Hybrid Theory: What's a hybrid?
by Jason Lotito 
Jun 7th 2007 at 3:00PM
Each week, Jason Lotito contributes Hybrid Theory, a new column on hybrid classes in World of Warcraft.
Each week I bring to you my views and the news of the hybrid community. In true form, each week I get comments from readers debating my views. Without fail, each week people bring priests and warriors into the mix as well. This week, I'd like to tackle that issue.
Let me first start by explaining the opinion of some that warriors and priests are hybrids. They point to the actual definition of a hybrid as proof. Of course, at face value, when you consider the trinity of tank, damage-dealer, and healer, both priests and warriors seem to be hybrids; built up to perform multiple roles. Honestly, unlike rogues, mages, warlocks, and hunters, whose only role of the three is damage, it makes sense.
Of course, you can always jump on Kalgan's posts about warriors being "tank/dps" hybrid as proof that warriors are hybrids. In turn, relate this to priests as the "healing/dps" hybrids. After all, he really should know what he's talking about considering he is "the Lead Designer responsible for game systems – character classes..."
Even I've pushed the warriors-and-priests-are-hyrbids argument when it suited me. After all, what's the difference between shaman being "healing/dps" hybrids and priests being "healing/dps" hybrids?
So, while technically priests and warriors can be considered hybrids because of their ability to fill different roles, if we wanted to apply the definition that way, then you suddenly turn to other classes as well. Suddenly other classes are filling in other roles. Warlocks tanking on the Twin Emperors, mages tanking Krosh Firehand, hunter pets tanking Anub'rekhan; but let's be honest, no one is going so far to say these classes are hybrids (and certainly not me.)
So while it's nice to say a class that fills more than one role is considered a hybrid, the reality is that it's wrong.
In fact, to look at this properly, a hybrid isn't a class that can fill in multiple roles, a hybrid is a class that isn't defined by a single, traditional role. Warriors are tanks. Priests are healers. This is their primary role. This is their primary function. Sure, they can fill in other roles as needed, but the developers made them tanks and healers first and foremost.
Indeed, there have been countless posts concerning priests and warrior's roles and their primary roles indeed being the pinnacle of that role. Developers want warriors to be the best tanks, and if warriors aren't generally the best tanks, they will work to ensure this. Priests should be the best healers, and developers see any lack in this area as a problem. Sure, these classes can also perform other roles, but that doesn't mean these classes are intended to be any worse in their primarily intended role.
Traditional hybrids, however, do not get the same treatment. Shamans, paladins, and druids are all intended to be balanced around the idea that they can fill in different roles. We don't have a primary role or a primary purpose. We are hybrids because of that very nature.
And that's the difference, and that's why warriors and priests aren't hybrids in the intended sense. Sure, they might be able to fill different roles, but they have a primary purpose.
Hybrids don't.
Of course, that doesn't mean people won't disagree. But I wonder how they'd feel classifying warlocks as tanks. After all, they also tank on Leotheras.
During the day, Jason Lotito browses the WoW forums. But by night, he takes the form of Endure, a level 70 paladin, and faces off against the toughest bosses Blizzard has to offer with his guild at his side. He's previously played a shaman to 60 and raided Horde for a while, and is currently leveling a druid just to see what all the fuss is about.
Filed under: Hybrid Theory, Analysis / Opinion
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Tridus Jun 7th 2007 3:22PM
"Priests should be the best healers, and developers see any lack in this area as a problem."
Yeah, right. Thats why Priests have the worst healing tree(s) in the game. The least popular 31 AND 41 talent in the game. Oh, and lets have fun with the whole "pull aggro and you get 1 shotted" that Heroics are (I really love those guys who hit for 6k and bloodthirst for 6k at the same time).
Even with the illumination nerf, Paladins are the games best healers. Take a look at how raid compositions for 25 mans go, and you'll see that born out.
jasonlotito Jun 7th 2007 3:40PM
@Tridus
Yeah, right. That is the case. Them not being the best healers is seen as a problem by the devs. Argue if you want, but you'd still be wrong.
Slayblaze Jun 7th 2007 3:42PM
I think Jason got it exactly right, Priests and Warriors are of course not hybrids with Pally, Shammy, and Druids being the only true hybrids in the game even though they can all play multiple roles.
A slightly more interesting concept might be that of which are exactly the "pure" classes...that might be a bit more problematic than trying to define what a real hybrid is. In a way you could argue that Rogues are the only "pure" class because the only thing they can do is DPS. Or, different "degrees" of "purity" would be an interesting discussion, for example Warlocks are similar to the hybrids in that they have a different demon that represents each of the classes (Imp=mage, Succy=rogue, VW=tank, Felhound=magic-counter, Felguard=DPS Warrior) about the only thing they don't have is a demon that can heal their master - which allows an almost hybrid-like role for a "pure" dps class.
blackangely2k Jun 7th 2007 3:45PM
Yeah, this article was pretty much nonsense from top to bottom. With 3 60's and 3 70's, I've been around the block. And not only is post #1 correct that the developers have abandoned priests as main healers, he mentions a few gimmick encounters as reaons to call mages or locks hybrids as well.
The key question to ask in order to determine whether or not a class is a hybrid is: can this class fill at least 2 primary roles in a raid? Who qualifies? In order:
1. Druids(anything)
2. Paladins(anything, but mainly tank/heal)
3. Shaman(DPS/healing)
4. Priests(DPS/healing)
5. Warriors(DPS/tank)
Warriors barely make this list, but notice what the other classes all have? Healing. In this game, if you can heal but also are capable of crossing over to do DPS or tank, congratulations: you're a hybrid.
But
blackangely2k Jun 7th 2007 3:52PM
@2: Tell me, where in the protection of priests as the desired main healers was the spell Circle of Healing? Have you ever actually tried to use this absolutely pointless mana-sink? And Lightwell would be nice if it didn't break on damage. It might actually get used. And pain suppression would be nice if you could put it on a tank. the funny thing is no useful priest spell seems to go where it would matter most. Unlike, say, Blessing of Protection no longer dropping aggro.
Ryan Jun 7th 2007 3:53PM
Well, if warriors and priests are primarily healers and tanks, while the Hybrid classes can be either, then the Hybrid classes should most definitely out-dps priests & warriors, but not out-heal/out-tank them. The way it stands now, priests can't out-heal anyone, but can out-dps all the hybrids, and warriors are the best at DPS AND tanking AND PVP.
jasonlotito Jun 7th 2007 4:03PM
@blackangely2k
"he mentions a few gimmick encounters as reaons to call mages or locks hybrids as well."
No I don't. You might consider actually "reading" said article before replying.
Indeed, you can argue all you want, but it bears repeating. Priests are "one of the pure role classes in the 'Holy Trinity'."
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=55006548&pageNo=4&sid=1#72
jasonlotito Jun 7th 2007 4:10PM
@blackangely2k
You enjoy ignoring things and making stuff up, don't you? It doesn't take intelligence to level up multiple characters, you are proof of this.
Regardless, intent and implementation are two different things. The dev's, and blue, have stated on numerous occasions that priests are intended to be the premier healers. Now if this isn't working as intended, they will work to correct it.
But please, continue to put words into my mouth.
After all, you claimed I was trying to say warlocks and mages should be called hybrids...
"but let's be honest, no one is going so far to say these classes are hybrids (and certainly not me.)"
Anyways, argue what you will. You're still wrong.
jasonlotito Jun 7th 2007 4:10PM
@6, Ryan,
I agree, priests are still needing changes, and I do believe you are going to continue seeing that. The danger is overdoing those changes and suddenly seeing all that hard work at being a shadow priest go down the drain.
ErsatzPotato Jun 7th 2007 4:25PM
It's (surely intentionally) disengenuous to use two of the only fights DPS clothies regularly tank to dismiss the arguments about warriors and priests.
An interesting aside is that all four DPS classes do have two roles: DPS & cc. Blizzard keeps making it easier to have full cc without speccing for it (improved sap) so they clearly want primary DPS to always come with cc.
As far as definitions go there are the stated intentions of the designers (in which case priest is not a hybrid, just broken), or the current reality (priest is a hybrid).
One oddity of the Hybrid Wars is the assumption that a "true" hybrid class be able to perform well all three of the trinity. That only the druid can really pull this off (as mentioned by another) is what seems to get paladins in a twist*. Them's fighting words, I realize, but paladins were told from day one they were not supposed be strong single target DPS). That they aren't is one of the things the devs have gotten right! Paladins tank groups to DPS.
Hybrids get mixed up in the expectation that all three talent trees for every class ought to be equally useful from 1 to 70 raids. Far as I know the devs never said anything of the sort, nor that a role must be defined by one tree. Priests don't have *a* healing tree, they have a healing pair of trees. That all those available talents in holy + disc arguably don't make them the game's primary healer is the broken bit.
Lest every pally in the game hunt me down polearm at the ready, I'm all for you guys getting some sort of cool melee buff role instead of ret. That'd be awesome.
Ryan Jun 7th 2007 4:20PM
@9 I guess my point was not in saying that priests should or should not out-dps/out-heal any other class, but that given your proposition, that was the way it should play out. It doesn't play out that way, and that's why priests and warriors are defacto hybrids, even if that isn't really the intent.
Swath Jun 7th 2007 4:23PM
What I think is that most, including the poster, fail to realize that there are not just 3 roles in WoW. The "Holy Trinity" of tank, healer, and dps isn't the whole story. If you look at each class's design, they are actually different permutations of tank/heal/dps/CROWD CONTROL.
Think about it. A warrior has almost no CC and no heals at all, but he makes up for it by being able to take the hits he's not preventing or healing (in theory). A shaman has heals and dps and a little bit of tanking, but absolutely no CC. Compare this to a rogue or mage, who are nothing but CC and DPS. You start to see how, for instance, an enhancement shaman is similar to a rogue but pays for having heals by not having stuns (this is an oversimplification, but you get what I’m driving at).
This is where most people go wrong when talking about Druids. They say "ZOMG Druids can tank and dps and heal almost as well as the parent classes! NERF!". In reality, Druids pay for this by not only the obvious weaknesses of spec and gear restraining them to a role, and also being slightly inferior at those roles, they ALSO have no sustainable CC. That's the true price they pay. Cyclone and a few short stuns are nice in a pinch, but you don't bring a druid to CC a mob in an instance.
This Holy Quadrinity is actually the basis for WoW design. As a matter of fact, since every class can DPS acceptably in theory (the devs have said they want to make even Pallies viable as raid dps), they have, in effect, eliminated the old holy trinity and replaced it with Tank/Heal/CC.
This also makes it simple to see that if Blizz adds a new class, it will most likely be a Healing/CC hybrid, wearing cloth with low HP and no shields, that has relatively low (think Pally) dps.
The only thing I'm still working on is how "support" (pallie and shaman buffs, etc.) fits into the framework, because it's definitely something classes trade off within the "Holy Quadrinity". However, integrating it into a "Holy Quintinity" doesn't seem quite appropriate.
In this framework, I think there's an interesting debate to be had about what a "hybrid" really is.
Angus Jun 8th 2007 9:40AM
Agreed with everybody that pointed out Priests are in bad shape. You know something's wrong when you see people ask why someone cast "Circle of LOL" or "LoLwell" and telling the Priest to respec and get something useful out of those 2 pts.
I see resto druids pretty much not worrying about mana or generally able to handle all but boss fights without a consumable but I have to put totems down and hope the priest gets enough out of a laughable 30MP5 from my sucky totem. The druid doesn't even notice it.
Priests aren't the best healers. They aren't even the most versatile.
At the same time, when you spec into something as a hybrid, you aren't a hybrid. Only people with 30pts in 2 trees can be considered hybrids. You lose too much when you go deep into a tree and have to get gear that makes you actually decent at that tree. That's WoW's biggest issue for Hybrids. The problem is if they made Hybrids have higher item levels to compensate for having them be jack of all trades, the rest of the classes would get mad, even though they need more stats to be capable of doing multiple roles during a fight.
Tiforix Jun 7th 2007 4:36PM
It seems to me that the definition of hybrid has shifted to be more about roles than about damage type, as it was originally. The reason that Druids, Paladins, and Shamans are the "original" hybrids is this:
3 classes can only do physical damage: Rogues, Hunters, and Warriors (arcane shot notwithstanding).
3 classes can only do magical damage: Mages, Warlocks, and Priests (ok, they can melee, but VERY weakly).
Lastly, 3 classes can do decent attacks of both types. To compensate, each of the three has limitations. Shamans have limited mobility due to their totems, Paladins have the lowest DPS and only one school of magic, and Druids have the shapeshifting mechanism.
But now it seems we've gone to a more role-based argument, and that makes EVERYONE a hybrid. The "trinity" mentioned above leaves out crowd control, which is a very important aspect of the game. That brings in Mages in particular, and to a lesser extent, Warlocks, Rogues, and Hunters, as filling more than one role.
Lunamiora Jun 7th 2007 4:39PM
Geez people, cut Jason some slack. I completely agree with the man. Druids, shammies, and paladins are the only "true" hybrids in the game. Just because you can fill two different types of roles (heal/dps or dps/tank, etc) does not make you a hybrid. To all priests: yes, we know you're class is gimped on healing, I completely agree. But just because the devs have fallen down on the job of making priests the top healers does not mean you qualify for hybrid status. End of discussion.
Thingy Jun 7th 2007 4:50PM
"Honestly, unlike rogues, mages, warlocks, and hunters, whose only role of the three is damage, it makes sense."
I have to disagree with this. I agree that hunters aren't hybrids, but our only role isn't damage. I'm sure BRK will agree with me in saying this. We are damage dealers, ultimate CCers (we're not restricted to mob type, and things we can't freeze we can kite), on-demand off-tanks (both ourselves and our pets at the same time), pullers, group caretakers (looking out for the squishies and managing the mob they just pulled aggro on so they're not stepped on), runner patrol and all-round super heroes.
Mainstay Jun 7th 2007 5:02PM
I think Priests are kinda missing something if they think that just because they're Shadow, they're not healers. You still heal the raid, you also work as a mana battery. Yes you do damage and you don't heal as well as a holy priest, but seriously, you're still a healer no matter what spec you take.
Blizzard needs to rethink their design of Warriors, because no one ever wants to play Protection, everyone is always Fury or Arms and those talent builds just don't work to tank Karazhan or even Heroics (unless they have some sweet gear). And Fury and Arms warriors? I hate to say it guys, you're not better melee DPS then a Rogue, you can't throw aggro, you're a damage sponge. :)
As for the people saying that Paladins are the best healers, sorry, this is a misconception as well. My 70 Paladin has 1500 +healing and while I can heal longer then the holy priest in my Karazhan raid, she'll always have larger heal crits and access to more healing spells then I ever will. Priests = larger heals, Paladin = more endurance.
Yes I will agree though that Paladins are the best SINGLE target healing in the game, but even then that's a little up in the air if you're competing against a really good Resto Druid.
tomhennessy Jun 7th 2007 5:02PM
I don't really see the distinction between calling a shaman or a priest a hybrid - either can spec for dps or healing. Either can switch during a fight between the two, to whatever level of efficacy. Frankly, I don't see the point of the Hybrid argument.
Being a "Hybrid" means that you can spec into a more then one roll. However, once you've chosen your spec, that's your roll. You're no longer a hybrid. A resto druid, for instance, shouldn't get to roll against a warrior for tank rings - they're not specced or geared for tanking, so despite being "dps/healing/tank hybrids," they're actually...just healers.
Coherent Jun 7th 2007 5:06PM
Blizzard needs to change the boring specs so that it's not possible to paint yourself into a corner, like a Prot Warrior or a Holy Priest. Sure, you're better at that one job, and your guild will love you, but you're sacrificing all other functionality in the game. By allowing total job focus, blizzard makes it required instead of optional.
I think ALL classes should be at least a little hybrid.
Tridus Jun 7th 2007 5:10PM
"Regardless, intent and implementation are two different things. The dev's, and blue, have stated on numerous occasions that priests are intended to be the premier healers. Now if this isn't working as intended, they will work to correct it."
No they won't. Its been this way for a very long time now. They decided that the only way to fix the chronic healer shortage was to buff the other classes with healing to the point where all of them were similar.
You keep saying "the devs will fix it" and "anybody other then me is wrong" (great attitude BTW), but you offer absolutely nothing to back this up. What have the devs actually DONE in the last year that would indicate Priests are intended to clearly be the games best healers?
No Priest gives a damn what they say at this point, they've been saying they'd fix Circle of Healing for almost a year. Their solution? +25 healing. Hell, they've been saying they would fix our 31 point Holy talent since release, we're still waiting. (How about that any effective "Holy" build requires 14 points in Discipline, and how most people wind up with between 21 and 28? Quite the healing tree we've got there.)
While we're on the subject of what the devs say and what they actually do, remember back when Paladins were supposed to be front line Holy Warriors? How many Prot or Ret Paladins do you see in 25 man raids? (Ret Pallies are far worse off then Holy Priests, honestly.)