Multiclass Feat Weirdness?

[w_earle_wheeler]

OK -- I'm having trouble understanding multiclass feats. Every time I re-read over them, it seems like this section doesn't quite fit in with the rest of the book.

For example, underneath the Class-Specific Feats subheader on page 209, it mentions that taking the Cleric multiclass feat will allow a character to qualify for any feat that has Cleric as a prerequisite. There's one problem with this, however: there are no feats that have "cleric" as a prerequisite... only feats that have channel divinity as a prerequisite, and this is a power that the multiclass feat doesn't grant.

Also, with warlocks, the feat grants one ability based on the pact chosen, and allows you to qualify for a paragon path. Well, if I choose the fey pact and the Feytouched paragon class, I get the Twilight Teleport ability, but I will never be able to use it because the multiclass feat doesn't grant the warlock's curse ability.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the rules which states that a multiclass feat grants any class features at all, only the specified power or skill listed in the feat.

 

[Eldorian]

OK -- I'm having trouble understanding multiclass feats. Every time I re-read over them, it seems like this section doesn't quite fit in with the rest of the book.

For example, underneath the Class-Specific Feats subheader on page 209, it mentions that taking the Cleric multiclass feat will allow a character to qualify for any feat that has Cleric as a prerequisite. There's one problem with this, however: there are no feats that have "cleric" as a prerequisite... only feats that have channel divinity as a prerequisite, and this is a power that the multiclass feat doesn't grant.

Also, with warlocks, the feat grants one ability based on the pact chosen, and allows you to qualify for a paragon path. Well, if I choose the fey pact and the Feytouched paragon class, I get the Twilight Teleport ability, but I will never be able to use it because the multiclass feat doesn't grant the warlock's curse ability.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the rules which states that a multiclass feat grants any class features at all, only the specified power or skill listed in the feat.

Correct. Multiclass feats don't let you select feats for which you don't meet the prereqs, such as channel divinity or warlock's curse. But they do let you take feats that you otherwise qualify for.

 

[Raith5]

There are also a few typos in this section. See

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=229723

I agree that they are not clear - I also have the underlying feeling that using feats to replicate some aspects of a class just doesn't work very well.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Just 'cos PHB1 doesn't have feats that have a cleric pre-req, doesn't mean that there will never be feats that require a cleric pre-req (complete divine splat or whatever)

 

[w_earle_wheeler]

Just 'cos PHB1 doesn't have feats that have a cleric pre-req, doesn't mean that there will never be feats that require a cleric pre-req (complete divine splat or whatever)

Yeah, I thought about this, but given the seeming wonkiness of the multiclass rules, I think it's equally possible that the rules just missed a slew of revision before press.

 

[silentounce]

Just 'cos PHB1 doesn't have feats that have a cleric pre-req, doesn't mean that there will never be feats that require a cleric pre-req (complete divine splat or whatever)

Yay!!! $e!!!!

Woops, damn shift key sticks, Mountain Dew and Cheeto spillage.

 

[Stogoe]

I agree that they are not clear - I also have the underlying feeling that using feats to replicate some aspects of a class just doesn't work very well.

It's just scary to you because you want it to be like it used to be. Problem is, the way it used to be was pretty broken.

 

[Nifft]

It's just scary to you because you want it to be like it used to be. Problem is, the way it used to be was pretty broken.

4e multi-classing is a poorly designed afterthought. It's bad. It works in a few cases, and fails in a lot more.

The fact that 3e multi-classing worked (or didn't) is relevant only as a point of comparison.

Cheers, -- N

 

[silentounce]

4e multi-classing is a poorly designed afterthought. It's bad. It works in a few cases, and fails in a lot more.

The fact that 3e multi-classing worked (or didn't) is relevant only as a point of comparison.

Cheers, -- N

Actually, I'd argue that in 3e multiclassing wasn't broken when using only the core rulebooks and enforcing the XP penalties as written in the rules.

What broke it was people not imposing those penalties and the endless splat books with classes that allowed ridiculous/broken combinations.

With 4e we're given broken/weak multiclassing in the core alone.

 

[Otterscrubber]

Ya, its seems weird that some class combos work great (warlock/fighter) while others seem impossible (ranger/paladin or paladin/ranger). They give you access to that class's paragon path, only if the requirement requires nothing more than to be that class. If, for example the ranger paragon, the path require the class and two-weapon fighting, then simply taking a multiclass feat does not qualify you. That simply does not make sense.