Why can't you have more than one multi-class feat?

[barbaraloqw]

maybe do some test? becouse rules only over guidelins not Holly Bibble
I'm curious how this works at all.
btw. Why players always find way to make you life harder?

 

[SabreCat]

You will never have flank and prime shot, they're mutually exclusive, one requires a melee weapon, the other only applies to ranged attacks.

A common misconception. If you reread the section on Flanking in the PHB, nowhere does it mention melee. "Adjacent" yes, but as far as attack type the closest it gets is "able to attack."

 

[mlund]

You can't Multi-class into more than one additional class with your Ranger because that is a Unique shtick for the Bard class, to answer the actual topic question.

You can't Multi-class into your own class because the Designers apparently didn't want you to cherry-pick or stack your own class's builds and abilities. Yeah, it is pretty darn arbitrary, but so are most rules.

- Marty Lund

 

[Kordeth]

I'd disagree with this statement slightly. By RAW, once you take one of the intro multiclass feats (say, Sneak of the Shadows) you now count as a Rogue. Therefore, you no longer can take Sly Dodge or Ruthless Efficiency from Martial Power, since you can't take MC feats for your own class, and per PHB p.208 you count as a Rogue for the purpose of feat prerequisites.

"You cannot take multiclass feats for your own class" is not a prerequisite for a feat, it's a general restriction on a type of feat. You don't count as a rogue for the purposes of general restrictions, you count as one for meeting the prerequisites of feats. Notice that the Prerequisite line on the multiclass feats doesn't say "[Attribute X] 13 and you must not be a [class y]."

 

[Morgan_Scott82]

A common misconception. If you reread the section on Flanking in the PHB, nowhere does it mention melee. "Adjacent" yes, but as far as attack type the closest it gets is "able to attack."

I haven't looked at the specifics for 4e since reading your comment but I'll take your word for it, my perceptions were obviously colored by my years of 3.5 playing where the standard was 'threatening' which isn't a term at all in 4e. Not sure I like the idea of flanking with implements or bows, but whatever.

 

[Keenath]

Who said prime stab? Not the post you're quoting. Now, this is cause for ...

I thought it was clear enough, but here, let me explain the joke...

If you were a melee build then Prime shot would obviously come into play a lot more than the ranged one.

It's prime shot not prime stab.

Pickles was pointing out that cpendlet was in error; Prime Shot gives you a bonus only to RANGED attack rolls, so a melee build will virtually NEVER benefit from it. A melee specialist would be foolish to make ranged attacks from close up; he'd rather charge in and get his blades into it.

 

[LightPhoenix]

"You cannot take multiclass feats for your own class" is not a prerequisite for a feat, it's a general restriction on a type of feat. You don't count as a rogue for the purposes of general restrictions, you count as one for meeting the prerequisites of feats. Notice that the Prerequisite line on the multiclass feats doesn't say "[Attribute X] 13 and you must not be a [class y]."

That interpretation also valid. However, read the first paragraph: "First, you can't take a multiclass feat for your own class." It's an overarching rule for taking the feats, and counts as a prerequisite even if it's not listed. For a similar argument; the rule on p. 192 is that you can't take the same feat more that once. However, that's not listed in the prerequisite line for every feat. It still applies as a prerequisite.

That's why I think it needs clarification - it's ambiguous.

Now, do I think it's the intention? No, of course not. I honestly think that the intention was to have no multi-classing at all. Multi-classing seems tacked on last minute without serious thought for how it would work. Now that MP came out and it's been expanded, it's caused all sorts of problems.

For the record, I used to have the same opinion, but was convinced otherwise by my DM (I'm a multiclass Rogue, and wanted to take Sly Dodge in addition to Sneak of the Shadows).

 

[Danceofmasks]

I don't see the ambiguity here.
Multiclass feats only allow you to count as a member of that class for 2 things:
Taking feats that have that class as a prerequisite, and qualifying for paragon paths.

So ... you ought to be able to take all the [multiclass rogue] feats you want, especially since First In is a [multiclass rogue] feat which requires another multiclass rogue feat.
Multiclass feats don't qualify you for anything else, either .. so, no epic destinies .. or items that key off a class (if such a thing exists).

 

[-Avalon-]

Well, one way to look at it (that I have not seen mentioned yet) is that they have, basically, made it so that there are 3 different "classes" of ranger: BeastMaster, Two-Blade, and Archer... They play almost entirely different, and have differing abilities... powers are the same choice, but most of them will even have different powers that favor their chosen path...

So, why not allow the ranger to have ranger multiclass feats for the purposes of doing what the OP suggests... but... can still only have ONE multiclass pick... so rogue would have to go, the ranger has chosen to follow a different path.

Allowing multiple different multiclasses is way overpowered really... the reason they do not allow it, I think, is because each classes powers are flavored to be balanced within its own style... I have seen that it can be very unbalancing with only ONE multiclass if done right:

Paladin with warlock powers will be able to teleport away from an enemy that is challenged, will be able to eyebite them from range thereby making it impossible for the enemy to avoid taking the challenge damage, etc... if we gave the paladin the ability to take other stuff also? Maybe he would do a massive mark ability, minor action challenge, then action point blinding barrage in the rounds following the eyebite round... we start to have a paladin who can just challenge and run away... (isn't that what they fixed the challenge to avoid?)

I can foresee other classes having the same possible broken-ness when combined properly (which was the downfall of 3.x also)

 

[Rartemass]

I'd disagree with this statement slightly. By RAW, once you take one of the intro multiclass feats (say, Sneak of the Shadows) you now count as a Rogue. Therefore, you no longer can take Sly Dodge or Ruthless Efficiency from Martial Power, since you can't take MC feats for your own class, and per PHB p.208 you count as a Rogue for the purpose of feat prerequisites.

In fact, taken to absurdity, the whole paragon multiclass feats are useless, because they're multiclass feats and you can't take them if you already have one. That is of course a gross misinterpretation of the intention of the system, but nonetheless RAW.

IMO, the whole system needs a general clarification in Arcane Power and in errata for Martial Power. It's not awful, but it is ambiguous.

While that appears to be the case with the PHB, Martial Power (MP) overrules it.
The Battle Acumen multiclass fighter feat has the prerequisite of "Any multiclass fighter feat, paragon multiclassing as a fighter".
If you can't get multiple multiclass feats, then it is impossible to get this feat. MP has many of these types of feats, being:
Battle Acumen
Battle Instructor
Courageous Shooter
First In

There are 10 multiclass feats in MP. 40% of them would be useless and unobtainable if you can't take more than one multiclass feat.