|
I used to like the notion of a feat like Monastic Training or Knightly Training to open up Monks and Paladins to other classes. However, I began to question why they should be treated differently in the first place. Since then, I've house ruled in my own games that paladins and monks can multiclass freely (and there's no penalty for multiclassing outside one's favored class).
I haven't seen Jason address this yet. So, I'm opening this matter up to discussion and hope that Paizo will take a new approach to the ole 3.5 restrictions.
Multiclass restrictions for monks and paladins have been removed in Alpha 3.
Multiclass restrictions for monks and paladins have been removed in Alpha 3.
And this sounds bad... Maybe game-balance oriented, but kinda blows the background texture of the classes. How can you dabble into paladinhood or monasticism?
I would go for feats, specifying a class which made sense within your character concept, like Paladin-clerics (warrior priests) or monk-rogues (for a fantasy ninja type), not free multiclassing.Also, requiring that the new class does not go over your paladin or monk level sounds like a good idea.
Maybe that's not in the spirit of current-day power gaming, but I am the story background guy :-)
Maybe that's not in the spirit of current-day power gaming, but I am the story background guy :-)That makes absolutely no sense.
Multiclass restrictions for monks and paladins have been removed in Alpha 3.And this sounds bad... Maybe game-balance oriented, but kinda blows the background texture of the classes. How can you dabble into paladinhood or monasticism?
I would go for feats, specifying a class which made sense within your character concept, like Paladin-clerics (warrior priests) or monk-rogues (for a fantasy ninja type), not free multiclassing.Also, requiring that the new class does not go over your paladin or monk level sounds like a good idea.
Maybe that's not in the spirit of current-day power gaming, but I am the story background guy :-)
Is this any different to dabbling in wizardy or dabbling in the clergy? If we are talking background here very few classes should be able to freely multiclass. I can easily imagine a world where a deity tells his clergy "once a cleric always a cleric" or a wizard cannot learn the secrets of true arcana because he spent too much time swinging an axe. Anything can be asserted if you have the mind to do it.
|
Multiclass restrictions for monks and paladins have been removed in Alpha 3.And this sounds bad... Maybe game-balance oriented, but kinda blows the background texture of the classes. How can you dabble into paladinhood or monasticism?
I would go for feats, specifying a class which made sense within your character concept, like Paladin-clerics (warrior priests) or monk-rogues (for a fantasy ninja type), not free multiclassing.Also, requiring that the new class does not go over your paladin or monk level sounds like a good idea.
Maybe that's not in the spirit of current-day power gaming, but I am the story background guy :-)
Free multiclassing with Paladin and Monk has little to do with powergaming. At the moment, those two are probably the weakest classes in Pathfinder 3. It's not less appropriate for someone to gain levels in paladin or monk than to suddenly gain levels in barbarian, druid or wizard. There are always people who get a calling late in their lives. A ruthless fighter warlord may realize the wrongness of his ways and try to redeem himself by serving the community as a fledgeling paladin. Or a barbarian who tries to calm the anger in his heart by silent contemplation in a cloister. Okay, the last one is a little bit strange, especially from a powergaming standpoint, but it shouldn't be forbidden. The same way, a paladin could realize that he could use special combat training (figher) or some outdoor skills (ranger). Also, clerics themselves are already warrior priests.
There are always people who get a calling late in their lives. A ruthless fighter warlord may realize the wrongness of his ways and try to redeem himself by serving the community as a fledgeling paladin. Or a barbarian who tries to calm the anger in his heart by silent contemplation in a cloister. Okay, the last one is a little bit strange, especially from a powergaming standpoint, but it shouldn't be forbidden.
Original rules don't forbid multiclassing INTO paladin or monk.
Paladin and monk do requite a Lawful alignment, something which sets them apart from other classes in terms of dedication. Special training sounds fine, but that would be covered with a feat (monastic training whatever) which covers those "specialized branches" in the orders. Other classes seem to be able to be able to "freelance" as it depends on the individual to decide how much time they dedicate to each of their facets. For the Lawful classes, it seems more constrained in terms of their organizations/strictures.
|
|
Original rules don't forbid multiclassing INTO paladin or monk.
Paladin and monk do requite a Lawful alignment, something which sets them apart from other classes in terms of dedication. Special training sounds fine, but that would be covered with a feat (monastic training whatever) which covers those "specialized branches" in the orders. Other classes seem to be able to be able to "freelance" as it depends on the individual to decide how much time they dedicate to each of their facets. For the Lawful classes, it seems more constrained in terms of their organizations/strictures.
Paladins who multiclass are already limited by their alignment restriction. There is no reason to punish them further by making them use their feats to multiclass. Paladins are not a strong class. Neither are monks. The 3.x multicass limitation was unnecessary and it's good to see it gone. Not every monk or paladin is member of an order.
And it can allow cool characters, very fun :
Paladin + Sorcerer (dragon), disciple of Bahamut
Monk + Druid
Monk + Rogue, ninja
...
Faerun have done such think with the clergy (i think about monk+sorcerer, monk+cleric ou monk+rogue)
Let the DM juge if it's good or not ...
Multiclass restrictions for monks and paladins have been removed in Alpha 3.I must be blind. Where is this written?
Actually what's important here is that it's NOT written anywhere. I've compared the classes between Alpha 2 and Alpha 3, and while the monk and paladin chapters in Alpha 2 had the text for the restriction, it is missing from the chapters in Alpha 3.
Paladins are not a strong class. Neither are monks. The 3.x multicass limitation was unnecessary and it's good to see it gone. Not every monk or paladin is member of an order.
They look pretty strong to me, though I'm not into number crunching. But if they're not strong, they would be not strong also as single-class options, so the class needs addressing, not the multiclassing issue.
Alignment restrictions are OK for me, so no Paladin-Barbarians or Monk-Bards.
But other areas are murkier, like say let's get a Paladin-Rogue who can smite evil with his sneak attacks, or a Druid-Monk who uses Flurry of Blows in big-claws animal form... Regardless of alignment, some character life paths should be incompatible, unless the player comes up with a very good background story to support it.
Most settings, like Eberron or FR, provided some of those background stories for their particular mythologies. A DM should create his or hers when addressing multiclassing in Paladin or Monk. In a generic presentation, such as a rulebook, it is good to give some guidelines in the area. Leave it to the player's discretion and the "free mix and match" multiclassing can be a damn hell and totally ruin the classes' character and spirit. Most other classes are wider templates for a variety of roles (rogue can be anything for a thief or thug to a freedom fighter swashbuckler, figher can be a soldier, mercenary or tough farmboy, etc), these two are quite precise in their context and feel.
Besides, lots of problems would come up. For instance, can a Paladin Sneak Attack, even if he has rogue levels? Is it honorable to charm an unwilling foe, even if he knows the spell? The list would go on...
|
|
Slight tangent here, but I'd love to see the fourth iconic for the next series take up the mantle of a multi-classes monk and/or paladin.
Monk/Sorcerer comes immediately to mind.
And yes, I recall Fighter/Wizard being discussed, but I don't know how far along Paizo is in development of the next series.
And yes, a monk is already going to be used in the third adventure, but why not show us how two characters of the same class can be developed along quite different paths.
paladin with sneak attack it's not a problem : paladins have to protect the good, and destroy the evil.
So, he will use all his weapons and talents. Sneak is one of this.
There is a prestige class for paladin-rogue in complete divine (??), about such class.
paladin with sneak attack it's not a problem : paladins have to protect the good, and destroy the evil.
So, he will use all his weapons and talents. Sneak is one of this.There is a prestige class for paladin-rogue in complete divine (??), about such class.
I guess they'll be using poison next...
Paladins do have a code of honor. The class is restrictive in behavior and it seems to me that that should be the kind of role-playing to encourage.You could create a feasible Paladin-Rogue with a good character background (and, of course, a good ex-Rogue-Paladin), but many "rogue maneuvers", like flanking an enemy already in melee and going for a backstab sneak attack would be quite incompatible with a code of honor. I'm not saying a character would not be tempted to use them, but probably they would require some atonement or similar if running away from honorable fighting were systematic.
I can agree in that other classes are more generic templates, and that perhaps one could re-tinker the Paladin as the Ranger was when moving into 3.x (from an Aragorn-type champion of Good into a more generic hunter/guerrilla warrior) as a sort of Divine Warrior. But that would be a total alteration of the class and most of the special abilities (and spell list) of the paladin would not be appropriate for, say, an evil Paladin or a chaotic one.
Background-based classes (mostly Paladin and Monk, Druid and Barbarian , perhaps also Sorcerer, to a lesser extent) are more complex for free multiclassing. Otherwise the game can become a pure chaos without any sense of character background.
|
|
Code of Honor is a roleplaying matter. I appreciate the lift on the restriction.
There are clearly some avenues that are givens:
Paladin/Cleric
Paladin/Monk
Paladin/Fighter
Monk/Cleric
Monk/Sorcerer
Monk/Druid
But if someone has a good storyline for a paladin/ranger, monk/rogue, and so on, I don't see why the artificial restrictions should impede that.
Bravo Paizo for lifting it.
paladin with sneak attack it's not a problem : paladins have to protect the good, and destroy the evil.
So, he will use all his weapons and talents. Sneak is one of this.There is a prestige class for paladin-rogue in complete divine (??), about such class.
I guess they'll be using poison next...
Paladins do have a code of honor. The class is restrictive in behavior and it seems to me that that should be the kind of role-playing to encourage.
You could create a feasible Paladin-Rogue with a good character background (and, of course, a good ex-Rogue-Paladin), but many "rogue maneuvers", like flanking an enemy already in melee and going for a backstab sneak attack would be quite incompatible with a code of honor. I'm not saying a character would not be tempted to use them, but probably they would require some atonement or similar if running away from honorable fighting were systematic.
I can agree in that other classes are more generic templates, and that perhaps one could re-tinker the Paladin as the Ranger was when moving into 3.x (from an Aragorn-type champion of Good into a more generic hunter/guerrilla warrior) as a sort of Divine Warrior. But that would be a total alteration of the class and most of the special abilities (and spell list) of the paladin would not be appropriate for, say, an evil Paladin or a chaotic one.
Background-based classes (mostly Paladin and Monk, Druid and Barbarian , perhaps also Sorcerer, to a lesser extent) are more complex for free multiclassing. Otherwise the game can become a pure chaos without any sense of character background.
Code of Conduct
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Strange that there's nothing about not attacking from behind in that paragraph. Now, granted the "and so forth" might be interpreted to mean whatever occurs to you, but that doesn't make it a standard for every paladin in every campaign.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Hi, Andreas.
The rogue's damage-dealing ability used to be known as "backstabbing" in earlier editions, 3rd Edition revised that to "sneak attack", and then later used it as an example of a general category called "precision damage".
Every DM has a slightly different idea about what's entailed. Do professional fighters not know about vulnerable points? Rangers with Favored Enemies don't know about delicate places in the anatomy, but scouts do, but only when moving? How is "precision damage" different from "critical hits"?
The way I explain it to my players:
Now, any warrior in a one-on-one combat knows to keep those delicate areas safe. but a flanked or distracted fighter might inadvertantly leave an opening to one enemy in the process of blocking another blow.
And high-level rogues don't just kidney-shot you. They hand you your gall bladder after a particularly successful blow.
So, is that "fair fighting" for a paladin? Against a "worthy opponent," if I were playing a paladin, I might refuse to flank or attack from ambush, giving up any opportunity to do precision damage. But against animals, or evil outsiders, or bandits who've torched a church with 25 children locked inside, I don't think I'd have any qualms about fighting to the best of my abilities.
|
|
You could create a feasible Paladin-Rogue with a good character background (and, of course, a good ex-Rogue-Paladin), but many "rogue maneuvers", like flanking an enemy already in melee and going for a backstab sneak attack would be quite incompatible with a code of honor.
This is really a flavor issue and campaign specific. youa re making assumptions based on a high fantasy cmapaign based on medieval europe. What if the campaign focused on an oppressed underclass focused on fighting a tyranical overlord. Couldn't a paladin/rogue in this environment use his skills in the same way a NAVY Seal uses his to infiltrate and execute. Wouldn't this be acceptable?
The Pathfinder world looks to be vast and multi-cultural. There is space on it for every interpretation.
|
|
I guess they'll be using poison next...
Paladins do have a code of honor. The class is restrictive in behavior and it seems to me that that should be the kind of role-playing to encourage.
You could create a feasible Paladin-Rogue with a good character background (and, of course, a good ex-Rogue-Paladin), but many "rogue maneuvers", like flanking an enemy already in melee and going for a backstab sneak attack would be quite incompatible with a code of honor. I'm not saying a character would not be tempted to use them, but probably they would require some atonement or similar if running away from honorable fighting were systematic.
Wait... you think paladins should be forbidden from using tactics? There's nothing inherently evil, or even inherently neutral about "sneak attack." If you ambush a foe, yes, I could see an argument that a generic paladin should suffer a consequence for that, but paladins are Lawful Good, an alignment that encourages teamwork and group effort. Flanking is sort of the small-unit-tactics epitome of teamwork in the D&D milieu.
And what does "honorable fighting" mean in this context? I can easily see a paladin of Ol' Deadeye as a grizzled woods veteran setting traps for goblins in the forest and not getting any guff since they're not honorable foes, but he might have to stand forth and directly challenge human bandits on the road so that they know who's defeated them. I could also easily see that same paladin walking out into the open, leaving his friends in ambush positions, and telling the bandits, "This ain't the way you want to do things" before his friends speckle them with arrows.
Paragon of justice =/= idiot.
As far as free paladin multiclassing goes, I'm entirely in favor of it. A paladin already labors under so many restrictions (Lawful Good alignment, stricter code than other LG characters, religious doctrines) that taking a level of paladin just about has to be a character choice, since it loads you with a lot more baggage than any other martial class. And I honestly don't see anything wrong with a character developing the "calling" later in life, long after he's adventured for many a year. After all, that's what multiclassing is for.
Jeremy Puckett
The problem is that DND chose to use the word paladin instaed of holy warrior. A paladin in the classic sense is a Knight so my view of the Paladin has been forever molded as a Cheavalier... regardless of the change in name to sneak attack, I believe most longtime players like myself still view it as backstabing... While a LE Cheavalier may have no compulsions about stabbing someone from behind I do believe a LG one would not stoop to such a non-chivaric tactic. But again, this is just my own view of things. and people are free to envision paladins as something other than Knights.
As far as multiclassing and the people that keep bringing on the later in life scenarios... 3.5 allows you to start as any class and multi-class into the Paladin class... what you can't do is leave the Paladin class and come back to it.
The thing about "chivalry" in medieval Europe is that it only applied to other people who practiced chivalry, i.e., the noble class. I doubt anybody would want to bring that kind of ugly, elitist historical baggage into a fantasy game, but still that's a pretty good historical argument that the "code of honor" would not apply to relentlessly evil opponents.
And, as I tried to show with my earlier post, the paladin code of conduct is left vague by the core rules. A common problem with online discussions of things, like alignment and the paladin code, which entangle flavor and mechanics, is that people often assume that their interpretations of concepts like "good," "law," and "honor" are enshrined in the core rules even when they really aren't. It looks like the definition of honor as it applies to paladins was largely left up to individual GMs to tailor to the cultures of their campaign worlds.
The thing about "chivalry" in medieval Europe is that it only applied to other people who practiced chivalry, i.e., the noble class. I doubt anybody would want to bring that kind of ugly, elitist historical baggage into a fantasy game, but still that's a pretty good historical argument that the "code of honor" would not apply to relentlessly evil opponents.
And, as I tried to show with my earlier post, the paladin code of conduct is left vague by the core rules. A common problem with online discussions of things, like alignment and the paladin code, which entangle flavor and mechanics, is that people often assume that their interpretations of concepts like "good," "law," and "honor" are enshrined in the core rules even when they really aren't. It looks like the definition of honor as it applies to paladins was largely left up to individual GMs to tailor to the cultures of their campaign worlds.
That's why I said it's my own point of viewing paladin. And the core rule explanation of why a paladin can't multiclass has nothing to do with honor and everything to due with it being a class the requires more focused dedication than the other martial classes.
However, the point of this revision is to fix what's broken while doing the minimal change necessary. The multiclass restriction isn't broken per say so changing it would be done just for the sake of changing it. Any DM is free to lift the restriction if he so chooses, no need to make this change in my opinion.
And the multiclass restriction is just about not coming back to the paladin class after leaving it...if you want to go rogue 5 then paladin 15, you are free to do so you repenting backstabbing doggooder you....
However, the point of this revision is to fix what's broken while doing the minimal change necessary. The multiclass restriction isn't broken per say so changing it would be done just for the sake of changing it. Any DM is free to lift the restriction if he so chooses, no need to make this change in my opinion.
And there is no reason to keep it in my opinion. In the several years there have been so many feats and prestige class that have said that you can still multiclass with paladin. Removing it means they can spend the space that they would normally use for feats that remove the restriction on a more special feat.
In my experience, most people I've seen play paladin's avoided the restriction anyway, not by breaking the rule but by just walking around it. By taking those two fighter levels first or by just using rules that let them ignore it like prestige classes and feats that removed/or were an exception to the restriction.
This is a minimal change, and it changes pretty much nothing.
Before: People multiclass in and out of paladin freely through feats that they would have taken anyway.
Now: People multiclass in and out of paladin freely.
In my experience, most people I've seen play paladin's avoided the restriction anyway, not by breaking the rule but by just walking around it. By taking those two fighter levels first or by just using rules that let them ignore it like prestige classes and feats that removed/or were an exception to the restriction.
This is a minimal change, and it changes pretty much nothing.
Exactly. I've played a paladin in settings where I've had to take a feat, and others where the setting allowed paladins to multiclass into other certain classes. I've also played paladins with prior levels in fighter just to beef up the paladin's combat abilities for the game being played.
Removing the restriction is the right thing. As you say, it also frees up a feat slot for the paladin to use elsewhere.
Chobbly
This is a minimal change, and it changes pretty much nothing.
If it changes pretty much nothing then why make the change?
If it changes pretty much nothing then why make the change?
This is a minimal change, and it changes pretty much nothing.
It lets them use the space in a book they would have spent on the Paladin or Monk Multiclassing feat on something else. Something new that I would find more interesting.
It's a minimal change that has a positive effect (space that would have spent describing it, and allowing you to ignore it [paladin prestige classes] would be spent on other things.)
Question: If a feat appeared in PRPG that allowed Paladin's to multiclass freely, would you houserule it away?
Open Multi-Classing is fine. It is not like people in DnD worlds walk around knowing what class they are.
Picture a few characters standing around in the compound of a LG church, one is a Paladin/Fighter, One is a Paladin/Cleric, One is a Paladin, One is a Cleric. All they know about one another is that they are all people dedicated to the cause of the church and have been gifted with diefic power to different degrees.
They dont look at the Paladin/Fighter and shun him because his is a "Multiclass dabbling infidel", they look at one of their order who excels at combat. They look at the Cleric as see one who has been greatly blessed by their deity in exchange for his piety. Heck, they may even look at the Paladin/Rogue as a member who is is clearly favored by the gods given his propensity for lucky strikes and diving out of they way of fireballs and the like.
The point is, they could ,in character, all refer to one another as "Paladin" or "Priest" or "Brother", and know they are equally dedicated to the mission of the church. They don't look at one another and see "dabblers"
Now the Paladin/Bard? ok, clearly he is a slacker and needs to be flogged.
Question: If a feat appeared in PRPG that allowed Paladin's to multiclass freely, would you houserule it away?
Pretty much yes.
Just like in some present campaigns, some DMs houserule the multiclass restriction away now.
It's just a matter of how you envision the Paladin. (Galahad in full plate for me... something else for other people).
I just think there so many actual problems with 3.5 that affect gamebalance that worrying about things that don't seems a waste of time to me. Again the emphasis is on me for the last statement, as maybe to some the multiclassing of Paladins is a serious issue.
Question: If a feat appeared in PRPG that allowed Paladin's to multiclass freely, would you houserule it away?
Pretty much yes.
Just like in some present campaigns, some DMs houserule the multiclass restriction away now.
It's just a matter of how you envision the Paladin. (Galahad in full plate for me... something else for other people).
I just think there so many actual problems with 3.5 that affect gamebalance that worrying about things that don't seems a waste of time to me. Again the emphasis is on me for the last statement, as maybe to some the multiclassing of Paladins is a serious issue.
Then I think removing the restriction is better for those that really like playing RAW. Some people want to play multiclassed paladin's without keeping a record of the order they took their classes. So then they would be a feat that would just take up space for any organized games that have to play by RAW. Everyone else would not use that feat (either banning it or granting it automatically) making it a waste of space that could be put to better use in my opinion.
It is a quick removal of a single line that doesn't affect your games at all since you already bar anything that might allow Paladin multiclassing.
For me this is just a minor concern that only needs a minor amount of attention. Not something that requires a large amount of worrying. It got a minor amount of attention. I don't think that any vast game fixes were lost because time was spent not entering in that restriction.
Then I think removing the restriction is better for those that really like playing RAW. Some people want to play multiclassed paladin's without keeping a record of the order they took their classes. So then they would be a feat that would just take up space for any organized games that have to play by RAW. Everyone else would not use that feat (either banning it or granting it automatically) making it a waste of space that could be put to better use in my opinion.
Yes, I don't allow free multiclassing for Monks or Paladins... I din't say they weren't allowed to take the feats that allow multiclassing...
And those feats provide other benefits beside just multiclassing... for example, Ascetic Knight from CompAdventurer allows Paladin and Monk to freely multiclass together an in addition levels from both classes stack for determining unarmed strike damage and the extra damage generated by Smite Evil ability.So these feats aren't a waste of space IMHO.
And keeping track of your character's progression is part of the reponsibility of the player... so, keeping track of when you took a level other than paladin is not too much to ask. In organized play, keeping effective tracking of your character progression is mandatory.
Yes, I don't allow free multiclassing for Monks or Paladins... I din't say they weren't allowed to take the feats that allow multiclassing...
And those feats provide other benefits beside just multiclassing... for example, Ascetic Knight from CompAdventurer allows Paladin and Monk to freely multiclass together an in addition levels from both classes stack for determining unarmed strike damage and the extra damage generated by Smite Evil ability.
I'm sorry. I got from your previous comment that you would disallow any feat that removed the multiclassing restriction.
Those feats are pretty much an obvious choice for a character that multiclasses with Paladin. There is pretty much no reason not to take them. The other benefit you talk about is worth the feat itself even if the restriction is removed. In my mind they are basically Be Awesome feats that just happen to remove the restriction as well.
Multiclassing feats are useful for multiclassed characters, I wasn't saying they weren't. I'm saying the lines about the restriction (in the paladin and monk classes and the feats and the prestige classes) were a waste of space.
If you were able to remove that "you can now multiclass freely" line I think they would have been able to fit in another feat.
Also, what do you think is stopping a multiclassed paladin or monk from continuing training as a paladin or a monk? Is it their god? The order? Why would either of them all of a sudden take back their fallen breathren just because he learned more about combining the two?
I'm sorry. I got from your previous comment that you would disallow any feat that removed the multiclassing restriction.
Those feats are pretty much an obvious choice for a character that multiclasses with Paladin. There is pretty much no reason not to take them. The other benefit you talk about is worth the feat itself even if the restriction is removed. In my mind they are basically Be Awesome feats that just happen to remove the restriction as well.
Multiclassing feats are useful for multiclassed characters, I wasn't saying they weren't. I'm saying the lines about the restriction (in the paladin and monk classes and the feats and the prestige classes) were a waste of space.
If you were able to remove that "you can now multiclass freely" line I think they would have been able to fit in another feat.
Also, what do you think is stopping a multiclassed paladin or monk from continuing training as a paladin or a monk? Is it their god? The order? Why would either of them all of a sudden take back their fallen breathren just because he learned more about combining the two?
Well, i guess it was two of because i originally thought you meant that the feats were wasting the space not the prohibition lines in the 3.5 monk and paladin class writeup... so now that we are on the same page.
For me, I see the monk class and the paladin class much like i view contempoary religous orders... people take the vows and are in for life or decide it isn't for them at some point and leave. The ones who leave rarely get the calling to come back. Also I am just plain set in my ways.... I am too influenced by the Gygaxian school of thought and just have too many preconceptions about Paladins and thier conduct that it isn't easy for me to see changes of things that have been pretty much from the beginning.
Really, if paladins aren't as restricted in your or your groups mindset that's fine by me. And if Jason does away with the multiclassing restriction it won't be a gamebreaker for me as that doesn't impact greatly on anything published before.
I won't even look askance at you 4e half elf paladin players that multilass into warlock to get two ranged encounter powers.