Should There Be More Multiclassed Feats?

[Dog Moon]

Okay, so as I was going through Complete Adventurer to find a feat which apparently was not in there, I came across the few feats designed for two classes, such as the Ascetic Rogue and whatnot [y'all should know what I'm talking about]. Unfortunately, there's only a few of them and they don't cover all the combinations [which would probably have taken up a lot of space].

So my question is, should there be more of these? Have people taken these feats?

I would if I played any of the correct combinations.

 

[Agent Oracle]

I made a ranger / paladin using the devoted tracker feat, though i had to talk my GM into treating my mount as my ainmal companion, instead of vice-versa. it's a good setup for two-weapon smiting. The feats are definitely worth it if you want to take any of the core classes that are prohibitive to multiclassing (monk, paladin etc.)

 

[Crothian]

Ya, there should be more feats like this.

 

[Li Shenron]

I never used them, so I don't wish there were more. They're not for me at least.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I'll mirror Li Shenron's remark. I don't like the general idea of such feats, although a very few might be useful or interesting. In general they seem to be an admission of failure on the "new" multiclassing rules, that they're (nearly?) as flawed as the 2E rules. Much as I like feats, they're not the right mechanic for the job.

 

[Vrecknidj]

There are some feats that only fighters can take. There are some feats that only spellcasters can take. There are some feats that don't make any sense for someone to take unless they have a certain class, or ability.

So, I don't see why there shouldn't be feats that are specifically designed for certain multiclass combinations. I think feats should serve the game, not the other way around, and so having feats that are particular to few characters is no big deal.

I don't use them all that much, but I see no reason not to have them.

Dave

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

If by "multiclass feats" you mean feats designed to let you get around bad design (ie, no lawful bards, no multiclass monks, etc) then no. Such problems shouldnt exist in the first place. If by multiclass feats you mean feats that require you to have specific abilities (ie, turn undead and evasion, or weapon specialization and an animal companion), then yeah, I'd be interested.

 

[Klaus]

I like these feats and wish there were more. They make certain archetypes viable by letting the levels stack for some abilites. They let you cut down the need for dozens of different base classes/Pr Classes. Ascetic Mage lets you be a sorcerer/monk without being forced into taking Enlightened Fist, for instance. And that's a Good Thing (tm).

 

[Dog Moon]

I'll mirror Li Shenron's remark. I don't like the general idea of such feats, although a very few might be useful or interesting. In general they seem to be an admission of failure on the "new" multiclassing rules, that they're (nearly?) as flawed as the 2E rules. Much as I like feats, they're not the right mechanic for the job.

So if feats are not the right mechanic for the job, what do you think would be? Or maybe I'm just not sure what you mean by them being an admission of failure on the 'new' multiclassing rules...

 

[Gez]

I like them, and prefer them greatly to multiclass prestige classes. Simpler, more elegant, and less invasive.