Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 2283868" data-attributes="member: 4937">So far, multiclassing looks like its potentially going to be wierd.  And I can't see doing more than just splashing classes given what you've just told me.   I can definately see playing an archer 15/harrier 5 or an archer 15/hunter 5, but I can't really see wanting to play an archer 12/hunter 8 or an archer 10/harrier 10 unless things work alot differently than they seem as this point.   So, let me ask you a question, does feat mastery 'stack' in any fashion?   If I have general master 4 from one class, and general mastery 3 from another, can I take general mastery 7 feats?  If not, then mastery is going to be alot like spell casting levels in that its often just not worth it to multi-class.  Or what about if I can take tactical mastery 4 feats from my general mastery 4, and then I add a level of Hunter.   Does my tactical mastery 2 increase my access to tactical mastery feats or not?   Judging from the fact that the hunter showed the mastery stat as Tactical Mastery +2, I thought it might.   But then when the Archer was previewed the mastery stats were changed from being '+2' to being just '2', which seems to indicate that they don't stack.   If they don't stack, and high level feats are really important, then there isn't going to be alot of reason to multiclass.On the other hand, if they do stack, then doing something like harrier 5/thief 5/hunter 5/archer 5 is reasonable and even profitable (look at me, I've got a +20 base defence bonus!).   I'm guessing thought that they don't stack, or at least don't stack completely, because the above could in theory have 10's (or higher!) in several different feat mastery groups.  Well, obviously if they were going to stack you'd alter the numbers on mastery levels accordingly.   My point was that if Mearls invented feat mastery in order to solve a problem with prequisites (expertise requiring 13+ INT regardless of how high a level of a fighter that you are), then Mearls has created a different problem with prerequisites in my opinion by essentially as you put it making feats nothing more than 'class abilities' .   This seems kind of 1st edition like to me, and it raises the spectre of making classes more narrow and sterotypical rather than less - especially if multi-classing is discouraged.  Even if every class in theory has access to every feat, it doesn't mean that a harrier could ever be quite the archer that an archer is because the archer and harrier have different class abilities.   Harriers will never have aim pools.  Harrier will never have a +25 BAB with projectile weapons.   Harriers will never have 'dead eye shot'.   I tend to prefer to keep class abilities to a minimum.  It doesn't bother me that a perceptive and dextrous thief could take any feat that an archer could.   If you want to make a mechanic which gives the archer access to certain feats sooner than normal, then fine, but this mechanic goes well beyond that.   It's definately not going to be for everyone.   If you liked first edition classes in which every profession was a class ('thief', 'assassine', 'alchemist', 'mariner', 'cook'...) then you'll probably be ok with this.  If you preferred the flexibility of 3rd edition and the generic base classes, then this is going to seem like a step backwards.So far the 17th level Class abilities haven't been that impressive (the Hunter's 19th level one is pretty good though).   In fact, none of the high level class abilities we've seen so far look powerful enough to make up for the lack of spell casting and magic items at high level.   At lower levels, sure, the class abilities, plus higher point buys for abilities,  plus higher hit points, plus reserve pool, plus base defence bonus, MUCH MORE than make up for the missing magic items at these levels.   This is one of the reasons its bugged me that all the play testing has focused on low levels.  If Iron Heroes can face typical high level adventures on equal footing with thier more arcane brethern, its going to depend entirely on the powerful new feats and greater access to same.   Ok, cool.  That is good, but the problem with that is that generally high level feats completely obselete lower level ones.   Take the 'vorpal whirlwind'.   It more or less obseletes 'whirlwind attack'.   Whirlwind attack though is already at the end of a pretty tall feat tree as it is.   Then we are told that there is a further 'improved vorpal whirlwind' and 'superior vorpal whirlwind' implying that the final one is something like six levels up a feat tree.   Granted, its really powerful, but are you saying that 'superior vorpal whirlwind' probably doesn't have 'vorpal whirlwind' as a prerequisite?   That will be wierd. Hmmm... I'll have to see that.  Making it only 2 feats deep also has conceptual problems for me.Under every suggestion I made, they wouldn't.  Both are means for limiting the access to powerful feats.Depends on the intelligence, dexterity, and skills of the Beserker.   I don't see why a Berserker with INT 15 and 12 ranks of knowledge (history) (or whatever) shouldn't.   Of course, that would be an unusual Berserker.</blockquote>

Verification