Blog (A5E) Multiclass Feats

[TwoSix]

So the earliest you could take arcane archer is 8th unless feat progressions have changed.

7th, actually. Once you're a fighter 3/wizard 3, you'll get your next feat whenever you take fighter 4 or wizard 4.

the reason I say roughly same accuracy is that a fighter/wizard is likely to split their high stat between int and dex, so the arrow attack will have a lower attack compared to a full dex archer, but the archery style gives us back a +2. And of course by taking this feat we are not raising our dex or int.

Yea, but that isn't really as relevant since the spell is like a paladin smite; you can't cast the spell until you hit with a ranged weapon attack, and the spell automatically hits. It's actually a pretty strong feat, which it should be considering its requirements.

 

[Rabulias]

So the earliest you could take arcane archer is 8th unless feat progressions have changed.\

7th, actually. Once you're a fighter 3/wizard 3, you'll get your next feat whenever you take fighter 4 or wizard 4.

TwoSix has the right of it. ASIs/feats are gained based on class level, not character level. I had trouble with this at first, too. To paraphrase Yoda, "unlearn the D&D 3e rules you have learned."

 

[DeviousQuail]

Not what I initially expected when I saw the title. I thought it was going to be feats that mimicked taking a level in another class without having to actually take a level in another class. Some kind of partial benefit instead of the full gamut of goodies you get from normal multiclassing.

However, I do like what you've done here. It's powerful, but has a high prerequisite to balance that power a bit. I can see these opening up some builds that were lacking support in O5e. I'm not sure about the feat chain aspect but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Interesting, these are like mini-Prestige Classes.

 

[the Jester]

So these are sort of prestige class feats?

 

[Faolyn]

I'm kind of iffy here. It's an interesting concept that takes the place of prestige classes and probably reduces the number of archetypes that are needed. You don't need an Arcane Archer archetype now because of this. It'd probably be really easy to make tons of these feats to cover any number of classes.

However, much like with prestige classes, it means you have to plan your character out early on. In one of my games, I'm playing a Rogue 6/Fighter 1 and I'm feeling behind. I'd love to go for more levels of Fighter, but at the same time, it's also reducing a lot of my roguishness. I dread how I'd feel if I had to get three levels of Fighter to qualify for something, even if I think the feat feels significantly powerful (I'm getting a vision of an Arcane Archer apologizing to a comrade for the damage while delivering an invisibility spell from a distance).

Also, this is stricter with the requirements than a prestige class. Why can't a ranger/sorcerer take Arcane Archer? That seems equally as thematic as fighter/wizard and more archery to boot. I strongly suggest that you change the prerequisites to incorporate multiple options. Arcane Archer could require three levels of Fighter, Ranger, or Rogue and three levels of Sorcerer or Wizard. Proclaimer could require Bard and either Cleric or Adept.

 

[VanguardHero]

Oooh interesting Ok so thoughts

First off, the significant investment THREE Feats would be in o5e is ridiculous, so I really hope there's more chances to take them then...5 max for most characters, competing with stat increases. Thankfully even if not LU has other choices after 3rd level, but would love to see a reliable Feats setup that doesn't shirk any sense of balance for "It's an optional rule!" as well as reliably letting you engage with it, especially with rolled stats being around still. Also assuming Vuman is gonzo.

Speaking of gonzo, glad to see Bladesinger in this Psuedo-Prestige system instead of Wizard just being the best Martial.

A couple of these have me REALLY intrigued. "Vigilante" always catches my attention, and I'm hoping "Untamed" might feel like the 4e Warden. Warlord gets all the love but Avenger and Warden are my faves from it.

I also definitely agree with the sentiment that not everything has to be strict class choices. We obviously don't know the exact benefits, but like, conceptually, I see no reason for Eldritch Archer or Mystic Theurge to be Wizard or Sorcerer specifically. More flexibility, especially as someone who loves Sorcerer and hates Wizard, would be ideal.

Concerns are like. First, "Multiclass Feats" seems unwieldy since there's already "Multiclassing", and Multiclass Feats mean something different in 4e and PF2 and it pulls the mind towards that. Prestige Multiclass, or Fusion Multiclass or something would probably read cleaner. Then, going back to what I mentioned about investment, if Feat Progression is the same as in 5e. Assuming "3 levels in X" is standard entry this seems REALLY potent. 3rd is already where you get like 70% of the Subclass power, and enabling one of these and that at once worries me it might end up a 3.5 situation where Prestige Classes were THE way to build. If you like a certain one of these, especially if the later Feats have higher specific level requirements, it takes up a LOT of build space and might feel like "Playing the Feat Chain" like o5e had "Playing the Subclass". Basically my concerns lie in Subclass and Feat design neither of which we've seen, so these sit somewhere between Concerningly Potent and Incredibly Cool.

 

[Faolyn]

First off, the significant investment THREE Feats would be in o5e is ridiculous, so I really hope there's more chances to take them then...5 max for most characters, competing with stat increases. Thankfully even if not LU has other choices after 3rd level, but would love to see a reliable Feats setup that doesn't shirk any sense of balance for "It's an optional rule!" as well as reliably letting you engage with it, especially with rolled stats being around still. Also assuming Vuman is gonzo.

There's no Vhumans in LU. Or, all humans are kinda like Vhumans, but with abilities and a gift instead of a skill and a feat.

But you're right about the three feats being a problem here. Unless they changed it so you can get feats more often. None of the class playtests mention feats , other than that strongholds act as them--they don't even say you can swap out an ASI for one. I think @Morrus said something to the effect of you can get a stronghold with a feat, if you don't otherwise get one from your class, but I can't remember for sure.

If feats compete with ASIs as they do in o5e, then either LU expects very few people to take these Multiclass Feats or they expect people won't want to max out their stats.

(I agree with you that the name is a bit confusing. They should be called Prestige feats, since they seem to function like Prestige classes and are likely different from regular feats.

 

[Stalker0]

Concerns are like. First, "Multiclass Feats" seems unwieldy since there's already "Multiclassing", and Multiclass Feats mean something different in 4e and PF2 and it pulls the mind towards that. Prestige Multiclass, or Fusion Multiclass or something would probably read cleaner.

Yeah, I think "Prestige" feats is a much better name, as that will hook the audience that came up through 3e as to what they would expect, and it doesn't conflict with the 4e concept of multiclass feats.

 

[Darkwynters]

These are very interesting… do you guys modify the O5E multiclass rules or are they the same?

They reminder me of the old skool Wizardry video games… you are a fighter and add in a few levels of mage and you can take the samurai advanced class!