Books and Queries about 4e

[Dust]

THE DISCLAIMER: You know what? I disliked 4th-Edition DnD when it was first released, but it's growing on me. I like the figurines and spending hours and hours on 3D battlemaps, and, even though I mocked party roles mercilessly at first, I like how the support characters still get to lay down a beating. I like the way my girlfriend gets so enthusiastic at being a TANK that she can't sit down when it's her turn, the way the group cheers when someone rolls a critical hit with a Daily. The system is not without its charm.

I'm also not normally a guy who likes limiting his players.

THE PROBLEM: I value game balance staggeringly highly, and for the most part, I feel as though the selection of races and classes found in the PHB is wonderful. I'm concerned, though, that the more books I begin to allow and purchase, the higher the optimization potential within the game. The issue that bothers me the most is multiclassing. I don't have the book that details the rules required for multiclassing, but I've browsed enough topics on the Wizards forums to get a bad vibe from the whole deal.

THE QUESTION: I want to keep 4e simple for both myself and my players, in terms of the options they have when it comes to character building. I believe that the PHB1 and PHB2 are all I will ever to provide my group in terms of design choices, and I will pick up supplements such as the Adventurer's Vault series. The _____ Power books aren't getting a second glance from me, and I'm wary about multiclassing.

Am I wrong on any of these beliefs?

[valadil]

WotC is a lot more careful with power creep in 4e than they were in 3.5. I've been keeping up with the power books. None of them really invalidate anything from the originals. They just add more options. PHB3 seems reasonable, although monks are obviously powerful. I haven't seen enough of them to say if they're overpowered or broken yet.

However, I don't think there's anything wrong with starting with just a few books. Let them play PH1 and 2 for a few campaigns. If they like that stuff, keep playing with it. If they get bored of it, see if there's any new material that looks interesting. You can limit what they have access to for now, and use more books as the need for variety grows.

[Inyssius Tor]

THE PROBLEM: I value game balance staggeringly highly, and for the most part, I feel as though the selection of races and classes found in the PHB is wonderful. I'm concerned, though, that the more books I begin to allow and purchase, the higher the optimization potential within the game. The issue that bothers me the most is multiclassing. I don't have the book that details the rules required for multiclassing, but I've browsed enough topics on the Wizards forums to get a bad vibe from the whole deal.

THE QUESTIONS: I want to keep 4e simple for both myself and my players, in terms of the options they have when it comes to character building. I believe that the PHB1 and PHB2 are all I will ever to provide my group in terms of design choices, and I will pick up supplements such as the Adventurer's Vault series. The _____ Power books aren't getting a second glance from me, and I'm wary about multiclassing.

That's understandable.

Multiclassing beyond the initial feat is usually a trap. You needn't be wary of it, or restrict it, unless you're concerned that your players will use it to hobble themselves.

The optimization potential is shockingly low, however. Power creep has been minimal--even with Dragon Magazine--and the _____ Power books are an excellent resource that are very rarely broken. (They do increase the power level of the paladin and druid... but that's because the paladin and druid simply weren't very good with just the core material compared to, say, the fighter.)

Be aware that the Wizards boards are... well, suffice it to say that I would not believe any conclusion taken from them, from the concrete mechanical RAW stuff to (ESPECIALLY) any sort of opinion.

[Aron Times]

You could always split the cost of books among the group. Perhaps you, the DM, can buy the three core rulebooks, while the others get different books to add to your shared collection.

There are two main ways to multiclass in 4e. The default version, found in the PHB1, involves taking feats to "dabble" in a second class. For example, if you are a warlord and want to dabble as a wizard, you take the Arcane Initiate feat. This feat lets you count as a wizard for everything, including feats, items, paragon paths, epic destinies, etc. that have "wizard" as a prerequisite.

If you want to use the powers of your second class, you can take the Novice (encounter attack), Acolyte (utility), or Adept (daily) Power feats to swap one of your first class's powers for one of your second class's powers of the same level.

However, you gain none of the class features of your second class (which prevents you from using stuff that requires those specific class features), but you get full access to the class features of your first class.

The second type of multiclassing is to play a hybrid character (PHB3). Hybrid characters, a.k.a. half-and-half characters, have half of their powers come from one class and the other half from their second class. They do not have to spend feats to multiclass or power-swap between their classes.

However, hybrid classes only get roughly half of each class's features to balance the fact that they are more versatile than normal characters. They do free up feats that would've been spent on traditional 4e multiclassing, but they also tend to have fewer skills than multiclass characters.

[NeoVid]

The worst balance issues with 4e so far have tended to be some of the classes being underpowered until the respective Power book for them was released. Overpowered stuff still shows up on occasion, but usually gets errata within months these days. Even the most brilliantly designed character can't actually break the game like in the old days.

Also, restricting things can be kind of frustrating because of how many players use the character builder, which automatically shows you all the options for a class. But that's probably not as big a deal as it seems to me.

Edit: if affording access to the books is the problem, have the group pool the $10 for a one month DDI subscription, so you can all have permanent access to the character builder.

[Inyssius Tor]

PHB3 seems reasonable, although monks are obviously powerful. I haven't seen enough of them to say if they're overpowered or broken yet.

Numerically speaking, they're less powerful than either rogues or rangers were at launch.

[Dust]

Ah yes, Hybrid Multiclassing is what I was referring to. The version found in the PHB1 doesn't concern me at all.

[Blackfang108]

Am I wrong on any of these beliefs?

Yup.

The Power books provide BALANCED options.

Multiclassing is balanced, simple, and a good way to add a little bit of depth to a character. I should read more of the thread before I reply.

I agree RE: Hybrids.

[NeoVid]

Ah yes, Hybrid Multiclassing is what I was referring to. The version found in the PHB1 doesn't concern me at all.

You might want to watch out for hybriding. It's the only way so far in 4e to make an unplayably weak character.

[Inyssius Tor]

Ah. You're right to be wary of that, then. Indeed, the PHB3 outright says that you should be wary of it, because it's far easier to make hybrid characters that are less powerful than the norm; and, conversely, really well-made hybrid characters can be somewhat more powerful than normal.

(Not, like, the difference between a rogue and an artificer in 3e--more like the difference between a monk and a fighter, or a cleric and a druid.)

That said, a player who's interested enough in a hybrid to make a case for playing one is probably interested enough to ensure that his or her character can contribute meaningfully, and the hybrid rules are a very handy tool for realizing a difficult character concept.

[BobTheDog]

In my opinion, the _____ Power books are great! And, as valadil said, power creep in them is surprisingly low. There are some stuff that is clearly better than the originals, but most of that is normally a response to something that was "weaker than expected" originally, mostly from a few PHB1 classes (wizard at-wills, paladin marks etc).

To give you a "real" example, I'm DMing a 15 lvl game to a group that consists of:

Hybrid Warden/Barbarian
Hybrid Warden/Warlock
Hybrid Bard/Warlord
Cleric (wis-based)

And the cleric keeps up with all the hybrid madness just fine. As to complexity, all this doesn't give me too much trouble since it's the players' job to keep track of their stuff and they don't seem to mind (quite the opposite) playing complex stuff.

Also, if you decide to give the "broader stuff" a go, I strongly suggest updating the Char Builder, so you can have everything easily accessible. Oh, that could also count as "proof" that power creep is not blatant. When building characters on the CB, I'm sometimes amazed that "this amazing power" comes from the PHB and not from some dragon article. (not to mention you can disable material you don't want to use, too :smallwink:)

[Thajocoth]

Hybrid multiclassing is almost always weaker than a class on it's own. You get less than half of each class's class features, and your powers are divided between the two. Spending a feat for Hybrid Talent gives you another nerfed version of a class feature you're missing.

If you're VERY careful, you can find ways to still be decent as a Hybrid (or even slightly overpowered, if you're a good optimizer.) However, you will not be able to create something that's too powerful when compared to a well optimized single class.

As an example of what I mean... A friend of mine has a character that's Ranger multiclass Rogue for occasional sneak dice, and he wields a longbow, short sword & longsword. He's constantly dropping weapons on the battlefield and switching between 2 weapon and range, and having to look up hit numbers and bonuses and damage dice... His character is far from optimized, and he's traded some damage potential (and a lot of time on his turns) for the versatility of switching between melee & range, including very long range. No single class striker is really excellent for this build, and Ranger comes the closest.

If he were to remake his character as a hybrid Ranger|Rogue, he would get the following changes:
*Can only use quarry dice with Ranger powers
*Can use sneak dice every round now, but only with Rogue powers
*Lose Defensive Mobility
*Lose dependency on Str score, so Dex can be maximized, and the overflow poured into Wis for some Ranger power bonuses
*Lose Hide Armor prof
*Be able to sell his longsword, as he no longer needs it
*Lose Prime Shot
*Only uses one ability score for attack & damage, simplifying his attacks, speeding up his turns
*He can take the Hybrid Talent feat once to gain one of the following class features:
- Rogue's First Strike
- Proficiency with Hide armor
- Prime Shot or Running Attack
- Beast Mastery, but the beast takes -1 to attacks or Defensive Mobility or Two Blade Fighting Style or Hunter Fighting Style (I recommend this one for him. It's quick draw with some benefits) or Marauder Fighting Style
- Rogue Weapon Talent or Sharpshooter Talent
- Artful Dodger or Brutal Scoundrel or Ruthless Ruffian or Cunning Sneak

*If he spends his Paragon Path to do so, he can take Hybrid Talent a second time (this time without spending a feat), but can't select from the same bullet as the first time he took the feat.

So he would still be sub-par, but not AS sub-par. However, if he makes sure to take a lot of powers that don't require Standard Actions, he can try to use 1 Ranger & 1 Rogue power per round to try to deal both Sneak & Quarry damage. Given all that he's given up for this damage bonus, I'd say he's not overpowered, but he's found a way to make a Hybrid character not be sub-par. And a single-class Barbarian can do just as much damage with less complication...

Note: My friend is still playing a single-class Ranger. I might mention the opportunities a Hybrid could bring next time I see him.

[Swordgleam]

Pretty much echoing what everyone else said. There just isn't that much broken stuff in 4e, so while 3.x multiclass lets you pile broken on broken to reach absurdity, 4e multiclassing at worst makes you useless and at best lets you combine slightly broken powers to be slightly stronger than average.

I'm also glad to see I'm not the only one who had that initial reaction to, and change of heart about, 4e.

[rayne_dragon]

Power creep is there in 4e, it's not as predominant as in other editions though. However, some of the most broken stuff was in the PHB and balance has been preserved better than any previous editions. The worst of it is in AV2 and a few of the PHB3 items seem a little too good to me (which is why my character will be buying them at the first opportunity :smallwink:), but overall it's not too bad.

The power books are an excellent resource for players, they provide extra options and sometimes correct imbalances between classes. Wizards are especially notable in this as without arcane power they don't have as much ability to control as other controller class. I also think the power books help keep the power creep balanced across the classes, minimizing its effects. Even so, I can't imagine building a character without using feats and powers from the player's handbooks.

As for hybriding, there isn't much you can do with it that you can't do with regular multiclassing. The biggest problem is that it can lead to making a poor character. If anything the regular multiclassing is more broken.

[Excession]

Note: My friend is still playing a single-class Ranger. I might mention the opportunities a Hybrid could bring next time I see him.

You should also look at the Hunter style Ranger from Martial Power 2. It's designed to be both melee and ranged without the MAD and weapon juggling. The style gives Quick Draw for free, and sheathing weapons as a free action. There are new attacks to support the style that are melee attacks based on Dex.

Just promise not to look at Throw and Stab from the marauder style :smallyuk:

[Anasazi]

As an individual thats experimented heavily into the hybriding field in real games, with players of the non-hybrid variety, I can honestly say that theres a give and a take for them, and alot of it is based on how they go about using the hybriding rules. Most people try to expand the use of their class when they hybrid, this creates more overall balanced characters, this tends to lead to weaker characters in general and should only be feared for potential tpk's. The opposite route is hybriding to enhance a specific ability of one of the classes, which can result in everything from being weaker to being a great deal stronger than the original class, depending on what ability they're enhancing. More specifically it tends to come down to the role of the classes being merged.

Hybrid strikers dont tend to do anymore damage than they already did, they just offer different sets of power combos and a greater utility to the team.

Hybrid leaders tend to weaken up the party's support, so unless you have two leader hybrids, they're shooting themselves in the foot, I think most people can see this obvious effect when they read the hybrid rules of powers like healing word.

Hybrid controllers add an extra value to the controller, while it spreads their effects a bit, I think it adds an overall, and needed, function to the class. Alot of people get bored with controllers at lower levels as they just dont seem to preform all that well (not counting the wizard).

Hybrid defenders on the other hand, are an entirely different beast than the others.. Anyone who hybrids with a defender is probably trying to push the limits of their character, and they tend to lead to the more broken hybrid builds. A hybrid swordmage/rogue retains an insanely high AC while offering an easy to use sneak attack. A hybrid warden/cleric's health and defensive build is overly defensive and will require you to bump up your npc's damage to leave a dent, which will effectively near one shot the other party members. The worse one I've seen in game so far is a battlemind/warlock (keeping in mind that hybrids with the psy's tend to result in higher overall defenses either way), which spits out damage equal to a ranger and defends like a tank.

With that said, after playing with the hybrid rules, I couldnt imagine myself playing a game without them. They add a great deal of customization, and give some very odd routes to go with builds, they can lead to some very interesting characters and I would never not give those options to my players.
To keep it in balance, I suggest a well established notion that you expect more roleplaying from those who hybrid. Force them to deal with appropriate challenges of their class vs class nature. Their backstories should explain why they have both classes imbued within them, and they should be required to roleplay thier specifics. If they cant do that then deny them the use of playing a hybrid.

As for the "" Power books, I certainly dont think they run overpowered, rather they just give additional means of playing to the classes, and some of them could use a bit more creativity to the suggested builds.

[Hal]

I'll echo what others have said here: The supplements are much more useful in adding options for characters without overpowering a character. I find this very useful because if you stick to the PHB alone, some characters will struggle to find feats that are actually useful, or even available, in certain tiers of play. (For example, I played a "laser cleric" when 4e was first released. There were very few feats that were actually useful to my character; thankfully, supplements started releasing after I'd taken all the human feats as well as Improved Initiative.)

Advice I would give if you're concerned about such things: First, get a subscription to DDI; this will keep you up to date with any changes or errata that comes along that are relevant to your players' characters. Next, just talk to your players; you're free to tell them "no" if they want to play a Hybrid character, or at least ask them what they want to do with it and work with them in making the character.

[Yakk]

The reason why cheese builds use hybrids is that cheese builds are based off of cherry picked corner-case balance mistakes.

These are distributed relatively uniformly over classes.

By Hybrid and Windrise ports, you can stuff 4 classes into a character. Then you grab the corner-case errors and stuff them all in.

A paragon path, an epic destiny, a feat, a way to break the action economy, a way to break the critical economy (or something else), and then methods to leverage it.

[TheEmerged]

That's understandable.

Multiclassing beyond the initial feat is usually a trap. You needn't be wary of it, or restrict it, unless you're concerned that your players will use it to hobble themselves.

I want to second this statement. My players and I theory-build a fair number of characters and we've found that while almost every build takes one of the initial feats, we've rarely seen a good use of the remaining feats *except* for Utility Power, and with the skill powers from PHB3 I suspect that just became substaintially less viable.

[Dust]

You fine folk continue to define the embodiment of awesome.
I feel like I've got more than enough information here to make an informed decision. Thanks.