Excerpt: Multiclassing (merged)

[Spatula]

What do you think the downside would be of allowing 3 classes?
Why did they decide to limit it?
You still lose a feat that could have been used for something else.

The downside is that you're watering down your main role. The multi-class is just suppose to be some additional flavor / flexability, you're still supposed to be able to be a defender, striker, whatever your main class is. If you're replacing all your class powers with multiclass powers from different multiclasses, and using up all your feats on it, you're not going to be effective at much of anything.

 

[Mouseferatu]

For me, at least, it's always been a question of how much power for how much versatility. In the case of the 4e power swap feats, it seems like too much power for too little versatility.

Indeed, it's possible. As I said above, I'm going by what I've read; I haven't seen too much multiclassing in my own group. I think it's a good trade between power and versatility, based on what I know of the system, but I could certainly be proved wrong.

I don't think I will be, but it's feasible.

 

[hong]

Wouldn't work. The ability to "plug a hole" with an extra power is far more valuable than a feat.

In a party-based game, you "plug a hole" by having someone play a PC with the requisite schtick. Anything else is likely to be inferior.

 

[Guild Goodknife]

Versatility is worth a certain amount of power. If you can be equally as powerful as a single-classed character and more versatile, it's clearly the superior option.

This.

Multiclassing was crap in every past edition. It was crap in 2nd edition (when there was also the extremly superior dual classing). It was slightly less crap in 3rd but still crappy enough to not make it worth while in most cases (caster multiclassing with other core classes) and super powerfull in other cases.

This looks fairly useable.

 

[FireLance]

The thing about PoA is that it's a rider. It's not a full on power in its own right, it just modifies another power with a boost of damage. A nice boost yes, but that's it.

The key point is, I don't think Power of Amaunator is a swap. It gives you an additional option without taking away any of your existing options (admittedly, I could be wrong).

The problem I have with this is that it's TOO good; why wouldn't someone take that? To expand their options, so they have something that can fill that hole when Encounter Power X doesn't fit the situation?

Because it costs a feat, and there's another feat that he wants more? Feats are (still, I assume) intended to provide benefits, and the real cost of a feat is the opportunity cost of not taking another feat. You might want to expand your options, or you might want more hit points, or you might want an attack roll bonus when you spend an action point.

 

[Rechan]

More hit points... better AC... better defenses... whatever else an extra feat gives you....

Since Powers seem to be the bread and butter of the game, I don't see a +2 here or there trumping that.

Let me put it to you this way: Would you let a player take this feat in 3.x?

Wider Spellcasting
Benefit: If you prepare your spells, add another spell-slot to the highest level of spells you can cast. If you cast spontaneously, add another spell known to your known list. This always applies to your highest level known; if you level up, it applies to that level instead of the previous.

 

[Rechan]

Because it costs a feat, and there's another feat that he wants more? Feats are (still, I assume) intended to provide benefits, and the real cost of a feat is the opportunity cost of not taking another feat. You might want to expand your options, or you might want more hit points, or you might want an attack roll bonus when you spend an action point.

I'm sorry, but the balancing factor from feat to feat is not "Well what if they want another feat." All feats need to be balanced with one another so that none are a "no brainer".

 

[hong]

Since Powers seem to be the bread and butter of the game, I don't see a +2 here or there trumping that.

If I have N rounds in a fight, that's N times I can use a power, no matter how many powers I have.

Let me put it to you this way: Would you let a player take this feat in 3.x?

Wider Spellcasting
Benefit: If you prepare your spells, add another spell-slot to the highest level of spells you can cast. If you cast spontaneously, add another spell known to your known list. This always applies to your highest level known; if you level up, it applies to that level instead of the previous.

I thought we were talking about a totally different ball game now?

 

[FireLance]

Let me put it to you this way: Would you let a player take this feat in 3.x?

Wider Spellcasting
Benefit: If you prepare your spells, add another spell-slot to the highest level of spells you can cast. If you cast spontaneously, add another spell known to your known list. This always applies to your highest level known; if you level up, it applies to that level instead of the previous.

Actually, it's more like:

If you prepare spells, you may prepare two spells in one slot. However, once you cast either of the spells, the spell slot is expended.

For the spontaneous spellcaster, it's pretty much Extra Spell (from Complete Arcane) and feat retraining (from PHB2).

 

[Rechan]

If I have N rounds in a fight, that's N times I can use a power, no matter how many powers I have.

1) You don't know if you have N rounds or if it's going to be O rounds or L rounds.

2) You might not be able to use that power N times; you may only be able to use it once because it's an Encounter or a Daily.

I thought we were talking about a totally different ball game now?

Illustrating an example in 3.x terms becauseshowing what's balanced and what isn't there is easier than doing so in an edition that we don't even have yet?