Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="katahn" data-source="post: 4186107" data-attributes="member: 65004">In an A/B multiclass if A has more virtual feats but we group a bunch of them together so the collection of little feats is buyable with a single feat, and if in doing so we've achieved a parity where it takes X number of feats to mimic a given level of A or B, then all that's happened is we reach the point I said we should be at... Namely that there is no advantage to starting off as A or as B in an A/B multiclass.Regarding the point of abilities not being desirable in a particular A/B combination, that shouldn't alter the point that A and B should be equally viable starting points for an A/B multiclass that strives to be 50/50 (or close to it).  Sure a fighter/ranger might not *want* to wear heavy armor under most circumstances, but if a player wants to have a fighter/ranger character they shouldn't have to spend an extra feat if they started off as a ranger and not a fighter versus starting off as a fighter and adding ranger.All of this might be moot if it is basically impossible to multiclass to the extent of 50/50 just via feats, and the closest one can get is something like 60/40 or 75/25.  Under that circumstance someone who has a concept of a 50/50 A/B type looks to be out of luck until they can select their paragon paths and elects to take the B class then and retrain their prior feats possibly.</blockquote>