Multiclassing.

[Lurker37]

Agreed. The 'same level or lower' obviously refers to the level of the power you swap out.

So if you swap out a power you learned at level 6, you replace it with a power from the other class of level 6 or lower. You cannot drop a level 6 power to gain one of level 7 or higher.

 

[Mort]

Maybe this is to avoid giving access to particular class abilities that might cause problems when combined with abilties from other classes? In other words, some abilities might not stack up as "better" than others on a one-on-one basis, but they might cause non-obvious but big problems in the certain multi-class contexts?

I suspect that the wide open approach you're suggesting wouldn't work for that reason, at least. Also note that you can pick any encounter/utility/daily powers from the other class with the power swapping feats, but not at will powers, which seems like a basic "firewall" against broken combinations. If they happen, at least they won't be happening over and over again.

Oh I see exactly what you're saying re: balance problems. But the proposed approach is not much better AND it has less options. Since 4e designers seem to have really thought about internal balance - you'd think ability picking (within limits imposed by them) could work.

 

[neceros]

This is a big thing. It costs me a whole feat to gain this power. Not an extra power, just to have the privilege of something different. Even if feats are more common in the game, they don't grow on trees.

Indeed. It seems you'll have to play a regular character like is designed. Is it really so bad to be good at something instead of nuking yourself to half of everyone else?

 

[MaelStorm]

I like how multi-class work in 4E, because it makes your initial class, and second class decision more important. Gone are the days of players choosing to multi-class in 3, 4, or 5 classes.

 

[Falling Icicle]

One thing I was asking myself while reading this is why would anyone take the skill training feat? You could take a multiclass feat instead and get training in a skill PLUS a minor power from another class PLUS you are treated as that class which opens up alot of options. Granted, you can only "multiclass" once, but still, if you're going to take a single skill training feat, you're better off taking a multiclass feat instead.

I think it would have been more balanced (and interesting) if, instead of giving you a skill, it required training in a skill iconic to that class. And instead of giving you a lame once/encounter use of an at-will power or once/day use of an encounter power, it actually gave you that ability, just as the other class has it. For example, the Rogue multiclass feat would require skill training: thievery, but would give you sneak attack at-will (not once per encounter).

 

[cthulhu_duck]

This seems restrictive, but most decent multiclassing setups in 3.5 took until levels 7-10 to really get going, and before then, they were usually terrible.

That may be true... But I'm comparing against both what 3.5 and 1E allowed - and I always wished that 3.5 was closer to what 1E supported.

 

[neceros]

One thing I was asking myself while reading this is why would anyone take the skill training feat? You could take a multiclass feat instead and get training in a skill PLUS a minor power from another class PLUS you are treated as that class which opens up alot of options. Granted, you can only "multiclass" once, but still, if you're going to take a single skill training feat, you're better off taking a multiclass feat instead.(not once per encounter).

You can only pick one skill from that class' skill list.
You can only take the feat once.
Theese feats have preqs.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Well, to get another Trained Skill you would take Skill Training after multiclassing. Perhaps too Skill Training gives more benefits then simply +5 and Trained.

Perhaps, it allows you to gain a secondary bonus to another Skill related (or certain aspect of that skill).

 

[Stalker0]

Well. 3.X isn't much better. You can't really multiclass well (not the sense of anything that has to do with spellcasting, at the very least) without a PrC.

3.x got it half right. Fighter type multiclassing worked just fine. Ranger/Barbs, Fighter/Rogues, Ranger/Rogues, Paladin/Fighters were all worthwhile multiclasses. We all acknowledge that spellcaster multi classing sucks in 3.5

 

[Falling Icicle]

Is it just me or do the multiclass feats seem horribly imbalanced with each other?

It's not just you.