4e Hybrid rules...need all the details

[Giegue]

I am looking for the hybrid character rules for 4e but at the moment have no way to get my hands on the player's handbook 3, and won't in the foreseeable future. So, I ask, would one of you be kind enough to give me the exact text of the hybrid character rules? If you are all to lazy to or just don't feel like giveing me the exact text, then a detailed paraphrasing would be good, but the key word is DETAILED. I need to know EVERYTHING regarding hybrid characters sans fluff/flavor. Every rule pertaining to them, I need to know. I need to know how many class features they get, how many powers they get, everything. And I don't just want "a few" I need exact numbers here.

So if one of you would be so kind, could you explain the hybrid character rules to me?

[The Rose Dragon]

Is that legal? I don't think that's legal.

[The Glyphstone]

It's copyrighted, and it'd be against forum rules for someone to do so.

[Colmarr]

If you are all to lazy to or just don't feel like giveing me the exact text, then a detailed paraphrasing would be good, but the key word is DETAILED. I need to know EVERYTHING regarding hybrid characters sans fluff/flavor... And I don't just want "a few" I need exact numbers here.

So if one of you would be so kind, could you explain the hybrid character rules to me?

I suggest you take your aggressively-worded request that we breach copyright elsewhere.

Or better yet, buy a one-month subscription to DDI from the WotC website and download the character builder yourself. It has all the information you need (or will once it is updated with PHB3 material).

[DabblerWizard]

Not even proper citation circumvents the plagiarism associated with copying an entire section of a text (verbatim or otherwise).

My pocket style citation manual shall not save this day.

[Moff Chumley]

I mean, copyright law isn't completely dead, is it? Is it?

[DabblerWizard]

I mean, copyright law isn't completely dead, is it? Is it?

It's definitely not dead at all, especially when related to certain types of media. E.G.: The Music Publishers Association lawsuits.

[JoshuaZ]

Not even proper citation circumvents the plagiarism associated with copying an entire section of a text (verbatim or otherwise).

My pocket style citation manual shall not save this day.

Nitpick: Plagiarism is an intellectual crime of when one attributes material wrongly as your own. This isn't plagiarism. Although it is probably a lot closer to a copyright violation than a lot of the stuff that people commonly think are copyright violations.

[Mando Knight]

Nitpick: Plagiarism is an intellectual crime of when one attributes material wrongly as your own. This isn't plagiarism. Although it is probably a lot closer to a copyright violation than a lot of the stuff that people commonly think are copyright violations.

Fun fact: Plagiarism has a good deal of overlap with copyright violations!
Fun fact #2: Lots of us Playgrounders pay good money to see this kind of stuff ahead of time and would like people to recognize that even if you don't like copyright law.

[DabblerWizard]

Nitpick: Plagiarism is an intellectual crime of when one attributes material wrongly as your own. This isn't plagiarism. Although it is probably a lot closer to a copyright violation than a lot of the stuff that people commonly think are copyright violations.

Claiming material as one's own, when it is not, is standard plagiarism.

I've learned that it is considered plagiarism if a person incorrectly or insufficiently attributes a work to its proper source. Not citing at all, could be considered insufficient source attribution, making it a kind of plagiarism. It could also be suggested that not citing a work at all, is implicitly claiming a work as one's own.

Either way, as far as I've been taught, posting a whole chunk of copyrighted material without citing at all, is plagiarism, a specific kind of copyright violation.

I'm not a lawyer, so my understanding of intellectual property laws can certainly be incorrect.

[JoshuaZ]

Fun fact: Plagiarism has a good deal of overlap with copyright violations!

Yes, there is overlap. In fact, if plagiarism is almost universally a subset of copyright violation at least in the United States. That's less true in some other locals. These issues are complicated.

Fun fact #2: Lots of us Playgrounders pay good money to see this kind of stuff ahead of time and would like people to recognize that even if you don't like copyright law.

Since this is apparently in response to my comment, I must confess some puzzlement at your remark. It isn't at all clear to me where anywhere in my comment I said anything that would suggest that a) I have a problem with copyright law or b) that I'm not one of the playgrounders who pays for stuff early. a) is actually true but not in any way remotely related to this. Modern copyright laws have serious problems. But the problems are related almost completely to the long duration of copyrights.

Fun Fact #3: Pretty close to everything post 1923 is copyrighted and not in public domain as far as the US is concerned.

Fun Fact #3: In many countries there's actually no equivalent of public domain, making it difficult for people to release work even if they want to.

Fun Fact #4: None of the copyright problems (which are immense) have anything to do with D&D since no reasonable individual would try to argue that D&D shouldn't be still copyrighted. Moreover, anything that's just come out is precisely the sort of thing that copyrights are explicitly supposed to cover in the US Constitution.

Fun Fact #5: Posting condescending remarks entitled "Fun Facts" is annoying. It is even more so when your comments indicate a complete failure to parse what the individual you are responding to said.

Now on to the polite remarks:

Claiming material as one's own, when it is not, is standard plagiarism.

I've learned that it is considered plagiarism if a person incorrectly or insufficiently attributes a work to its proper source. Not citing at all, could be considered insufficient source attribution, making it a kind of plagiarism. It could also be suggested that not citing a work at all, is implicitly claiming a work as one's own.

All correct.

Either way, as far as I've been taught, posting a whole chunk of copyrighted material without citing at all, is plagiarism, a specific kind of copyright violation.

Yes, but if I took a work in the public domain (say from the 1911 Britannica which is in the public domain) and didn't attribute it properly that would be plagiarism but not a copyright violation. The vast majority of plagiarism is for more modern texts and thus is also potentially a copyright violation (and generally is in fact a copyright violation).

[Skrizzy]

I am looking for the hybrid character rules for 4e but at the moment have no way to get my hands on the player's handbook 3, and won't in the foreseeable future. So, I ask, would one of you be kind enough to give me the exact text of the hybrid character rules? If you are all to lazy to or just don't feel like giveing me the exact text, then a detailed paraphrasing would be good, but the key word is DETAILED. I need to know EVERYTHING regarding hybrid characters sans fluff/flavor. Every rule pertaining to them, I need to know. I need to know how many class features they get, how many powers they get, everything. And I don't just want "a few" I need exact numbers here.

So if one of you would be so kind, could you explain the hybrid character rules to me?

Here are the full and exact rules of hybrids in 4e. In exact detail, even with the fluff.

Spoiler

Show

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.a.../drfe/20100119

[Gralamin]

Here are the full and exact rules of hybrids in 4e. In exact detail, even with the fluff.

Spoiler

Show

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.a.../drfe/20100119

Well played.

I also can tell you that pre-newest update, I had homebrewed an artificer Hybrid that looked like this:

Spoiler

Show

Hybrid Artificer

Profs, implements: Same
Bonus to Defense: +1 Fortitude or +1 Will
HP1/HPlevel/HS: one half.

Class Skills: as Artificer (No auto-arcana), and 1 extra skill from artificer list

Class Features: Healing Infusion (Hybrid), Arcane Rejuvenation
Hybrid Talent Options: Arcane Empowerement, Artificer Armor Proficiency

Arcane Rejuvenation
As Artificer class feature.

Healing Infusion (Hybrid)
As Healing Infusion, but usable once per encounter.

HYBRID TALENT OPTIONS

Arcane Empowerement
As Artificer class feature.

Artificer Armor Proficiency
Cloth and Leather Proficiency.

This looks a lot like the official one, but there are some noticeable differences that DDI insiders can see. This homebrew should be sufficient to allow a guess at the rules without actually knowing them.

[Mando Knight]

Since this is apparently in response to my comment, I must confess some puzzlement at your remark.

I'm sorry, there was apparently a bit of miscommunication. The second remark was a general statement referring back to the OP desiring breach of copyright for something that a good deal of people on this very same forum have paid for. It's actually rather insulting to be told that someone has the right to get something for free from you when you had to pay for it.

[JoshuaZ]

I'm sorry, there was apparently a bit of miscommunication. The second remark was a general statement referring back to the OP desiring breach of copyright for something that a good deal of people on this very same forum have paid for. It's actually rather insulting to be told that someone has the right to get something for free from you when you had to pay for it.

Sorry for my misinterpretation then. In complete agreement.

[DabblerWizard]

Yes, but if I took a work in the public domain (say from the 1911 Britannica which is in the public domain) and didn't attribute it properly that would be plagiarism but not a copyright violation. The vast majority of plagiarism is for more modern texts and thus is also potentially a copyright violation (and generally is in fact a copyright violation).

Oh legal technicalities!

I also love the fact that writers (or mostly professors and researchers I suppose) can plagiarize their own past work! Having to cite oneself feels more than a little pretentious.

Such self-citation is clearly helpful for other people who might want to look up the earlier work, but otherwise, it seems silly.

[Lost Demiurge]

I am looking for the hybrid character rules for 4e but at the moment have no way to get my hands on the player's handbook 3, and won't in the foreseeable future. So, I ask, would one of you be kind enough to give me the exact text of the hybrid character rules? If you are all to lazy to or just don't feel like giveing me the exact text, then a detailed paraphrasing would be good, but the key word is DETAILED. I need to know EVERYTHING regarding hybrid characters sans fluff/flavor. Every rule pertaining to them, I need to know. I need to know how many class features they get, how many powers they get, everything. And I don't just want "a few" I need exact numbers here.

So if one of you would be so kind, could you explain the hybrid character rules to me?

So you're telling us "Would You kindly" breach copyright? And calling us lazy?

Man, we got a real winner here. Entitlement, passive aggression, AND illegal activity.

Hm, "Would you Kindly." Makes me want to play Bioshock again...

[Demonix]

I am looking for the hybrid character rules for 4e but at the moment have no way to get my hands on the player's handbook 3, and won't in the foreseeable future. So, I ask, would one of you be kind enough to give me the exact text of the hybrid character rules? If you are all to lazy to or just don't feel like giveing me the exact text, then a detailed paraphrasing would be good, but the key word is DETAILED. I need to know EVERYTHING regarding hybrid characters sans fluff/flavor. Every rule pertaining to them, I need to know. I need to know how many class features they get, how many powers they get, everything. And I don't just want "a few" I need exact numbers here.

So if one of you would be so kind, could you explain the hybrid character rules to me?

Whats to know about it? Basically you pick your base class, then your hybrid class, avg your starting HP and surges, and pick your powers from both class lists. There's some stuff about skill selection/innate class ability selection.

I think. It's been a while since I looked at the rules. Think of it like putting together a peanut butter sandwich...its mooshy, but tasty. I like it better than the feat multiclassing option, it gives you a better blend and introduces some badly needed character customization. Blowing feats to get multiclass powers just feels too limiting/clunky.

Thats about as detailed an explanation as you are likely to get without access to the source material.

[Mando Knight]

Whats to know about it? Basically you pick your base class, then your hybrid class, avg your starting HP and surges, and pick your powers from both class lists. There's some stuff about skill selection/innate class ability selection.

Actually, you pick two classes, cut them both in half, smear some peanut butter on one side of each of them, and put them back together. Then you've got a delicious hybrid-class sandwich.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Since talking 'bout the Law is against Forum rules...

Seriously just go buy a one month subscription of DDI ($10), download the full Character Builder, and then don't renew.

You'll have the full Hybrid rules (well, save whatever else comes from PHB 3) as well as everything else that's been published to date - character-wise.

[JoshuaZ]

Since talking 'bout the Law is against Forum rules...

Talking about politics is agains the rules. Saying "the law is X. It has this consequence. Y is not ok under current copyright laws but Z is" is not politics any more than saying something like "murder is illegal."

[Oracle_Hunter]

Talking about politics is agains the rules. Saying "the law is X. It has this consequence. Y is not ok under current copyright laws but Z is" is not politics any more than saying something like "murder is illegal."

Not so much - Roland's locked discussions for "giving legal advice."

That is, at least, my personal experience

[Boci]

That is, at least, my personal experience

Legal advice yes. Statements such as "Don't commit murder, it will get you in trouble with the law" and "X is against Y law" should be fine.

[Dragonmuncher]

Guys. Take it down a notch, ok? Acting outraged about someone trying to copyright infringe on the internet is like getting pissy about someone going over 55 on the highway.

So, OP: Sorry, but forum rules disallow stuff like that. Good luck trying elsewhere.

[The Glyphstone]

If someone is driving slower than you on the highway, they're an idiot.
If someone is driving faster than you on the highway, they're a maniac.
Proceed to nerd road rage.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Legal advice yes. Statements such as "Don't commit murder, it will get you in trouble with the law" and "X is against Y law" should be fine.

So... how about a link to Baker v. Selden and a quote of Section 102(b) of the US Copyright Act:

In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

I still advocate paying ten bucks for DDI rather than sullying the forum with such crass requests, but the law is seldom as straightforward as "Don't commit murder, it will get you in trouble with the law."

[Duos Greanleef]

Actually, I'm inclined to agree with Dragonmuncher.
High five for realists!

[Yakk]

Artificer Armor Proficiency
Cloth and Leather Proficiency.

Um, wut?

I mean, huh? You do know how wrong this is, right? As a hybrid talent?

Right?

[RagnaroksChosen]

Google search for it.
I'm sure if the ddi for it is out some one has posted it some where ... i meen it is the internets you can almost find anything...

[JoshuaZ]

So... how about a link to Baker v. Selden and a quote of Section 102(b) of the US Copyright Act:

Yes, but how game systems play into that and what category they fall into is complicated. There aren't a lot of cases about that, but it seems from my (admittedly limited) understanding that the Baker style exception wouldn't apply in this case. (And further discussion on board probably really would be too much of a legal discussion- I'm pretty sure we're hitting that point given that I'm feeling an impulse to make an IANAL disclaimer which is a good sign that we should probably stop).

So um bottom line, not happening on these boards. Either further discussion or giving the OP the rules.