
Blave |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

The fact that you want it is the precise reason why it's not a thing. It would be too useful/powerful.
Also, all other dedications require the basic feat before you can get the advanced one. If you let sneak attacker count for advanced trick, someone with fighter dedication will pop up and demand that the AoO feat of fighter dedication also counts as prerequisite for advanced fighter feats. And so on.

Zwordsman |
I personally would actually like if most of thoses specialty lv 4 "thematic to the class concept" abilities would count as a prereq. Its often hard to get that and something else in.
it would just help feel thematic I suppose. As often you won't have the spare feats t o actually ~feel~ like the multiclass.
You usually only operate purely for a specific feat you need.
For martials anyway. Caster's get their thematicability as spells and pretty much immediately and always.
but for the martial orientated class-exception of barbarian- they sort of feel like they can't get feats and the thematic "thing."
Though reasonably one could, but it just feels awkward considering the introductory dedications themselves dont' feel thematic to the concept.

Zwordsman |
Except it wouldn't? You still have the baseline requirements of 3 dedication labeled feats in order to be able to take another one (excluding lv9 humans). It would still be the exact same amount as it is currently. And functionally no different than someone who only wanted sneak attack and didn't care to complete the dedication or open up another dedication. (it is currently 2 feats. and it would still be 2 feats).
I'm not saying put the feat on the Dedication. This would still eat majority of your class feats to multiclass. As it should. You're multiclassing. Its a dedication. But it doens't feel dedicated when you're not getting much of the narritive of said class you're dedicating your life to
but the narritve feeling between dedications like Fighter, Rogue, is just weirdly different from Ranger, any caster, Champion, Barbarian. Or any of the archetypes that came out in the Lost Omens guide.
Fighter and Rogue, feel disjointed compared to any and every other one.
Any other dedication, you can "feel" like you're character is actually spending time learning new skills within 3 feats (by lv 6 or 8. and in one case 4.At the soonest) (Dedication, low feat, and high feat). Fighter and Rogue, you don't. Trap finding isn't "rogue only" anymore. Anyone can do that quite readily-just not passively. And its not the only archetype that offers the passive trap finding either.
The first 4 level of feats for both fighter and rogue are both very much in the "I need these to be good at (weapon/shield/intimidate/mobility/etc)" Which isn't inherently those classes other than they have those first 4 levels of feats-its not really a "concept" for the classes. Well fighter you could argue it is I guess. "rawr weapon guy"
but that's still what I have seen most people dipping for just "competency feats" instead of "I want a X+y skillset" (Alchemist-Wizard. Ranger Alchemist, Fighter Bard, flavors) like they would for any other multiclass/archetype