D&D (2024) The state of Multiclass-Dips in One D&D

[rules.mechanic]

It would depend on what the overly good dip class abilities ultimately wind up being. We might not have the warrior group packet yet but imagine playing a level 11+ fighter eyeing that one level ranger dip for that no concentration hunters mark and one more skill and expertise on any two of your skills and two primal cantrips (the new reaction guidance & resistance are both primal nfor an extra cherry on top).

Whatever the fighter looks like when we get it that probably makes for one heck of a dip at those levels but is almost entirely unaffected by a -1 proficiency, two skills are actually four points higher than before. Imagine it was the other way around & fighter 12 gave a choice between +1 proficiency or all those other things when we get warrior group classes. People would wonder if there was some kind of extreme layout error & expect a corrected version to be uploaded by lunchtime.

Yeah, good point - the -1 helps with dips that are enhanced by PB scaling but doesn't solve the issue of other class-defining 1st level features being over-accessible to other classes as a 1 level dip. Stalker0's X levels in a class before you can dip into another feels far cleaner in addressing the source of the problem. I'm warming to 3 levels in a class if you want to keep them if you gain levels in another class.

 

[Pauln6]

Surely if you have a front line fighter with 8 strength you need to make good use of shove and trip attacks for monsters? I assume the hexadin would want to train athletics but strength saves require feat investment. Personally, I think paladins are slightly overpowered, so it may be that nerfing them slightly might address some of the issues.

As for expertise, I think it needs to add half your ability modifier (+1 to +3) but treat any roll of 2 to 4 as if it was 5. Boosts reliability but keeps the upper limit reaasonable?

 

[James Gasik]

Surely if you have a front line fighter with 8 strength you need to make good use of shove and trip attacks for monsters? I assume the hexadin would want to train athletics but strength saves require feat investment. Personally, I think paladins are slightly overpowered, so it may be that nerfing them slightly might address some of the issues.

As for expertise, I think it needs to add half your ability modifier (+1 to +3) but treat any roll of 2 to 4 as if it was 5. Boosts reliability but keeps the upper limit reaasonable?

Yeah but when you have to consistently alter enemy types and tactics to deal with one guy in your party, that's a problem in of itself; you're actually warping the campaign around their build. Some people are ok with this, I, personally am not.

If the adventure calls for enemies that pick on a weakness one person may have, fine, but I'd rather think of challenges for the group, not constantly hit one guy's Achilles' Heel.

 

[Pauln6]

Yeah but when you have to consistently alter enemy types and tactics to deal with one guy in your party, that's a problem in of itself; you're actually warping the campaign around their build. Some people are ok with this, I, personally am not.

If the adventure calls for enemies that pick on a weakness one person may have, fine, but I'd rather think of challenges for the group, not constantly hit one guy's Achilles' Heel.

Oh I agree but recurring villains can learn weaknesses. Also giving enemies a pet dire wolf or similar beast can often be plausible without looking like you are targetting the character specifically. It might be possible for a spellcaster to use Gust of Wind to move the dwarf out of melee range. If a few enemies can escape they can spread the word to other evil minions.

 

[James Gasik]

Oh I agree but recurring villains can learn weaknesses. Also giving enemies a pet dire wolf or similar beast can often be plausible without looking like you are targetting the character specifically. It might be possible for a spellcaster to use Gust of Wind to move the dwarf out of melee range. If a few enemies can escape they can spread the word to other evil minions.

Um, whether or not you look like you are targeting that player specifically, in this example you are targeting the character specifically, lol.

 

[Pauln6]

Um, whether or not you look like you are targeting that player specifically, in this example you are targeting the character specifically, lol.

If you build varied encounters, some of those are going to target characters' weaknesess just be reason of them having weaknesses. That's not the same as targeting a character specifically. Giving an enemy a dire wolf pet is not the same as giving them a dire wolf pet that only targets the character with the low strength. It's throwing in a potential challenge for that melee character to overcome. How they do that is part of the game.

Min-maxing is not always going to be win-win. A stuck door can be annoying to a group of low strength characters. Being unable to carry all that lost treasure out of the dungeon can be an annoyance. Being unable to move the statue to access the secret door is an annoyance.

And of course, a lich with a beef IS going to target characters' weaknesses specifically. A character's nemesis IS going to target characters' weaknesses specifically. A hired assassin IS going to target characters' weaknesses specifically.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If you build varied encounters, some of those are going to target characters' weaknesess just be reason of them having weaknesses. That's not the same as targeting a character specifically. Giving an enemy a dire wolf pet is not the same as giving them a dire wolf pet that only targets the character with the low strength. It's throwing in a potential challenge for that melee character to overcome. How they do that is part of the game.

Min-maxing is not always going to be win-win. A stuck door can be annoying to a group of low strength characters. Being unable to carry all that lost treasure out of the dungeon can be an annoyance. Being unable to move the statue to access the secret door is an annoyance.

And of course, a lich with a beef IS going to target characters' weaknesses specifically. A character's nemesis IS going to target characters' weaknesses specifically. A hired assassin IS going to target characters' weaknesses specifically.

All this is fair game and way better than just put in enemies that are stronger overall. Or even show the characters that no matter how much they optimize, someone will always beat them in their field of expertise.

Better than targeting only theor weakness is just having varied encounters and challenges that at some times target all possible weaknesses. This way, everyone can shine and some can shine by never be at the bottom of usefulness.

I always find it fun, that as soon as som DM dares to not play into the optimized characters, some optimizer cries foul.

 

[Pauln6]

All this is fair game and way better than just put in enemies that are stronger overall. Or even show the characters that no matter how much they optimize, someone will always beat them in their field of expertise.

Better than targeting only theor weakness is just having varied encounters and challenges that at some times target all possible weaknesses. This way, everyone can shine and some can shine by never be at the bottom of usefulness.

I always find it fun, that as soon as som DM dares to not play into the optimized characters, some optimizer cries foul.

I do sympathise mind you but the shoe is on the other foot for me. My character has been converted each edition, starting out as a human rogue (scout) dual classed with wizard (starting at level 0) turned shadow mage in 2e and converted each edition. Currently she is a swashbuckler, tome warlock, shadow sorcerer and is fun to play even if she lacks oomph. Her thunder was stolen somewhat when a new warlock character came in, min/maxed, cherry picking many of the same abilities that she had so that he does everything better. But because my character stats were designed to meet the 2e rules, she is highly intelligent (not now needed) and her charisma and dexterity are mediocre. At least she has personality.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I do sympathise mind you but the shoe is on the other foot for me. My character has been converted each edition, starting out as a human rogue (scout) dual classed with wizard (starting at level 0) turned shadow mage in 2e and converted each edition. Currently she is a swashbuckler, tome warlock, shadow sorcerer and is fun to play even if she lacks oomph. Her thunder was stolen somewhat when a new warlock character came in, min/maxed, cherry picking many of the same abilities that she had so that he does everything better. But because my character stats were designed to meet the 2e rules, she is highly intelligent (not now needed) and her charisma and dexterity are mediocre. At least she has personality.

Ok. I see that problem, but that has nothing to do with any edition. If you put your stats in the wrong place, your character is just weaker than a min/maxed build.
I do sympathize with you and hope, that OneDnD emphaszises int a bit more (I hate! that bards don't need int).

 

[Pauln6]

Ok. I see that problem, but that has nothing to do with any edition. If you put your stats in the wrong place, your character is just weaker than a min/maxed build.
I do sympathize with you and hope, that OneDnD emphaszises int a bit more (I hate! that bards don't need int).

Her stats were in the right place when she was rolled! And she is perfectly functional with 16 dex and 16 cha. I like that she's intelligent. That is its own reward. But I played through those levels and it's frustrating that a min maxer can avoid all the pitfalls for a brand new high level character. Luckily I am also a DM so letting other players enjoy the limelight is fine. We are customising ways to boost her situationally like a dark gift from Ravenloft or maybe the Dragonlance black wizard feat.