Hybrid/jack-of-all-trades: are they EVER balanced?

[Eyestabber]

I have a theory: hybrid characters either excel at everything they do and bring too much to the table, or they fall flat on everything and end up being a waste of space. No in-between. Whenever a game has clearly defined archetypes (A, B, C...) and then throws a character that can do 70% of A, 80% of B it ends up being too much. Or not enough, depending on the thresholds needed for success in the game. Thoughts?

[The_Mask]

It really depends on the game. Usually jack-of-all-trades are underwhelming, because the developers don't know how to make the classes that specialize fun. Or because of their own insecurities as developers.

Fondly, I can say that Dark Souls has a special place as being one of the games where being a jack-of-all-trades is awesome.

Unironically, having a good class like this is another (quiet ?) way of telling if a RPG is good.

[Kalarion]

I kinda like VD's approach to it: hybridization is for metagamers. If that's the intended use, it makes sense to have hybrids be powerful; they're essentially a reward for mastery of mechanics.

Or think of something like early SWTOR, where it took a long time to discover that Force-Sensitives could only be created by players whose previous char had hit max level in all other classes.

Of course the issue here is that viable hybrids don't just come from mastery - they're read about and copied, from EG walkthroughs of previous masters.

I'm really not sure how to solve the problem of copy-catting and credentialism; maybe, in a single player game, it doesn't really matter. For multiplayer games, especially MMOs, maybe the best solution is to get rid of true hybrid play and instead make "hybrids" that are their own thing. Consider the hybrid classes of EQ, which shared a bare minimum of traits from their "parent" classes, but quickly became unique classes of their own.

[GhostCow]

Hybrids in EQ were shit. They all had the exact same spells as their parent classes, they were just a few spell levels behind. Except for the Ranger, who didn't even get SOW until a crazy high level because everything about the Ranger was shit. I think they eventually gave the Ranger some unique spells, but it was just because they were so shit that they needed something to lower how much agro they created, so they gave them a spell that was basically the opposite of a taunt. SKs and Paladins could hold agro better than a Warrior, but it didn't matter because neither had the hitpoints to be a main tank on a raid.

Bards were OP though.

[Kalarion]

Disagreed. They may have started out that way but, even from Kunark, each class picked up unique characteristics and spells.

Paladins had self-targeting damage procs and damage shields. SKs had their skeleton forms (reagentless levitate and water breathing), and self-cast lifesteal procs/single-target lifetaps. Rangers got agro drops and fast-cast single-target dd spells.

Velious upped the ante with further unique spells for each class, including unique spells for levels 1 - 50, and their own disciplines (though only... 2?... each at first). Each had a solid, separate identity from their parent classes at this point. By Luclin the idea of them being hybrids in the sense of a strict meld of classes would have been considered non-sensical.

[KnightoftheWind]

I'd rather create a unique character for each playstyle than a combination of all of them, It's no fun roleplaying as an all-powerful character all of the time. So long as the game is balanced accordingly for each archetype, which doesn't happen all of the time. For instance, fighting airborne enemies as a pure melee class in Skyrim is a pain in the ass until you get more shouts, especially Dragonrend. Otherwise you just sit there awkwardly as a dragon lays waste to your surroundings.

[Bonerstorm]

I like a character that matches my approach to the game - games now are so neutered that you could pick any old shitty class and ultimately finish the game with 300 healing potions to spare. I think the last jack of all trades to be fun and balanced were the Pools of Radiance chars - fighter/thief/mage or cleric/mage. Yes, they could do it all, but there were level caps, equipment limits, and so on.

[Shillitron]

Didn't read anything in this thread.

The answer is: No, "Jack-of-Trades" are usually either shit or OP depending how well synergies work in a given game / ruleset.

More importantly though: Balance is retarded sawyer shit. Is it FUN??

[agentorange]

I kinda like VD's approach to it: hybridization is for metagamers. If that's the intended use, it makes sense to have hybrids be powerful; they're essentially a reward for mastery of mechanics.

Came here to mention how it is handled in AoD as well. When you first play the game, hybrid classes seem like a trap, with min/maxing seeming to be the best and only option for success. But as you complete multiple playthroughs and learn the ins and outs of the systems, the various branches and routes and the skill/stat requirements for those routes, then hybrid characters reveal themselves as being the only option for seeing the most hidden parts of the game.

[WhiteShark]

I have a theory: hybrid characters either excel at everything they do and bring too much to the table, or they fall flat on everything and end up being a waste of space. No in-between.

The answer is in the definition. A true hybrid either can perform at least one of its constitutent roles up to par, in which case it is strictly better than a class that fills only that role, or it can't, in which case it is useless. The only solution is to eliminate hybrids by giving them their own identity and role to fill.

[rusty_shackleford]

last playthrough of bg I did was as a dwarf fighter/cleric, pretty good. All the multi-classes are considered quite powerful. Aerie is very powerful, yet is not as good of a mage as Edwin.

also, behead min/maxers

[WhiteShark]

last playthrough of bg I did was as a dwarf fighter/cleric, pretty good.

I'm guessing this means that it was better than just playing a fighter, which would raise the question of what the figher's purpose is if it can be outdone by a hybrid. I haven't played BG though so I don't know.

[aeternalis]

I kinda like VD's approach to it: hybridization is for metagamers. If that's the intended use, it makes sense to have hybrids be powerful; they're essentially a reward for mastery of mechanics.

Came here to mention how it is handled in AoD as well. When you first play the game, hybrid classes seem like a trap, with min/maxing seeming to be the best and only option for success. But as you complete multiple playthroughs and learn the ins and outs of the systems, the various branches and routes and the skill/stat requirements for those routes, then hybrid characters reveal themselves as being the only option for seeing the most hidden parts of the game.

This fits with how I see it IRL, having been a jack-of-all-trades (e.g., in software). Hybridization is weaker in the short term for sure when one lacks knowledge, but allows one the opportunity to experience and comprehend general patterns through crossover from many different fields, which eventually leads to more effectiveness in specialized roles by applying the general systematic understanding ("mastery of mechanics"... IRL metagaming).

So VD's approach sounds logical.

[rusty_shackleford]

last playthrough of bg I did was as a dwarf fighter/cleric, pretty good.

I'm guessing this means that it was better than just playing a fighter, which would raise the question of what the figher's purpose is if it can be outdone by a hybrid. I haven't played BG though so I don't know.

Neither as strong as a fighter nor as strong as a cleric, but you are overlooking party size limitations and the benefits of a smaller party dividing EXP up into larger pools.
I disagree with the idea that if hybrids are worse at an individual role they must be worse overall: The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. FMT & FMC are considered extremely powerful in small(especially solo) parties, even if each individual aspect is weak.

Many of the things referenced in this thread, however, aren't hybrids. For example, almost no MMOs other than games like Runes of Magic(Rifts, etc.,) truly have hybrids. EQ paladins and SKs weren't hybrids, they were the knight classes with their own unique abilities and niches. Ranger in very early EQ sucked because it had no niche, this was fixed over time e.g., flamelick became the best snap aggro tool in the game making them excellent tanks for parties that just needed someone to hold aggro off of cloth wearers. Rangers being equally strong at range and melee combat from …luclin(?) onward cemented their niche of versatility.

Classes are archetypes + niche protection. There is no such thing as a 'hybrid class', which is why 'hybrid classes' always seem like a failed experiment. If a class is not representing an archetype and protecting a niche, it is useless.

[WhiteShark]

Neither as strong as a fighter nor as strong as a cleric, but you are overlooking party size limitations and the benefits of a smaller party dividing EXP up into larger pools.

Okay, fair enough, I was considering in terms of a fixed party size. If a smaller party means more XP per person, then a hybrid that might otherwise not have been able to keep up in a certain role might reach par.

I disagree with the idea that if hybrids are worse at an individual role they must be worse overall: The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. FMT & FMC are considered extremely powerful in small(especially solo) parties, even if each individual aspect is weak.

So... hybrids in BG work when they have more XP because it lets them get up to par when otherwise they would be too weak to fill any of their roles, and when they have the XP to be up to par, they are better than specialists. Sounds like that fits exactly what I posted originally.

[rusty_shackleford]

So... hybrids in BG work when they have more XP because it lets them get up to par when otherwise they would be too weak to fill any of their roles, and when they have the XP to be up to par, they are better than specialists. Sounds like that fits exactly what I posted originally.

No, they're just stronger at different things.
For example, dispel is a very important part of BG2, and how well you dispel/how easily dispelled you are is based on your caster level. Multi-class & Dual-class characters suffer in this area, despite them having a wider toolbox to use overall.

Neither are strictly better.

[WhiteShark]

No, they're just stronger at different things.
For example, dispel is a very important part of BG2, and how well you dispel/how easily dispelled you are is based on your caster level. Multi-class & Dual-class characters suffer in this area, despite them having a wider toolbox to use overall.

Neither are strictly better.

Either dispel truly is so important that you need a single-class caster to make sure you succeed at it, in which case the single-class caster is better, or it's not that important, in which case the hybrid who is 'good enough' at that and has other abilities to boot is better. Which is it?

[rusty_shackleford]

No, they're just stronger at different things.
For example, dispel is a very important part of BG2, and how well you dispel/how easily dispelled you are is based on your caster level. Multi-class & Dual-class characters suffer in this area, despite them having a wider toolbox to use overall.

Neither are strictly better.

Either dispel truly is so important that you need a single-class caster to make sure you succeed at it, in which case the single-class caster is better, or it's not that important, in which case the hybrid who is 'good enough' at that and has other abilities to boot is better. Which is it?

Again, you're too focused on "if X is better at Y, then X must be the better thing."

A cleric/mage is weaker than a cleric at being a cleric, and weaker than a mage at being a mage. Because they are a true hybrid. You could take both the cleric and the mage, or you could take the cleric/mage and say, a bard, something you didn't have room for previously. How do you compare a cleric/mage + bard to a cleric+mage? You can't, they fulfill different roles and niches.
You correctly point out that if the hybrid was as good as either of the parts, it would make the single class useless. But you refuse to acknowledge that despite each part being weaker, it can make a stronger team overall through its versatility. That is the strength of the hybrid.

[rusty_shackleford]

Also this is completely ignoring the roleplaying aspect which many players find important. Perhaps my dwarf wanted to be a cleric, but Gorion insisted upon teaching him how to defend himself because he knew what was awaiting him?

Even if fighter/cleric is worse overall(I disagree, I liked it) — you couldn't represent such a scenario without multi-classing. I'm sure someone will point to Paladin, but that's a completely different archetype that happens to sometimes fulfill the same niche as a warrior-priest depending on the game.

[Shillitron]

last playthrough of bg I did was as a dwarf fighter/cleric, pretty good. All the multi-classes are considered quite powerful. Aerie is very powerful, yet is not as good of a mage as Edwin.

also, behead min/maxers

Aerie can Contingency cleric spells - pretty OP.
Edwin gets 5 billion spells though.

[WhiteShark]

Again, you're too focused on "if X is better at Y, then X must be the better thing."

No, my position is that if X is something you must deal with in an RPG, then you need someone who is sufficiently capable of dealing with X, and anything more is overkill. Thus, if a specialist is necessary to handle X, then the specialist is better, and if the hybrid is sufficient to handle X, then the specialist's greater ability to handle X is redundant.

A cleric/mage is weaker than a cleric at being a cleric, and weaker than a mage at being a mage. Because they are a true hybrid. You could take both the cleric and the mage, or you could take the cleric/mage and say, a bard, something you didn't have room for previously. How do you compare a cleric/mage + bard to a cleric+mage? You can't, they fulfill different roles and niches.

Every RPG has a set of essential roles that need to be filled to succeed. You compare classes and party compositions by their ability to fill essential roles. If Cleric/Mage + Bard is sufficient to fill more essential roles than Cleric + Mage, then it is a better party. Perhaps it is only by that particular combination that it can do so and a Cleric/Mage would individually be worse than both Clerics and Mages.

You correctly point out that if the hybrid was as good as either of the parts, it would make the single class useless. But you refuse to acknowledge that despite each part being weaker, it can make a stronger team overall through its versatility. That is the strength of the hybrid.

Okay, we may be arriving at a mutual understanding here. When considered in isolation, a hybrid can only be better or worse than its constitutent classes as previously described. In a party with classes which overlap somewhat in the same essential roles, it may become more efficient than having brought a specialist. If Cleric + Mage are both very good at their roles but ultimately only cover roles X and Y, then a Cleric/Mage + Bard which sufficiently covers roles X, Y, and Z is a better party and by extension Cleric/Mage is a better class provided you put it in the proper composition.

[WhiteShark]

Also this is completely ignoring the roleplaying aspect which many players find important. Perhaps my dwarf wanted to be a cleric, but Gorion insisted upon teaching him how to defend himself because he knew what was awaiting him?

Even if fighter/cleric is worse overall(I disagree, I liked it) — you couldn't represent such a scenario without multi-classing. I'm sure someone will point to Paladin, but that's a completely different archetype that happens to sometimes fulfill the same niche as a warrior-priest depending on the game.

Yes, but all this is totally irrelevant to the topic of the thread, which is whether hybrids can be balanced against specialists.

[J1M]

I have a theory: hybrid characters either excel at everything they do and bring too much to the table, or they fall flat on everything and end up being a waste of space. No in-between. Whenever a game has clearly defined archetypes (A, B, C...) and then throws a character that can do 70% of A, 80% of B it ends up being too much. Or not enough, depending on the thresholds needed for success in the game. Thoughts?

Content design is an important variable. Vanilla WoW routinely saw people building parties where they wanted a paladin or druid for the 5th slot because they could offtank or heal depending on what was needed. The harsh punishment for a party wipe meant people were more concerned with some contingencies than optimal DPS.

One way you can successfully design a hybrid class is to give them a tool that a party wants but isn't sufficient to justify a slot based on that alone. The hybrid nature then arises from being given something else to do that is constrained so it doesn't outshine a more focused class.

Examples: mana regeneration, bonuses to loot, combat resurrection, damage absorption, crowd control, throughput buffs

In contexts where less capable game designers iterate on design based on feedback from players there is a common anti-pattern: players not understanding the unique value the hybrids bring and designers failing to explicitly refuse player demands for throughout parity.

The classic example of this would be something like a rogue having damage parity with a barbarian and sorcerer, which is silly and is likely to undermine the unique traits they have. If the designers are willing to defend a position of "no, this class is not expected to be your damage dealer", a much larger design space opens up.

[GothGirlSupremacy]

A lot of people forget about the, "master of none" part that usually follows.