Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 6226165" data-attributes="member: 27160">I love the core idea of the original 4E multi-classing with feats, but the execution fell sadly short IME as we have seen that  it has dissappointed in play. As a result I think your aim is sound - I think there is a really nice system in there trying to get out - but I disagree with how you have split the advantages gained. I'll try to give an alternative (and some reasons).The problem I have with multi-class feats as published and as reconfigured above is partly that they form a no-brainer alternative to feats like skill training. When, with one feat, you can get an extra trained skill plus a bunch of other stuff, why take skill training at all? (You might say why take it anyway, but I think that depends on the campaign focus, to some degree). The original 4E version also had the rather onerous "extra feat per power" requirement that seemed really over the top for marginal gain, in general.So, what do I suggest? Well, this is off the top of my head, rather, but here goes:- Each base multi-class feat should give the following: membership of the class for the purposes of Paragon Paths, skills, feats and weapon/implement proficiency; access to the non-At-Will powers of the second class, subject to the "never more of each power type than of main class" restriction as in the original rules.- An At-Will power swap and class features should come from additional feats. More powerful features might be given as once-per-Encounter abilities by the first feat and "full-fat" by a second; weaker ones might come in full from one feat.As before, all except the Bard may take only one core MC feat.The main reason for the "feat for an At-Will swap" is frankly Twin Strike; getting that without the Ranger's lack of surges would make Ranger MC too much of a "default option", I think. I could be persuaded otherwise, though, by a good argument.The idea in general is to open up swaps for only margianl gains in terms of "optimisation" simply and painlessly, and then add costs for getting the nectar of class features without the compromises that may come from selecting the full class (low hit points, poor proficiency sets, low surges). As  [MENTION=89838]sabrinathecat[/MENTION] said of the previous suggestions - comments and feedback gratefully received!</blockquote>

Verification