A few comments from a playtester

[Primal]

1) You need a pre-requisit Initiate feat.

2) Assuming that you could, you'd be giving up an equally unrealistically high level fighter power.

1) I am well aware of that. It was not my point here at all.

2) I'm perceiving this from a realistical point of view. In any previous edition multiclassing or dual-classing meant that you began with 1st level powers -- now you can start by lobbing Fireballs and Prismatic Sprays right from the start just by burning a Feat? Uh... no more apprenticeship period or "learning curve" at all? Doesn't seem very logical to me.

 

[Rechan]

2) I'm perceiving this from a realistical point of view.

Stop doing that. Or you're going to give yourself a headache.

 

[Duelpersonality]

Also, to get into Stormwarden, you'd have to multi-class into Ranger to begin with. You can't multi into just a PP; you have to qualify for it via your class (which you can do via multi-classing).

I think the point of that particular combo is that, as presented, is not possible because you have to have both the ranger class and the two-blade style from ranger, which Warrior of the Wild did not give you. In other words, you could not start as any class other than ranger and take stormwarden, unlike the other PPs shown.

 

[Rechan]

I think the point of that particular combo is that, as presented, is not possible because you have to have both the ranger class and the two-blade style from ranger, which Warrior of the Wild did not give you. In other words, you could not start as any class other than ranger and take stormwarden, unlike the other PPs shown.

Except that we don't know if there's a feat in the PHB that does.

In fact, the question was "Could there be a feat that does?" and the response was "Absolutely".

 

[Cheesepie]

1) I am well aware of that. It was not my point here at all.

2) I'm perceiving this from a realistical point of view. In any previous edition multiclassing or dual-classing meant that you began with 1st level powers -- now you can start by lobbing Fireballs and Prismatic Sprays right from the start just by burning a Feat? Uh... no more apprenticeship period or "learning curve" at all? Doesn't seem very logical to me.

It's a little fudge to make multiclassing more viable, I'd say. At least it's a lot more exciting and fun this way.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Except that we don't know if there's a feat in the PHB that does.

In fact, the question was "Could there be a feat that does?" and the response was "Absolutely".

Mhmm, what Rechan said. From how my response was written (I posted the original question), it seems like there will be a beginning multiclass feat that would enable you to take Fighting Style instead of Hunter's Quarry.

I'm going out on a limb here and assuming probably there will be a beginning-multiclass for each classes, Class Features.

 

[Primal]

Stop doing that. Or you're going to give yourself a headache.

I thought only Hong used that kind of replies? ;P

Seriously, are you telling me that thinking and even a minimal degree of realism is bad in 4E? It's all about combat and cool-awesome-whatnot powers, and not about any logic in the story?

 

[Primal]

It's a little fudge to make multiclassing more viable, I'd say. At least it's a lot more exciting and fun this way.

A little fudge? If my DM allowed to do that without any sort of "apprenticeship period" in the story, I'd seriously consider walking out of the campaign (and the whole group). You see, it would totally break my immersion and suspension of disbelief if I thought about becoming a wizard's apprentice one day, and could already hurl fireballs the next morning.

Let's make it even more "exciting" and "fun": no need to burn a Feat -- you may pick whatever powers you want. Want a cleric/fighter/wizard/warlord/ranger? Just pick anything appropriate for your level from all the lists. It would not be balanced, but certainly more fun, right?

 

[Fallen Seraph]

It makes much more sense to me then the way it worked in 3e, where you simply gained all these abilities right off the bat. So you just started training for last couple months to be a Wizard and right away you know all the basics?

It makes more sense to me to see say a Fighter focus solely on certain aspects of being a Wizard, thus why he only has say one Class Feature and a level appropriate spell. Since he wasn't going through a step by step process, he was concentrating solely on that single-spell for weeks, maybe months at a time, probably with the help of the party's Wizard.

 

[Rechan]

I thought only Hong used that kind of replies? ;P

I took a high level "hong-class" feat.

Seriously, are you telling me that thinking and even a minimal degree of realism is bad in 4E? It's all about combat and cool-awesome-whatnot powers, and not about any logic in the story?

Because there have never been stories where someone develops really, really potent abilities that suddenly surface which they can only use infrequently (read: daily).

You act as though this is suddenly new. In 3.0, all you had to do was take one level in Ranger and you got automatic two weapon fighting and track. Many people "Just stayed long enough for their apprenticeship before never touching it again"?

Or how becoming a wizard is a long grueling process that takes years of apprenticeship, but all anyone has to do is take a single level in Wizard after the fact and they get the same stuff that a standard 1st level wizard did. All because "They've been looking over the wizard's shoulder". If all one has to do is look over a guy's shoulder as you adventure, then there's little reason for Wizardry Colleges.

And hey, while we're on the topic of feats: A fighter who's 12th level and takes Power Attack for the first time can subtract 12 from his hit into his damage. Look at that; he gets a HUGE benefit for taking the feat later, rather than taking it at first level and using it the entire time.

Or a fighter 5/Wiz 1 can take 'Practice Spellcaster' and gets a caster level equal to level 5?

Or hey, let's go earlier. In 1e, elves and dwarves didn't multi-class; they had the Elf and Dwarf class. In 2e, dwarves couldn't use class x or y. That's not realistic.

I could go through D&D and point out everything that doesn't match up "realistically" with "story". I'm sure your response to each of these would be explaining it away, story wise. Which is doable with 4e if you stretch it just like the above examples.

It ultimately does not matter. It's mechanically balanced. Make up whatever explanation you want for it. Don't like it? Don't use it. If you want some sort of in-game explanation that requires all sorts of hoops to jump through, that's the DM's job in putting that in, not the system's, just like PrCs, what spells are given out when, what treasure, what classes are available, the availability of magical items, and so on.

D&D: Bring Your Own Explanation.