great balance there, and though it goes against the legal text idea of 4E (If its not there, its not part of the rule) it might almost be worth printing just to dispell confusion.
I am curious about the class features that grant At-Wills as well (I think Shaman will eventually fall into this category in addition to the afore mentioned Warlock).
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 06, 2009 - 7:12AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
@MrMyth
got any example of reaction powers that can be used back to back? (I DM %100, so powers aren't in my memory :/ )
Sure - here are the earliest ones that a character could easily pick up:
Archer Ranger/Rogue: Disruptive Strike (Ranger 3, PHB), Snap Shot (Rogue 7, Martial Power), Shaft Splitter (Sylvan Archer 11, Martial Power Paragon Path) or Combined Fire (Battlefield Archer 11, PHB Paragon Path)
Melee Ranger/Rogue: Off-hand Strike (Ranger 1, Martial Power), Low Slash (Rogue 3, Martial Power), Two-fold Flinch (Ranger 7, Martial Power) or Disruptive Strike (Ranger 3, PHB), Critical Opportunity (Daggermaster 11, PHB Paragon Path) or Cross-body Parry (Blade Dancer 11, Martial Power Paragon Path)
Fighter/Ranger: Off-hand Strike (Ranger 1, Martial Power), Parry and Riposte (Fighter 3, Martial Power), Two-fold Flinch (Ranger 7, Martial Power) or Disruptive Strike (Ranger 3, PHB) or Not So Fast (Fighter 7, Martial Power), Cross-body Parry (Blade Dancer 11, Martial Power Paragon Path)
Fighter has a couple more conditional immediates that would rely on adjacent enemies attacking allies, and can also get a few other options by using a shield (which would likely require investing some feats in using a spiked shield so as to count as dual-wielding at the same time.) The shield powers also could be decent options for a Fighter/Rogue hybrid.
Martial Power is really where a lot of these powers showed up, and they are already pretty strong in their own right - in general, a 'free' attack (Minor or Immediate Encounter Power) plus a Standard Action At-Will usually comes out as better damage than just a Standard Action Encounter power, and it only gets better as you stack damage modifiers. (Which most optimized builds do.)
Warlock doesn't have as much in the way of minor action attacks (though who knows what Arcane Power will bring) - but it does often have daily powers which make new attacks when sustained as a minor action, which can produce the same effect for an Encounter. Examples: Crown of Stars (Warlock 1, Dragon 366), Hunger of Hadar (Warlock 5, PHB), Summons of Khirad (Warlock 9, PHB), Thief of Five Fates (Warlock 9, PHB), Visage of Vhudun (Warlock 15, Dragon 366), Tendrils of Thuban (Warlock 15, PHB), etc. Many of these are a bit volatile to keep going, as they either require continually hitting or keeping enemies in a zone, but the optential is still there.
One possible solution would be to only have these abilities (Sneak, Quarry, Curse, Mark) only work for attacks that are Standard Action. It would certainly directly weaken those classes - though the limitation on only using those class features on class powers is already a somewhat arbitrary direct limitation for the purposes of balance. (And, again, we'd only really be weakening powers that are among the strongest choices anyway.)
Another option would be to tag all these features under some sort of overall category, and put a limitation that you can only use one feature from that category each round. But that could get rather cumbersome (especially as they have to assign more abilities into this area from new classes, especially ones that use mechanics that aren't quite as similar. How would you balance Barbarian against these, for example? Etc.) This would also potentially limit the effectiveness of Action Points for these characters.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 06, 2009 - 7:20AM
#14
|
|
|
One thing that should be updated for the article, is how some questionable Class Features would work with Hybrid Talent.
The biggest one is for the Warlock's Class Features Eldritch Blast and Eldritch Pact. Many are taking it that this will add an extra At-Will for a Hybrid Warlock, when it seems to be that the Warlock At-Will choice will be forced to either Eldritch Blast for the Eldritch Blast Class Feature or the Pact At-Will for Eldritch Pact, rather then a choice of any Warlock At-Will Attack power or getting that At-Will in addition to the two stated. Stating this in the Hybrid Warlock page as a Sidebar would help clear that confusion.
The reason why I am running with this thought of how those Class Features will run for Hybrid characters, is due to that is how they work for normal Warlock characters by the current ruling. Yes, this does make taking the Eldritch Blast Class Feature pointless for Hybrid Warlocks.
Possible alternative is to force Eldritch Blast for the Hybrid Warlock At-Will, unless the Hybrid Warlock takes the Eldritch Pact Class Feature which would allow the players choice of either Eldritch Blast or the Pact At-Will.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 06, 2009 - 7:27AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2002
|
I was disappointed it won't be in the Class Builder or legal for LFR.
I understand the reasoning for both, but I'm still disappointed (as I'm unlikely to be a player in a home game anytime soon).
I couldn't care less about LFR, but it not being in the Character Builder means me and my group won't touch it.
What can I say? The CB has spoiled us. 
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 06, 2009 - 7:41AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Mar 10, 2008
|
Pros:
- Choose best powers from two different classes
- Versitility (eg. rogue/ranger good at ranged and melee, wizard and swordmage area effect and melee)
- Access to more feats, potential for better combos.
Cons:
- Loss of class features.
So classes with poor class features would be best as hybrids. I think the wizard is a good example. I find the class features of the wizard to be on the weak side, but the wizard powers more class defining (at-will ranged burst and powerful dailies)
I think taking controller will definately be worth it.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 06, 2009 - 8:11AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Sep 10, 2006
|
This is quite the bombshell. Now, 4th Edition resembles 2nd Edition more than ever (not saying that's a bad thing).
I really like this. It looks like a lot of fun, and seems to be constructed pretty well. I'm sure there will some sort of way to abuse this popping up now and then (Bard/Rogue+all classes or some such). But, this is far from being done, and it already seems pretty solid.
It seems like the philosophy of 4th Edition is evolving. I shall have to tread lightly.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 06, 2009 - 8:30AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2003
|
I was disappointed it won't be in the Class Builder or legal for LFR.
I understand the reasoning for both, but I'm still disappointed (as I'm unlikely to be a player in a home game anytime soon).
I must wonder what is up with this new policy of not compiling the playtest articles. I don't play LFR, but it seems to me WotC is eliminating the most controlled playtest environment by not making these new options RPGA legal.
Did the barbarian and artificer playtests generate significant complaints or some such?
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 06, 2009 - 8:33AM
#19
|
|
|
I think this system is VERY experimental right now. I bet we'll have RPGA legel stuff before hb 3 though.
And I can totally understand why it's not in the CB yet. The ddi team must be crapping themselves everytime R&D throws around a new system idea.
R&D: "Why don't we cut every class in half and allow players to glue classes together with limited class features. Also allow characters to restore features with a feat. Also still can MC. Also warforged components"
WoTC_DM: FFFFFFFFFFFF!
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 06, 2009 - 8:45AM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Jun 16, 2008
|
That was my first reaction, too, but after thinking about it for a while it's not too bad. Remember that you can only take it once, so for example a fighter/ranger hybrid can only get ONE of combat superiority, weapon talent, ranger fighting style etc. You shouldn't need to worry about combos getting out of hand.
Mmm, that's true: it cannot be taken multiple times. It's still powerful, but at least it's workable.
|
|
|
