Multiclassing Feats & Powers

[zookeeper]

I presume that you mean the prerequisites of the feat. Given that the feat provides more than Skill Training, which is a feat without prerequisites, having a prerequisite is entirely appropriate. Also note that getting a 13 in one stat is not difficult, given that the standard array has a 16, a 14, and a 13. Any character using the standard array qualifies for at least one multiclass feat at level 1.

No, I actually meant power. Some powers like the clerics do have prerequisites like channel divinity, the rogues sneak attack, rangers hunters quarry.

What's the limit? Note that a character fully multiclassed into wizard through feats has 4 spells, not 3.

If you multiclass at 6th level you have the powers that you can choose at various levels (this is fact), my thought is you can choose from either class from 6th level on. At 6th level you have 2/2/2/2 powers that are all from first class, the rest can be mixed from either class. As a matter of third thought make it so that multiclassing is not allowed until 6th or higher level, get rid of power swap feats, and keep retraining limited to what it is now. Retrain a power from whichever class to be same level and same class as power your retraining.

But yes, a character who wishes to multiclass into wizard will have significantly fewer wizard spells than a character who started as a wizard.

This I understand, but limiting to a total of 3 or 4 spells is meaningless for a wizard.

Your suggestion was that upon taking new powers, they could be from either class. Starting at level 13, when a character acquires a new power, they replace an old power. If they are allowed to take second class powers to replace first class powers, they can have their entire attack power list composed of second class powers by level 19, assuming they also use the power-swap feats.

This could be read that way, but I was actually thinking, (more now than before), to limit the replacement. If you replace a power from your primary class it must be with a powerr from your primary class.

4th edition feats differ from 3rd edition feats. Many of them do help in combat situations, though precisely the effects you suggest are very difficult to come by as they are quite powerful. Skill Training in a combat helpful skill is about as valuable, in combat, as other feats with no prerequisites.

Yes, I see that, especially when a feat that could really help a lower level character, is not available to him/her until a minimum of 11th level. By then you may not need it anymore. (Ex. Iron Will)

A fighter (as example) would most likely put best stats in STR and DEX or CON depending on weapon group he/she used. Although one weapon group does use WIS as its stat, all others use DEX or CON. Therefore the WILL save (defence) of a fighter will usually be low. Iron Will could help that character alot.

Feat means something slightly different in 4th edition than it did in 3rd edition. Comparing 4th edition feats to 3rd edition feats gives an unrealistic expectation to the value of 4th edition feats.

Unrealistic value? I went through the list of heroic feats, and as a fighter (ignoring all racial feats) there are a total of 38 feats you could possibly take. There are 8 proficiency feats that you already have all but 1 of. There are 5 that deal with type of damage like fire or cold, of which you would most likely only take 1 of, if any. There are 6 with skill bonuses and 6 with combat advantage/ oppritunity attacks.
That leaves 13 feats, but things like Durable, Far Shot, Far Throw, Fast Runner, Linguist, Quick Draw are not worth taking as a fighter (although durable and quick draw might be a close call). Mounted Combat only works if you have a mount. Two-Weapon fighting makes no sense because you only get 1 attack (no more full round actions).

Now by my count that leaves a grand total of possible feats to take at 6 - you get 7 at level 10.

Is it really unrealistic to want more feats to choose from, and is it really unrealistic to want your character to survive?

True, but you only get powers you want. If a power isn't valuable to you, don't take it. If having lots of powers from the second class is valuable to you, you have to spend to get it. Basic economics.

Basic Economics - I have already paid to get a power by leveling up. I am rewarded by being alowed to select a power, but I'm limited to selecting class 1 when I want class 2.

Thats like telling someone here is your money but it is only spendable if you buy McDonalds it don't work at Wendy's.

It is, admittedly, not the best example. However, suggesting that the example is wrong is inaccurate, as your second paragraph indicates that you know.

That second paragraph was meant as please do not repeat it. The example is wrong. You can not select any of the feats that has cleric as a prerequisite when you multiclass. Also as stated in previous post if you multiclass as Ranger you can not take a paragon path. You do not get the fighting style of the ranger that is a prerequisite of all ranger paragon paths.

The (2, 4, 4, 7) readout includes your paragon powers. If you use paragon multiclassing, your power readout becomes (1/1, 2/2, 2/2, 4/2/1). If you take a paragon path from the second class, and we count those powers as second class powers, the readout becomes (2/0, 2/2, 2/2, 4/2/1) The format here is first class/second class, with the utility powers including a third spot for the epic destiny utility power.

I'm not sure what you mean, but however you slice it up, you get a total of 17 or 18 powers of which there can be 3 from a second class using the power swap feats.

And, as has been discovered in the time since you posted, you can retrain the second class powers gained from paragon multiclassing.

OK - then that is a +

Well, yes, and a fighter who can cause all enemies within a hundred miles to instantly drop dead is more impressive still. The point of multiclassing is not open-ended increases in power, it's an increase in flexibility.

I must be missing something, because this does not seem very flexible to me. I start as fighter, I multiclass to wizard and the most I can learn is 3 spells. I'm not looking "open-ended power", I understand you get 17 or 18 powers over 30 levels. As I multiclass I should have the flexibility to pick a wizard power at level 7, a fighter power at level 9, a wizard at levels 11 and 16, a fighter power at level 22.

I still have the same number of powers that I should have, just have the flexibility to pick and choose between the 2 classes.

 

[Zelc]

Basic Economics - I have already paid to get a power by leveling up. I am rewarded by being alowed to select a power, but I'm limited to selecting class 1 when I want class 2.

Thats like telling someone here is your money but it is only spendable if you buy McDonalds it don't work at Wendy's.

On the other hand, having British Pounds won't buy you many hamburgers in China. You can choose to buy stuff only in the UK, or you could buy stuff both in the UK and China and pay the bank a spread on the foreign exchange rate. Want to enjoy the benefits of living in London while buying stuff at lower costs directly from China? You can do it, but not at the "fair" exchange rate. It'll cost you .

Similarly, in 4e, gaining access to more options will cost you. You can argue that the cost is too high (I disagree, as below).

(I'm not saying you're British, the example just doesn't work as well with USD.)

I'm not sure what you mean, but however you slice it up, you get a total of 17 or 18 powers of which there can be 3 from a second class using the power swap feats.
[...]
I must be missing something, because this does not seem very flexible to me. I start as fighter, I multiclass to wizard and the most I can learn is 3 spells. I'm not looking "open-ended power", I understand you get 17 or 18 powers over 30 levels. As I multiclass I should have the flexibility to pick a wizard power at level 7, a fighter power at level 9, a wizard at levels 11 and 16, a fighter power at level 22.

Your characterization is misleading since you disproportionately skew the numbers towards utility powers. "Just 3 spells" is more than you think, when you consider it's 2 out of 10 or 2 out of 8 depending on whether you count the at-wills. Let me illustrate.

At level 20, a non-human will have 2 at-wills, 4 encounter attacks, 4 daily attacks, and 7 utility powers. A single-classed character will have the following powers from his main class: 2 at-wills, 3 encounter attacks, 3 daily attacks, and 5 utility powers.

Now let's consider a multiclassed character that takes a normal paragon path and all three power swap feats. Those three powers make up 1/4, 1/4, and 1/7 (14%) of his encounter, daily, and utility powers respectively. If we look at non-paragon path non-epic destiny powers, you've replaced 1/3, 1/3, and 1/5 of your main class's powers. 33% is quite a lot, no?

Now let's consider the multiclassed paragon path character. He'll have 1/2, 1/2, and 2/7 (or 2/6 if you don't consider the epic destiny one) of his encounter, daily, and utility powers from his second class. Additionally, 1/2 of his at-will powers (1/3 if human) will be from his second class as well.

Let's suppose you can replace 2 encounter powers while taking a normal paragon path. With the multiclass + normal paragon path character, you'll only have 1 encounter power from your main class (25%), 2 encounter powers from your secondary class (50%), and 1 encounter power from your paragon path (25%). Whoa, now you're powers are shifting more towards your second class than your first class! The danger here is that you can essentially mostly have the powers of class #2 while enjoying the class benefits of class #1, which can make balancing extremely difficult.

I also think that feats required for power swapping is necessary. Otherwise, the multiclass feat is way too powerful.

Finally, it is impossible to access most of another class's class features. I think this should stay this way since combinations of class features can be extremely good (hey, hunter's quarry AND sneak attack!). If you really want multiclassing to add more class features, consider adding something like this to paragon multiclassing:

At level 11 and 16, if you could normally use it once per encounter, you gain one extra use of the power gained from your multiclass feat per encounter. If you could normally use it once per day, you gain one additional use of the power per day at level 11 and it becomes a one use per encounter at level 16.

I'm worried this could make the warlock and wizard benefit truly at-will (how many encounters will you need more than 3 uses of one at-will power?). An alternative would be to change the level 11 benefit to gaining certain class features for the encounter when you spend an action point. Maybe Healing Lore, Combat Superiority, Paladin Channel Divinity, 1x Hunter's Quarry with the normal duration, Rogue Tactics (pick which one at level 11, it doesn't change), 1x Warlock's Curse that lasts the encounter, Commanding Presence (pick which one at level 11, it doesn't change) and Arcane Implement Mastery for the encounter (pick one at level 11, it doesn't change). And there's also the one extra use of the multiclass feat's power at level 16. A bit more complicated, but it has a bit more variety and avoids the problem I mentioned.

 

[theNater]

No, I actually meant power. Some powers like the clerics do have prerequisites like channel divinity, the rogues sneak attack, rangers hunters quarry.

I don't understand. Can you provide an example of a rogue power that has sneak attack as a prerequisite?

If you multiclass at 6th level you have the powers that you can choose at various levels (this is fact), my thought is you can choose from either class from 6th level on. At 6th level you have 2/2/2/2 powers that are all from first class, the rest can be mixed from either class. As a matter of third thought make it so that multiclassing is not allowed until 6th or higher level, get rid of power swap feats, and keep retraining limited to what it is now. Retrain a power from whichever class to be same level and same class as power your retraining.

You are welcome to house rule things however you want. According to the PHB, however, you cannot select powers from your second class instead of your first class when gaining a level that provides a new power.

This I understand, but limiting to a total of 3 or 4 spells is meaningless for a wizard.

A character who starts as a fighter and multiclasses into wizard is not a wizard. It is a fighter who has learned some wizard spells. Naturally, they will know fewer spells than a wizard. However, they will know more fighter exploits than a wizard will.

This could be read that way, but I was actually thinking, (more now than before), to limit the replacement. If you replace a power from your primary class it must be with a powerr from your primary class.

If this is the way you want to house rule it, go ahead. I'm still discussing the material in the PHB.

Yes, I see that, especially when a feat that could really help a lower level character, is not available to him/her until a minimum of 11th level. By then you may not need it anymore. (Ex. Iron Will)

A fighter (as example) would most likely put best stats in STR and DEX or CON depending on weapon group he/she used. Although one weapon group does use WIS as its stat, all others use DEX or CON. Therefore the WILL save (defence) of a fighter will usually be low. Iron Will could help that character alot.

The monster's attack bonuses keep pace with their level. If Iron Will would be good for a fighter at first level, it will still be good for the fighter at eleventh level.

Unrealistic value? I went through the list of heroic feats, and as a fighter (ignoring all racial feats) there are a total of 38 feats you could possibly take. There are 8 proficiency feats that you already have all but 1 of. There are 5 that deal with type of damage like fire or cold, of which you would most likely only take 1 of, if any. There are 6 with skill bonuses and 6 with combat advantage/ oppritunity attacks.

You've got a few problems here. Firstly, there are 5 armor proficiency feats, 2 shield proficiency feats, and the feat Weapon Proficiency. The fighter is proficient in both types of shields and 4 of the five kinds of armors. However, there are 5 kinds of weapons in which the fighter is not proficient. Not all of them are improvements over weapons the fighter is already proficient in, but they do include the bastard sword, which others have noticed is a very potent weapon, and the spiked chain, which is the only reach weapon with a +3 proficiency bonus. Proficiency in one of those could be quite valuable to a fighter.

Secondly, the fighter's Combat Superiority class feature makes their opportunity attacks more valuable than those of other classes. Enhancing a fighter's opportunity attacks is never a bad idea.

Thirdly, there are a number of ways to get combat superiority over an enemy. The most common way is flanking, and if you have a rogue in the party, he will often try to flank things with you. As such, some bonuses to combat superiority will be handy in such a party.

That leaves 13 feats, but things like Durable, Far Shot, Far Throw, Fast Runner, Linguist, Quick Draw are not worth taking as a fighter (although durable and quick draw might be a close call). Mounted Combat only works if you have a mount. Two-Weapon fighting makes no sense because you only get 1 attack (no more full round actions).

Durable may be borderline for a fighter, but Quick Draw is entirely worthwhile. Not only does it let you easily switch to a ranged weapon for foes out of reach, but it also cuts the action cost to make use of a potion in half. If the fighter is taking lots of damage, that can be a life saver.

4th edition's Two-Weapon Fighting feat is not 3rd edition's Two-Weapon Fighting feat. That doesn't mean it doesn't do anything. It provides a damage bonus, and many fighters like to be able to do damage.

Fast Runner is very handy, because it increases the character's charge range. Highly useful for fighters who want to get into melee range with the enemy.

Now by my count that leaves a grand total of possible feats to take at 6 - you get 7 at level 10.

Assuming your count on remaining feats is correct, you are all set, as non-humans get their 6th feat at level 10(feats are gained at levels 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10, for a total of 6 feats). Also, every race has at least one racial feat available to them, so not only do you have enough feats, there are enough feats that you get to make choices.

Is it really unrealistic to want more feats to choose from, and is it really unrealistic to want your character to survive?

Neither of those things are unrealistic. Those are both quite reasonable.

What is unrealistic is expecting a feat to provide a +1 bonus to all attack rolls, or to provide additional attacks, or permit you to perform ranged attacks or cast spells without provoking opportunity attacks. Feats are not that powerful. If you decrease your expectations about what feats can do, you may find that you have a wider range of acceptable feat choices.

It is also unrealistic to assume that feat choices will make the difference between life and death for your character. That is the realm of powers and class features. Feats are small, usually conditional, boosts, not your primary tools.

Basic Economics - I have already paid to get a power by leveling up. I am rewarded by being alowed to select a power, but I'm limited to selecting class 1 when I want class 2.

Thats like telling someone here is your money but it is only spendable if you buy McDonalds it don't work at Wendy's.

It's really more like telling someone "Here is your McDonald's coupon. If you're a member of Wendy's preferred customer group, they will honor it a half price."

To be clear on the analogy, your first class is your McDonald's class, so when you receive your power(the coupon), it is a McDonald's coupon by default. Multiclassing into the second class is joining Wendy's preferred customer group, and the "half price" is how you know that you still need to spend a little more(the power-swap feat) to actually use your coupon at Wendy's.

That second paragraph was meant as please do not repeat it. The example is wrong. You can not select any of the feats that has cleric as a prerequisite when you multiclass. Also as stated in previous post if you multiclass as Ranger you can not take a paragon path. You do not get the fighting style of the ranger that is a prerequisite of all ranger paragon paths.

The statement in the PHB is "For example, a character who takes Initiate of the Faith counts as a cleric for the purpose of selecting feats that have cleric as a prerequisite." This statement is true, and the fact that there are no feats in the PHB for which being a cleric is a prerequisite does not make it false.

I have never claimed that a character who multiclasses into ranger can take the ranger paragon paths. I don't know why you're arguing that point.

I'm not sure what you mean, but however you slice it up, you get a total of 17 or 18 powers of which there can be 3 from a second class using the power swap feats.

What I mean is that at level 10, a character who has multiclassed and used all three power-swap feats will have 2 at-will powers from their first class, two encounter powers from their first class, one encounter power from their second class, two daily powers from their first class, one daily power from their second class, two utility powers from their first class, and one utility power from their second class.

At this point, they have 3 choices. I'm going to assume while describing these choices that a power from a paragon path counts as a power from the class that it has as a prerequisite. Also note that they have as many powers as they are going to get by level 26.

They can take a paragon path from their first class, in which case they will end up with 17 powers, three of which are from their second class.

They can use the paragon multiclassing option, in which case they will have, at level 26, 1 at-will power from their first class, 1 at-will power from their second class, 2 encounter powers from their first class, 2 encounter powers from their second class, 2 daily powers from their first class, 2 daily powers from their second class, 4 utility powers from their first class, 2 utility powers from their second class, and 1 utility power from their epic destiny. Note that the attack powers are split exactly half and half.

Or they can take a paragon path from their second class(unless, of course, their second class is ranger). In this case, at level 26 they have: 2 at-will powers from their first class, 2 encounter powers from their first class, 2 encounter powers from their second class, 2 daily powers from their first class, 2 daily powers from their second class, 4 utility powers from their first class, 2 utility powers from their second class, and 1 utility power from their epic destiny. The power split is nearly the same as option 2, with the exception of the second at-will power. However, this does include paragon path features that enhance the impact of the second class.

The point of all this is that a character who is serious about multiclassing is not limited to 3 powers from the second class.

I must be missing something, because this does not seem very flexible to me. I start as fighter, I multiclass to wizard and the most I can learn is 3 spells. I'm not looking "open-ended power", I understand you get 17 or 18 powers over 30 levels. As I multiclass I should have the flexibility to pick a wizard power at level 7, a fighter power at level 9, a wizard at levels 11 and 16, a fighter power at level 22.

I still have the same number of powers that I should have, just have the flexibility to pick and choose between the 2 classes.

The flexibility I was referring to was not player flexibility, it was character flexibility. A fighter with even one wizard power is more flexible than a fighter with no wizard powers, because he can do fighter-like things and he can do wizard-like things. For example, fighters get no area powers. Giving an area power to a fighter through multiclassing gives him options in combat that no single classed fighter has.

Note that once you have gained a power from your second class, you can trade it up for a higher level power from the second class when gaining a level that provides a new power. You just can't trade out your first class powers for second class powers, or arrange it so that all or almost all of your powers come from your second class. This is to prevent characters from having a fighter's hit points and healing surges and mostly wizard powers.

 

[zookeeper]

I don't understand. Can you provide an example of a rogue power that has sneak attack as a prerequisite?

Actually, I don't know if there is one, I wrote those items in a list, being a little upset.

A character who starts as a fighter and multiclasses into wizard is not a wizard. It is a fighter who has learned some wizard spells. Naturally, they will know fewer spells than a wizard. However, they will know more fighter exploits than a wizard will.

Yes, he will know less spells, but why can't he learn more from some other source like another wizard, spellbook, etc. Why is he limited to know only 3?

If a wizard multiclassed into a fighter and wanted to know more fighter powers (giving up the spell powers), I don't understand why he could not learn them as well. Now note I'm not saying he would get all the other benifits such as Armor and Weapon Profs.

If this is the way you want to house rule it, go ahead. I'm still discussing the material in the PHB.

Actually, I think that is stated in the PHB.

The monster's attack bonuses keep pace with their level. If Iron Will would be good for a fighter at first level, it will still be good for the fighter at eleventh level.

OK - I'll buy that, but if it is so useful at 1st level why is it not available until 11th level?

You've got a few problems here. Firstly, there are 5 armor proficiency feats, 2 shield proficiency feats, and the feat Weapon Proficiency. The fighter is proficient in both types of shields and 4 of the five kinds of armors. However, there are 5 kinds of weapons in which the fighter is not proficient. Not all of them are improvements over weapons the fighter is already proficient in, but they do include the bastard sword, which others have noticed is a very potent weapon, and the spiked chain, which is the only reach weapon with a +3 proficiency bonus. Proficiency in one of those could be quite valuable to a fighter.

Thats what I said 8 proficiencies, but you are correct 1 armor, and weapon prof (for some weapons) could be used, but are not necessary.

Secondly, the fighter's Combat Superiority class feature makes their opportunity attacks more valuable than those of other classes. Enhancing a fighter's opportunity attacks is never a bad idea.

I will grant you, I have not fully read the rules on oppritunity attacks, but I am under the impression you still only get 1/round. And Combat Reflexes (which used to grant additional AoO) gives a +1 to that attack (if one presents itself). Doesn't seem worth the feat to gain a possible +1 Damage, that may never present itself (although unlikely).

Thirdly, there are a number of ways to get combat superiority over an enemy. The most common way is flanking, and if you have a rogue in the party, he will often try to flank things with you. As such, some bonuses to combat superiority will be handy in such a party.

Granted, but I would like to see about more damage when I attack normally, because a flank (or combat advantage), is not always there. It seems logical that if I deal 2[W]+STR normal instead of 1[W]+STR. With or without combat advantage that seems the best way to go.

Durable may be borderline for a fighter, but Quick Draw is entirely worthwhile. Not only does it let you easily switch to a ranged weapon for foes out of reach, but it also cuts the action cost to make use of a potion in half. If the fighter is taking lots of damage, that can be a life saver.

Thats what the cleric was for in 3.5, keep the party healed, turn undead, buff spells, etc.

Besides which if your in the middle of combat and try to drink a potion you provoke an AoO, so it does no good.

4th edition's Two-Weapon Fighting feat is not 3rd edition's Two-Weapon Fighting feat. That doesn't mean it doesn't do anything. It provides a damage bonus, and many fighters like to be able to do damage.

Lets see about this, a +1 Damage bonus by holding a melee weapon (not using it), vs using a 2 handed weapon for added STR bonus or holding a shield for added AC. Seems pretty useless to me, especially if I can't even use that second weapon for an attack.

Fast Runner is very handy, because it increases the character's charge range. Highly useful for fighters who want to get into melee range with the enemy.

If your that far away that you need that extra movement, maybe you should not charge. The rest of your party would not get there until the next round giving the opponent 2 attacks on you, which could be as deadly as drinking a vial of poison.

Assuming your count on remaining feats is correct, you are all set, as non-humans get their 6th feat at level 10(feats are gained at levels 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10, for a total of 6 feats). Also, every race has at least one racial feat available to them, so not only do you have enough feats, there are enough feats that you get to make choices.

This whole thing was basically to show there are not enough feats, with only 6 left its like they are telling you these are the feats your using. (NO CHOICES)

Neither of those things are unrealistic. Those are both quite reasonable.

What is unrealistic is expecting a feat to provide a +1 bonus to all attack rolls, or to provide additional attacks, or permit you to perform ranged attacks or cast spells without provoking opportunity attacks. Feats are not that powerful. If you decrease your expectations about what feats can do, you may find that you have a wider range of acceptable feat choices.

No, thats not what I was saying. A +1 bonus on attacks with the weapon group (Weapon Focus from 3.5) not all attacks. In 3.5 as your base attack bonus went up you got additional attacks per round, Combat Reflexes gave you additional AoO. Not to perform ranged attacks or cast spells without AoO, but lessen the penality to hit for shooting into melee combat, or lessen the penalty for longer distances on ranged attacks. Feats in 3.5 did this stuff, thats what a feat should do IMO. My expectations of feats are feats, something special or extraordinary, that a character (who took that feat) can do.

It is also unrealistic to assume that feat choices will make the difference between life and death for your character. That is the realm of powers and class features. Feats are small, usually conditional, boosts, not your primary tools.

Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, and Great Fortitude could actually be the difference between life and death. An added AoO as an opponent could drop that opponent before he attacks you. So, YES feats can be life and death.

It's really more like telling someone "Here is your McDonald's coupon. If you're a member of Wendy's preferred customer group, they will honor it a half price."

To be clear on the analogy, your first class is your McDonald's class, so when you receive your power(the coupon), it is a McDonald's coupon by default. Multiclassing into the second class is joining Wendy's preferred customer group, and the "half price" is how you know that you still need to spend a little more(the power-swap feat) to actually use your coupon at Wendy's.

I don't see it this way, I see it as I worked to get to this level now give me my payment. The payment is as stated in the table on pg 29 - Gain 1 encounter attack power. It does not actually say there that you must select it from your primary class.

The statement in the PHB is "For example, a character who takes Initiate of the Faith counts as a cleric for the purpose of selecting feats that have cleric as a prerequisite." This statement is true, and the fact that there are no feats in the PHB for which being a cleric is a prerequisite does not make it false.

There are feats that require you to be a cleric, but you can not take those feats because you do not get the channel divinity class feature of the cleric.

I have never claimed that a character who multiclasses into ranger can take the ranger paragon paths. I don't know why you're arguing that point.

The book itself states this. Multiclassing feat: A character who takes a class-specific multiclassing feat counts as that class for purposes of meeting prerequisites for taking other feats and qualifing for paragon paths.

The reason I mentioned it at all was the fact that the statement is wrong.

They can use the paragon multiclassing option, in which case they will have, at level 26, 1 at-will power from their first class, 1 at-will power from their second class, 2 encounter powers from their first class, 2 encounter powers from their second class, 2 daily powers from their first class, 2 daily powers from their second class, 4 utility powers from their first class, 2 utility powers from their second class, and 1 utility power from their epic destiny. Note that the attack powers are split exactly half and half.

I missed the selection of powers from the paragon multiclassing, but your still trying to make it sound like you have more power than you do. "Your daily and Encounter powers and divided exactly in half." That may be true, but does not alter the fact that out of 17 powers you get (now that I found what I missed) 7 from the second class. As stated above why can't a fighter multiclassed into wizard learn more spells?

The flexibility I was referring to was not player flexibility, it was character flexibility. A fighter with even one wizard power is more flexible than a fighter with no wizard powers, because he can do fighter-like things and he can do wizard-like things. For example, fighters get no area powers. Giving an area power to a fighter through multiclassing gives him options in combat that no single classed fighter has.

Note that once you have gained a power from your second class, you can trade it up for a higher level power from the second class when gaining a level that provides a new power. You just can't trade out your first class powers for second class powers, or arrange it so that all or almost all of your powers come from your second class. This is to prevent characters from having a fighter's hit points and healing surges and mostly wizard powers.

But it's not flexible, its like someone said in an earlier post - its the old Loony Tunes cartoon, "I have this great trick but I can only do it once". Flexibility would be be able to do more tricks OR do them more often. I am not saying you should know as many spells as a wizard, but if you want to learn more than 3 (or 7 multiclassed) you should be able to because your not getting the powers from the fighter side if your taking it from the wizard side.

 

[theNater]

Actually, I don't know if there is one, I wrote those items in a list, being a little upset.

I understand. I find that it helps me to have a copy of the PHB on hand while posting, and confirming any claims I'm going to make. Not only does it keep me accurate, but flipping through the PHB relaxes me, so I'm less likely to post upset.

Yes, he will know less spells, but why can't he learn more from some other source like another wizard, spellbook, etc. Why is he limited to know only 3?

If he can pick up spells from other wizards, what's to keep him from ending up knowing every spell from the wizard spell list? There needs to be some limiting factor.

If a wizard multiclassed into a fighter and wanted to know more fighter powers (giving up the spell powers), I don't understand why he could not learn them as well. Now note I'm not saying he would get all the other benifits such as Armor and Weapon Profs.

Again, a limiting factor is necessary. If the wizard is able to replace all of his wizard powers with fighter powers, without picking up armor and weapon proficiencies, you end up with a fighter in cloth armor wielding a dagger. This is a sufficiently weak build that an inability to do it is good design, not bad design.

Actually, I think that is stated in the PHB.

Can you point me to the page? Maybe quote it?

OK - I'll buy that, but if it is so useful at 1st level why is it not available until 11th level?

For the same reason +3 swords aren't generally available at 1st level. It's just too good.

Thats what I said 8 proficiencies, but you are correct 1 armor, and weapon prof (for some weapons) could be used, but are not necessary.

And my point was there are 3 useful feats available from this collection, rather than 1.

I will grant you, I have not fully read the rules on oppritunity attacks, but I am under the impression you still only get 1/round. And Combat Reflexes (which used to grant additional AoO) gives a +1 to that attack (if one presents itself). Doesn't seem worth the feat to gain a possible +1 Damage, that may never present itself (although unlikely).

I'd highly recommend you read those. Most notably, on page 290, "You can take only one opportunity action during another combatant's turn, but you can take any number during a round." The upshot is that you can take an opportunity attack against each enemy, but not multiple opportunity attacks against one enemy. Also note that Combat Reflexes provides a +1 to hit, rather than a +1 to damage.

Granted, but I would like to see about more damage when I attack normally, because a flank (or combat advantage), is not always there. It seems logical that if I deal 2[W]+STR normal instead of 1[W]+STR. With or without combat advantage that seems the best way to go.

How are you dealing 2[W]+str normally? I haven't seen a 4th edition feat that allows that.

Thats what the cleric was for in 3.5, keep the party healed, turn undead, buff spells, etc.

That's what the cleric is for in 4th edition as well, but sometimes(in both editions) the cleric can't get to you. He may be out of healing, or busy healing another character, or too far away to heal you, in which case a potion can be a lifesaver.

Besides which if your in the middle of combat and try to drink a potion you provoke an AoO, so it does no good.

Neither the section on opportunity attacks(page 290) nor the section on potions(page 255) suggests that drinking a potion provokes opportunity attacks.

Lets see about this, a +1 Damage bonus by holding a melee weapon (not using it), vs using a 2 handed weapon for added STR bonus or holding a shield for added AC. Seems pretty useless to me, especially if I can't even use that second weapon for an attack.

Using a two-handed weapon doesn't increase the strength bonus you can apply to your damage. A two-handed weapon generally provides an average damage increase of one point over a comparable one-handed weapon, so it is about the same as the Two-Weapon Fighting bonus. And the Two-Weapon Defense feat gives the same bonuses as a light shield, so it's kind of a compromise between shield and two-handed weapon.

Also note that you can attack with the second weapon. You just can't attack with both weapons as one action unless you have powers that allow it.

If your that far away that you need that extra movement, maybe you should not charge. The rest of your party would not get there until the next round giving the opponent 2 attacks on you, which could be as deadly as drinking a vial of poison.

Oh, I wouldn't recommend it without consulting the party first. But given that many ranged attacks can be fired further than even the improved charge range(so the enemy archers might still shoot your wizard), the cleric has access to ranged healing(so he can heal you while catching up to you), and that there are very few enemies who can drop the fighter in two hits, there a number of situations where this is a good tactic.

This whole thing was basically to show there are not enough feats, with only 6 left its like they are telling you these are the feats your using. (NO CHOICES)

I understand that that was the point, but it fails to make that point. Even if there are only 6 acceptable options after all of your trimming, you have trimmed out the racial feats. Every race has at least one racial feat, so there are at least a few choices you need to make.

No, thats not what I was saying. A +1 bonus on attacks with the weapon group (Weapon Focus from 3.5) not all attacks. In 3.5 as your base attack bonus went up you got additional attacks per round, Combat Reflexes gave you additional AoO. Not to perform ranged attacks or cast spells without AoO, but lessen the penality to hit for shooting into melee combat, or lessen the penalty for longer distances on ranged attacks. Feats in 3.5 did this stuff, thats what a feat should do IMO. My expectations of feats are feats, something special or extraordinary, that a character (who took that feat) can do.

Most characters with 3rd edition's Weapon Focus only used the weapons they were focused in, essentially receiving a +1 bonus to all attacks. In 4th edition, there is no limit to the opportunity attacks you can make per round, there is no penalty for shooting into melee combat, and Distant Shot lets you ignore distance penalties on ranged attacks.

In 4th edition, the special, extraordinary things a character can do are powers, not feats. Feats are something different than they used to be. Expecting them to be what they used to be is what is not a fair way to analyze what they are now.

Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, and Great Fortitude could actually be the difference between life and death. An added AoO as an opponent could drop that opponent before he attacks you. So, YES feats can be life and death.

Are you talking about 3rd edition feats, or 4th edition feats? 4th edition feats are small bonuses that will only make the vital difference in really close combats, while powers are the things that turn most battles.

I don't see it this way, I see it as I worked to get to this level now give me my payment. The payment is as stated in the table on pg 29 - Gain 1 encounter attack power. It does not actually say there that you must select it from your primary class.

That's not in the table. It's in the full rules on leveling up, starting on page 27. Particularly "Refer to your class description in Chapter 4 for a full listing of the powers available to you." Note that that's your class, not your second class, and that the class-specific multiclassing feats qualify you for feats and paragon paths, not powers.

There are feats that require you to be a cleric, but you can not take those feats because you do not get the channel divinity class feature of the cleric.

The channel divinity feats do not have cleric as a prerequisite. They have the channel divinity class ability as a prerequisite.

The book itself states this. Multiclassing feat: A character who takes a class-specific multiclassing feat counts as that class for purposes of meeting prerequisites for taking other feats and qualifing for paragon paths.

The reason I mentioned it at all was the fact that the statement is wrong.

You know very well that a character who multiclasses into ranger counts as a ranger for the purposes of selecting paragon paths. The fact that it is unhelpful doesn't make it untrue.

I missed the selection of powers from the paragon multiclassing, but your still trying to make it sound like you have more power than you do. "Your daily and Encounter powers and divided exactly in half." That may be true, but does not alter the fact that out of 17 powers you get (now that I found what I missed) 7 from the second class. As stated above why can't a fighter multiclassed into wizard learn more spells?

How many spells do you want a fighter to have? Even the 7 out of 17 count has the fighter/wizard being over 40% wizard. The fighter/wizard certainly shouldn't be able to become 75% wizard, as that would wreak havoc with game balance.

But it's not flexible, its like someone said in an earlier post - its the old Loony Tunes cartoon, "I have this great trick but I can only do it once". Flexibility would be be able to do more tricks OR do them more often. I am not saying you should know as many spells as a wizard, but if you want to learn more than 3 (or 7 multiclassed) you should be able to because your not getting the powers from the fighter side if your taking it from the wizard side.

Every character has a list of tricks, each of which can only be performed once. Every character's list is roughly the size of every other character's list. By having fighter tricks and wizard tricks on his list, the fighter/wizard is useful in more situations than the single-classed fighter or the single-classed wizard. That's increased flexibility.

Being able to do more tricks or do them more often than other characters would be increased power, and would make multiclassing a requirement instead of an option.

 

[zookeeper]

If he can pick up spells from other wizards, what's to keep him from ending up knowing every spell from the wizard spell list? There needs to be some limiting factor

Again, a limiting factor is necessary. If the wizard is able to replace all of his wizard powers with fighter powers, without picking up armor and weapon proficiencies, you end up with a fighter in cloth armor wielding a dagger. This is a sufficiently weak build that an inability to do it is good design, not bad design..

There are limiting factors; he/she can only know a total of 17 powers. And if the wizard wants to make a bad build like that he/she should be allowed to. In either case giving up the powers from your prime class, and selecting from your second class (IMHO) should be allowed because of the fact you are limited to 17 powers.

Can you point me to the page? Maybe quote it?

Directly under the table (pg 29) it states you can replace a known power with a new power from your new level. Although it does not specifically state you must replace with same class, using the other rules everyone keeps quoteing, you must replace it with the same class power otherwise you could end up with more than 2 powers (daily and encounter) from your second class; you can replace 4 times each.
(Speaking logically from what I keep getting told, and not by my opinions)

For the same reason +3 swords aren't generally available at 1st level. It's just too good.

Iron Will, or the other defence feats, are just "simple small bonuses" they give you a +2 bonus to your defence(s). If they are too powerful at 1st level, they are just as powerful at 11th level and 21st level. That just does not make sense. At any time you could use that bonus, but I believe more so at lower levels to avoid some damage. Especially if a missed shot deals half damage.

And my point was there are 3 useful feats available from this collection, rather than 1.

Feats are a matter of personal opinion, and not worth argueing about.

I'd highly recommend you read those. Most notably, on page 290, "You can take only one opportunity action during another combatant's turn, but you can take any number during a round." The upshot is that you can take an opportunity attack against each enemy, but not multiple opportunity attacks against one enemy. Also note that Combat Reflexes provides a +1 to hit, rather than a +1 to damage.

OK - so then maybe upping the to hit on oppritunity attacks might be worth investing in.

How are you dealing 2[W]+str normally? I haven't seen a 4th edition feat that allows that.

Actually, I'm not; I was using this as (obviously a very bad) example to express dealing more damage normally is better than dealing less damage with a +1 added to it. You still do your normal damage with or without the advantage and spending a feat to get a possible +1 is not (IMO) worth a whole lot.

That's what the cleric is for in 4th edition as well, but sometimes(in both editions) the cleric can't get to you. He may be out of healing, or busy healing another character, or too far away to heal you, in which case a potion can be a lifesaver.

Neither the section on opportunity attacks(page 290) nor the section on potions(page 255) suggests that drinking a potion provokes opportunity attacks.

If you're adjacent to an opponent, any action that drops your guard (which should include 2 minor actions for drawing and drinking because you should need to look or take your eyes off your opponent) provokes an oppritunity attack.

Using a two-handed weapon doesn't increase the strength bonus you can apply to your damage. A two-handed weapon generally provides an average damage increase of one point over a comparable one-handed weapon, so it is about the same as the Two-Weapon Fighting bonus. And the Two-Weapon Defense feat gives the same bonuses as a light shield, so it's kind of a compromise between shield and two-handed weapon.

Also note that you can attack with the second weapon. You just can't attack with both weapons as one action unless you have powers that allow it.

Your right about the STR bonus (3.5 stuck in head again). Two-Handed weapons generally have better damage dice that one-handed. Longsword (d8), Greatsword (d10) as ex. And as far as the shield statement goes a fighter is proficient with heavy shields so that would be better to use over two-weapon defence (assuming a one-handed weapon). And thirdly if you were holding 2 weapons wouldn't you either use both (if you could) or use the one your better with. So again the question why would I just hold a weapon?

Oh, I wouldn't recommend it without consulting the party first. But given that many ranged attacks can be fired further than even the improved charge range(so the enemy archers might still shoot your wizard), the cleric has access to ranged healing(so he can heal you while catching up to you), and that there are very few enemies who can drop the fighter in two hits, there a number of situations where this is a good tactic.

Granted, everything you just stated is true. But there are some enemies could drop the fighter in two hit, and actually alot possibly could if one or both hits were criticals. And even if you charge up there the archers would most likely still attack the wizard anyway.

I understand that that was the point, but it fails to make that point. Even if there are only 6 acceptable options after all of your trimming, you have trimmed out the racial feats. Every race has at least one racial feat, so there are at least a few choices you need to make.

Wow, so I get to decide which one feat I won't take. (Can you read the sarcasim there)
I still want to be able to pick 6 or 7 feats out of a possible 15 or 20 so I feel like I made the choices and not the devolopers choosing for me.

Most characters with 3rd edition's Weapon Focus only used the weapons they were focused in, essentially receiving a +1 bonus to all attacks. In 4th edition, there is no limit to the opportunity attacks you can make per round, there is no penalty for shooting into melee combat, and Distant Shot lets you ignore distance penalties on ranged attacks.

That is why you would take Weapon Focus, to gain that +1. The same thing is still going to happen in 4th ed. You weapon focus in axes and thats all most players are going to use. As for others, thats fine. Feats used to do these things, a special ability.

In 4th edition, the special, extraordinary things a character can do are powers, not feats. Feats are something different than they used to be. Expecting them to be what they used to be is what is not a fair way to analyze what they are now.

Powers are new, but some don't look all that amazing. What is so amazing about a cleric or wizards powers, they are spells that they could cast before (in 3.5), the other classes have some neat powers from what I read, but should be considered additional training features of the class.

Are you talking about 3rd edition feats, or 4th edition feats? 4th edition feats are small bonuses that will only make the vital difference in really close combats, while powers are the things that turn most battles.

Both, a defence attack that is missed sometimes causes half damage, and with those feats could make the difference between a hit and a miss. Which in turn could mean life and death.

That's not in the table. It's in the full rules on leveling up, starting on page 27. Particularly "Refer to your class description in Chapter 4 for a full listing of the powers available to you." Note that that's your class, not your second class, and that the class-specific multiclassing feats qualify you for feats and paragon paths, not powers.

I see this, my whole discussion was (and is) why multiclass is so limited.

The channel divinity feats do not have cleric as a prerequisite. They have the channel divinity class ability as a prerequisite.

Your right, I saw the channel divinity and assumed cleric, my bad on this one.

You know very well that a character who multiclasses into ranger counts as a ranger for the purposes of selecting paragon paths. The fact that it is unhelpful doesn't make it untrue.

Actually, the more I think on this the more I believe this was actually a mistake or oversight. They purposly made it possible to paragon path with the Warlock, telling you to choose a pact. I think it was an oversight not telling you to choose a fighting style, you could choose the style to qualify for paragon without gaining the other benifits from it.

How many spells do you want a fighter to have? Even the 7 out of 17 count has the fighter/wizard being over 40% wizard. The fighter/wizard certainly shouldn't be able to become 75% wizard, as that would wreak havoc with game balance.

Every character has a list of tricks, each of which can only be performed once. Every character's list is roughly the size of every other character's list. By having fighter tricks and wizard tricks on his list, the fighter/wizard is useful in more situations than the single-classed fighter or the single-classed wizard. That's increased flexibility.

Being able to do more tricks or do them more often than other characters would be increased power, and would make multiclassing a requirement instead of an option.

This is addressed above. My first reply.

 

[Caliber]

The reason you are limited is because a Fighter shouldn't be able to multiclass into Wizard then ONLY take Wizard powers, to end up with essentially a Wizard character, wearing Heavy Armor, with a Fighter's HP total. No arcane spell failure anymore, so under your proposed system, what would stop this from happening?

Edit: Also, check out 4E's rules for Opportunity Attacks. Only Ranged and Area attacks or moving from a threatened square provoke them anymore. Everything else, including drawing weapons/items, drinking potions, and standing is alright.

As for holding a second weapon, using it to bust out a Fighter power that works better with a weapon of that type is an option. For someone multiclassed into Rogue, using a Light Blade in their off-hand lets them use their Rogue powers.

 

[theNater]

There are limiting factors; he/she can only know a total of 17 powers. And if the wizard wants to make a bad build like that he/she should be allowed to. In either case giving up the powers from your prime class, and selecting from your second class (IMHO) should be allowed because of the fact you are limited to 17 powers.

The limiting factor really needs to kick in well before the 17th power. A wizard who has only fighter powers is unbalanced. A fighter who has only wizard powers is unbalanced. The designers have gone to great lengths to make sure characters are roughly balanced, and part of that is limiting multiclassing.

Directly under the table (pg 29) it states you can replace a known power with a new power from your new level. Although it does not specifically state you must replace with same class, using the other rules everyone keeps quoteing, you must replace it with the same class power otherwise you could end up with more than 2 powers (daily and encounter) from your second class; you can replace 4 times each.
(Speaking logically from what I keep getting told, and not by my opinions)

The table is a short-hand summary, not the actual rules. Those occur on pages 27 and 28.

Iron Will, or the other defence feats, are just "simple small bonuses" they give you a +2 bonus to your defence(s). If they are too powerful at 1st level, they are just as powerful at 11th level and 21st level. That just does not make sense. At any time you could use that bonus, but I believe more so at lower levels to avoid some damage. Especially if a missed shot deals half damage.

Your character experiences a jump in power at 11th level. As such, more powerful abilities become available. The paragon tier feats are more powerful than the heroic tier feats, and the epic tier feats are more powerful than the paragon tier feats. They are all still small bonuses, just some are less small than others.

Feats are a matter of personal opinion, and not worth argueing about.

My point here was that there are more viable feat choices than you were suggesting. The fact that you don't like those feats doesn't mean that they aren't options.

OK - so then maybe upping the to hit on oppritunity attacks might be worth investing in.

So there's another feat option.

Actually, I'm not; I was using this as (obviously a very bad) example to express dealing more damage normally is better than dealing less damage with a +1 added to it. You still do your normal damage with or without the advantage and spending a feat to get a possible +1 is not (IMO) worth a whole lot.

Many of the bonuses you get under rare conditions stack with the bonuses you get under common conditions. There's no reason you can't have both.

If you're adjacent to an opponent, any action that drops your guard (which should include 2 minor actions for drawing and drinking because you should need to look or take your eyes off your opponent) provokes an oppritunity attack.

The rules are quite clear about what provokes an opportunity attack. Drinking a potion is not included.

Your right about the STR bonus (3.5 stuck in head again). Two-Handed weapons generally have better damage dice that one-handed. Longsword (d8), Greatsword (d10) as ex. And as far as the shield statement goes a fighter is proficient with heavy shields so that would be better to use over two-weapon defence (assuming a one-handed weapon). And thirdly if you were holding 2 weapons wouldn't you either use both (if you could) or use the one your better with. So again the question why would I just hold a weapon?

Right, the two-handed weapons generally do one die type higher damage. So the average damage goes up by 1(d8 average damage is 4.5, d10 average damage is 5.5). You get the same average damage increase through the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. Then you can also have the bonus of a light shield by taking the Two-Weapon Defense feat.

And, as Caliber pointed out, you can have your off-hand weapon be a different type so that you can use it with powers that get bonuses from that type of weapon.

Granted, everything you just stated is true. But there are some enemies could drop the fighter in two hit, and actually alot possibly could if one or both hits were criticals. And even if you charge up there the archers would most likely still attack the wizard anyway.

Right, so charging long distances is sometimes a good idea. So the Fast Runner feat has some value to it.

Wow, so I get to decide which one feat I won't take. (Can you read the sarcasim there)
I still want to be able to pick 6 or 7 feats out of a possible 15 or 20 so I feel like I made the choices and not the devolopers choosing for me.

You mean like deciding whether or not to take Weapon Proficiencies in superior weapons? Or the Two-Weapon feats? Or Fast Runner?

Just because you made the choices quickly doesn't mean you didn't make the choices.

That is why you would take Weapon Focus, to gain that +1. The same thing is still going to happen in 4th ed. You weapon focus in axes and thats all most players are going to use. As for others, thats fine. Feats used to do these things, a special ability.

Right, and notice that 4th Edition's Weapon Focus is less powerful than Third Edition's Weapon Focus. Feats no longer do those things, and expecting them to is unreasonable.

Powers are new, but some don't look all that amazing. What is so amazing about a cleric or wizards powers, they are spells that they could cast before (in 3.5), the other classes have some neat powers from what I read, but should be considered additional training features of the class.

For clerics and wizards, the spells were their primary tools, while a fighter's primary tools were feats. Now, everybody's primary tool is the power. This is a bigger change for fighters than it is for casters.

Both, a defence attack that is missed sometimes causes half damage, and with those feats could make the difference between a hit and a miss. Which in turn could mean life and death.

Yes, and the fighter being able to charge sooner could mean the difference between life and death. And the extra bonus you can squeeze out on a target against whom you have combat advantage can mean the difference between life and death. A scenario can be engineered where any bonus is the difference between life and death. The most common scenarios, however, have power choice and power use making that difference, rather than feat choice or feat use.

I see this, my whole discussion was (and is) why multiclass is so limited.

Multiclassing is limited for balance reasons, as noted above.

Actually, the more I think on this the more I believe this was actually a mistake or oversight. They purposly made it possible to paragon path with the Warlock, telling you to choose a pact. I think it was an oversight not telling you to choose a fighting style, you could choose the style to qualify for paragon without gaining the other benifits from it.

That possibility has been suggested before. However, it is also possible that it was done intentionally, perhaps because the ranger paragon paths are too good to allow non-rangers to take them. Let me know if you get official confirmation on your theory.

This is addressed above. My first reply.

Your first reply doesn't address the fact that a character who has 75% wizard powers should have wizard hit points, healing surges, and class features, rather than fighter hit points, healing surges, and class features.

 

[zookeeper]

The limiting factor really needs to kick in well before the 17th power. A wizard who has only fighter powers is unbalanced. A fighter who has only wizard powers is unbalanced. The designers have gone to great lengths to make sure characters are roughly balanced, and part of that is limiting multiclassing.

1st - Sorry for delay in responding - could not login in 2 days.
Now: If it needs to be limited more try not allowing multiclassing before a certain level (8th as example) and eliminate the power swap feats so the powers you have before multiclass you have to keep.​

The table is a short-hand summary, not the actual rules. Those occur on pages 27 and 28.

True, but even under the powers section where replacement is talked about, it does not state weather you can replace with second class power. However the rules that keep being quoted state you may only have a total of 2 encounter and 2 daily powers from your second class. If you were allowed to replace with second class powers you could end up with more than that.

Your character experiences a jump in power at 11th level. As such, more powerful abilities become available. The paragon tier feats are more powerful than the heroic tier feats, and the epic tier feats are more powerful than the paragon tier feats. They are all still small bonuses, just some are less small than others.

Heroic Tier feats seem to be mostly +1 and +2 bonuses, Paragon Tier feats seem to be mostly +1 and +2 bonuses, and Epic Tier feats seem to mostly be Improved Critical feat from 3.x. They do not seem any larger or smaller to me.

My point here was that there are more viable feat choices than you were suggesting. The fact that you don't like those feats doesn't mean that they aren't options.

OK - so the value of the feats is in the eyes of the individual players.

Many of the bonuses you get under rare conditions stack with the bonuses you get under common conditions. There's no reason you can't have both.

If the selection of a feat to get a possible +1 damage, is weighed against the selection of a feat to get a +2 bonus to defenses (or even if we cut it to 1 to defenses) is IMO not worth it. I would rather have a full time bonus over a part time bonus.

The rules are quite clear about what provokes an opportunity attack. Drinking a potion is not included.

You are correct, although I do not agree with those rules. IMO if you drop your guard you provoke an AoO. (Drop your guard should be defined as thinking of something other than the battle, or taking you mind off of the battle, taking your eyes off your opponent, etc)

Right, the two-handed weapons generally do one die type higher damage. So the average damage goes up by 1(d8 average damage is 4.5, d10 average damage is 5.5). You get the same average damage increase through the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. Then you can also have the bonus of a light shield by taking the Two-Weapon Defense feat.

And, as Caliber pointed out, you can have your off-hand weapon be a different type so that you can use it with powers that get bonuses from that type of weapon.

OK - so spending 2 feats might be worth it to some, not to me. Especially when I can already deal that +1 Damage with a two-handed weapon, or use a one-handed weapon and a heavy shield and get a better bonus to AC than from the feat. And especially when I can only attack once per round.

Now if I had the ability to use both weapons in a round (2 attacks), that would be a horse of a different color.

Right, so charging long distances is sometimes a good idea. So the Fast Runner feat has some value to it.

You mean like deciding whether or not to take Weapon Proficiencies in superior weapons? Or the Two-Weapon feats? Or Fast Runner?

Just because you made the choices quickly doesn't mean you didn't make the choices.

It is becoming obvious we will not agree on what feats are useful and what is not. You have your opinions and I have mine.

Right, and notice that 4th Edition's Weapon Focus is less powerful than Third Edition's Weapon Focus. Feats no longer do those things, and expecting them to is unreasonable.

I will conceed this only because the feat descriptions have changed drastically. But, I do not think that expecting a feat to be a special thing is unreasonable.

For clerics and wizards, the spells were their primary tools, while a fighter's primary tools were feats. Now, everybody's primary tool is the power. This is a bigger change for fighters than it is for casters.

This is a big change for all classes. Casters are limited to knowing a max of 17 spells for thier entire career.

Anyway, the fighters tools were the weapons, not the feats, and the casters tools were the spells. The feats were tools that all classes used to empower thier tools. They increased the spells area, damage, duration, even changed thier energy types. They (feats) increased melee attacks through additional training (so to speak) like weapon focus, and weapon specialization. They (feats) helped clerics with bonuses on turning undead, and helped rogues with bonuses on sneak attacks. The feats IMO is what made your character special over the normal character of the same class.

Yes, and the fighter being able to charge sooner could mean the difference between life and death. And the extra bonus you can squeeze out on a target against whom you have combat advantage can mean the difference between life and death. A scenario can be engineered where any bonus is the difference between life and death. The most common scenarios, however, have power choice and power use making that difference, rather than feat choice or feat use.

I have to disagree with you here. Every opponent you face is going to make attacks against one of your defenses, that is the most common scenario and because of that reason I say those feats (Great Fortitude, Lightning Reflexes, and Iron Will) can be the difference of life and death.

That possibility has been suggested before. However, it is also possible that it was done intentionally, perhaps because the ranger paragon paths are too good to allow non-rangers to take them. Let me know if you get official confirmation on your theory.

I will. I've writen WotC late Friday evening, don;t expect to hear anything back till at least Monday.

Your first reply doesn't address the fact that a character who has 75% wizard powers should have wizard hit points, healing surges, and class features, rather than fighter hit points, healing surges, and class features.

You get the HP, surges and features of the class you start in. If this seems unfair because of a wizard wearing armor with no spell failure, then impose one while wearing armor. Or another possibility is when the powers become more than 40% as example then that would be primary class now and impose some type of penality for using the improper features of other class.

 

[Zelc]

You get the HP, surges and features of the class you start in. If this seems unfair because of a wizard wearing armor with no spell failure, then impose one while wearing armor. Or another possibility is when the powers become more than 40% as example then that would be primary class now and impose some type of penality for using the improper features of other class.

First of all, the 40% figure doesn't work. For one thing, paragon multiclassing will make almost 50% of your powers from the secondary class. For another, what happens when you have enough powers from both classes so they are both over the 40% threshold (say, a 50/50 split)? Finally, it can be a pain in the butt. What happens if changing class abilities means you no longer meet the prereqs for a feat?

The current system is much simpler: with paragon multiclassing, you get up to 50% of your at-will powers, encounter powers, and daily powers from your second class, and 2/7 utility powers (4/7 from your main class and 1/7 from your epic destiny). You want to go over 50%, then you should have used the other class as your base class. Your system effectively allows me to play a Wizard with 9+Con healing surges and 15+Con/6 HP, compared with 6+Con surges and 10+Con/4 HP.