Power retraining question

[Ryujin]

And even a single-classed Warlock cannot swap Eldritch Blast for a higher-level attack power, but can swap other low-level powers. My counterpoint stands.

As I stated, it points to a basic concept. Just because Psionic classes don't follow the same basic structure of the earlier classes I don't think that means that it should be exploitable, to get around the basic premise of that concept.

If you used a power swap feat in order to acquire a power from the off class, then I say go nuts. Apply the primary class exchange and then retrain, and you're good to go. If you've only bought into the dabbler feat, to get the absolute basics of that other class, then to me that doesn't qualify.

I'd say that my point stands also

 

[mneme]

The rules for 4e chargen FUNDAMENTALLY are such (unless there are errors in the rules somewhere, but in principle) that if you make a level 10 character and you make a level 1 character and you level it up incrementally to level 10 that the result will be exactly the same.

Actually,. this isn't quite true, wherein lies the confusion (and Danny's attempt to get permission for an exploit). The rules explicitly let you retrain a feat for a feat you -now- qualify for, but didn't (and couldn't) when you originally got the slot. Tis is how you can get two Paragon feats at level 11; one from your new feat slot and one from retraining.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As I stated, it points to a basic concept. Just because Psionic classes don't follow the same basic structure of the earlier classes I don't think that means that it should be exploitable, to get around the basic premise of that concept.

That this question in particular involves multicalassing into Psion is a non-issue.

The Psion's feat explicitly modifies the granted power to mimic standard AEDU based classes by eliminating its augmentability. The power gained, thus, is functionally no different than any other non-class feature AW power granted as an Encounter power via multiclassing.

Look at the Wizard's multiclass feat, then, or the Inquisitor's- both classes follow AEDU, both feats provide a non-class feature attack power.

 

[Ryujin]

That this question in particular involves multicalassing into Psion is a non-issue.

The Psion's feat explicitly modifies the granted power to mimic standard AEDU based classes by eliminating its augmentability. The power gained, thus, is functionally no different than any other non-class feature AW power granted as an Encounter power via multiclassing.

Look at the Wizard's multiclass feat, then, or the Inquisitor's- both classes follow AEDU, both feats provide a non-class feature attack power.

And I would rule the same way in those cases, to bring them in line with the original PHB1 multi-class feats.

 

[nightwyrm]

And I would rule the same way in those cases, to bring them in line with the original PHB1 multi-class feats.

Of course, for those classes, it's simplified by the fact that there are no at-wills beyond lv 1.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And I would rule the same way in those cases, to bring them in line with the original PHB1 multi-class feats.

The wizard one IS a PHB1 MC feat.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Of course, for those classes, it's simplified by the fact that there are no at-wills beyond lv 1.

That, too, may be somewhat of a non-issue: the MC feats make the granted AW power into an Encounter power for the PC who took the feat. Essentially, he burns a feat to gain a few benefits, one of which is an underpowered Encounter power.

I'm just asking if they can upgrade that underpowered Encounter power for a higher-level- but still underpowered- Encounter power.

(Currently sitting in a doctor's office, nowhere near books- no clue as to other classes' AWs and the like- nor whose AWs scale with level, etc.)

 

[Ryujin]

The wizard one IS a PHB1 MC feat.

And I would bring it in line with the other multi-class feats from the same book. Why should any one multi-class feat be potentially far more powerful than the others, especially given the 4e credo of balance? The other feats, that don't have what you perceive to be an option, set the benchmark for how they all are to be treated.

 

[Ferghis]

I'm just asking if they can upgrade that underpowered Encounter power for a higher-level- but still underpowered- Encounter power.

I skimmed the portion of the PHB that discusses this. I might have missed it, but I didn't see any language restricting which class' powers could be retrained. Therefore, I think you technically can do what you propose, but I also think most DMs will oppose this, since you are trading a feat-gained additional first level-power for a higher level one, which kinda smells unfair.

As always, your game, your DM, your fun.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Why should any one multi-class feat be potentially far more powerful than the others, especially given the 4e credo of balance?

Bad drafting, aka The Rule of Unintended Consequences.

Despite the credo of balance, there are still differences. Just look within the Warlock classes: the Starlock's pact boon is- as I recall- unique among all other boons in that it can be triggered multiple times, all stacking.

This makes Starlocks VERY accurate, which translates into better DPR in many cases. I'm using a Rod of Corruption, which means that by turn 2 or 3, nearly every foe on the board has been cursed. And since I took Imp. FotV, that means from that point on, I'm almost assured of dealing damage. Other Warlocks can't really match that. They can do OTHER things, but I'm hitting almost as often as the Wizard spamming his Magic Missile...and for much more damage.

And it is arguable that the other PHB1 MC feats aren't all balanced either- some have multiple stat prereqs, making qualification more difficult; some grant a choice of skills, others only a particular skill; some grant Daily powers instead of Encounter powers. Some grant the use of multiple Implements.

The Ranger one doesn't even give you the ability to qualify for your new class' Paragon Paths, unlike all the others.