Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mneme" data-source="post: 4196546" data-attributes="member: 59248">Ok, much slogging needed to make the comments I wanted to anyway.1. Yeah, about what I expected.  Except that the initial "dip" feats are somewhat stronger than I expected, and the power-switching ones a touch weaker.2. Ok, I see the base problem with power switching.  The real issue is that even in 4E, the classes -aren't- equal.  Wizards get fewer HP with each level-up than Fighter, but receive stronger (yes, not equal -- stronger; a wizard daily will generally easily out-damage a fighter-daily and then some, and the encounter powers of a wizard are a good deal stronger as well) powers in exchange.   This means that even aside from questions of balancing the base training feats (which they aren't from this excerpt, but are probably more so in the actual printed material with more details), the Power switching feats cannot be balanced--the appropriate cost for letting a wizard swap his daily for a fighter's daily (for the most part, negative; the wizard should pretty much never do this) cannot be equivalent to the appropriate cost for letting a fighter swap his daily for a wizard's (in this case, the cost is two feats with some other benefits; that's probably about right).  So rather than force every fighter to be a fighter/wizard just to keep up, they've made some combinations less than viable--sure, this means you're going to see a lot less multiclassing into fighter than the other way around (though the per-encounter abilities might be interesting enough to trade a wizard per-encounter, for the right class), and certainly far less power-trading in that direction than fighters grabbing up, oh, say, cleric, warlord, ranger, and wizard powers (for healing, tactics, striking, and AoE, respectively), but it does make all combinations viable even if they optimize very differently.3. They deliberately overpowered the base multiclassing feats.  Yes, they also slapped a stat requirement on them, but going from the right classes, that's not really a penalty.  This, IMO, is why there's a restriction on two classes (though I'd guess that there will be Paragon multiclassing feats that let you grab a third class); getting a skill, a power, and futher qualification is quite good for just one feat, letting you do this for all your feats (well, three of them.  Str=>3.5, Wiz=>1, Int=>1, Cha=>1.5, Dex=>2; clearly, martial classes are still better at multiclassing, or more flexible at it, anyway) would be too much.  OTOH, several of these are quite good on their own (even aside from possible bonuses like Stealth & Thievery for Sneak of Shadows, which fits the flavor but not the text of the exerpt); I would guess, particularly given the lameness of many fighter powers compared to non-fighter powers, that in fact, the Fighter feat gives a straight +1 to attack, not per encounter -- so even a wizard->fighter combo isn't unlikely; she would just not bother taking power feats at all, instead taking Student of the Sword (thus getting +1 to her AoE spells!), Armor training, probably Toughness, and maybe taking a fighter-oriented paragon class.  By contrast, a fighter might take Student of Battle just for the inspiring word and the skill (certainly, the qualification is free), but more likely will take some dailies at 10th level, trading a vanilla daily with Reliable for a tactical daily that helps in other ways if it misses (and if it hits).</blockquote>

Verification