D&D 5E 5E classes that discourage "dipping"

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[nswanson27]

Personally I just ignore the all the negative connotation of "dipping" and just look at the options with fresh eyes, and I keep in mind what I want to play, and not what someone or something else thinks I should play for a given role. Sorta - "there is no spoon".

 

[ccs]

I think there's is a really interesting point that's coming out of this discussion.
As someone plays their PC each new level is compared against the possible dip and it sounds like most people are choosing not to dip.

On the other hand, in games where the PCs start at a higher level I think there tend to be more multiclassed characters. Possibly because the 'build' doesn't have to be worked towards and the player doesn't have to persevere through some of the less powerful levels.

It's always been this way. Even in AD&D.
We noticed that if a (human) character was played from lv1 on most remained single classed. Sure, some changed in response to the story, & in 1e every now & then somebody would attempt to become a bard (required lvs in 3! different classes). It was more rare than seeing a 1e bard actually occur to watch a character progress along some multi-class build plan.
But if we started at a higher lv? Those human characters were almost always a multi-class mix, carefully min/maxed to achieve a near perfect synergy of abilities.
Why? Because the player knew the character had made it to the point where we were starting. They didn't have to worry about "wasting" god knows how many sessions playing less effectively, trying to survive with the handicap changing classes incurred until you equaled your previous xp lv.

 

[ccs]

"Which capstone abilities are so desirable that they deter you from dipping into another class?"

None.
1) I play characters, not builds. So it's about what helps me best portray a particular character. And the story developing influences that. If that means I MC? Then I'll MC. If it turns out I stay single class? Then I stay single class.
2) Whatever the edition, I'm under no illusion that the game will last long enough for me to reach 20th lv. So I'm not too concerned about what powers I might/might not get at that point.

"Is there a class that you'd likely NEVER dip into?"

In 5e? No. The closest would probably be rogue. I just don't play a lot of rogues. So dipping into rogue is probably on the bottom of the list for me. But that's far far different than NEVER....

"Is there a class that REQUIRES dipping to be worthwhile?"

No.

 

[MoonSong]

Best dips
Cleric
Fighter
Warlock
Barbarian
Rogue

Bad Dips
Wizard
Druid
Bard
Ranger
Paladin
Monk

Now this isn't to say there aren't multiclass combinations that work even with the bad classes, but there's generally very little reason to dip into any of the above classes I've labeled as Bad Dips.

I consider 5+ levels in a class to be NOT A DIP

You mean the sorcerer isn't even worth considering for a dip?

 

[CydKnight]

I think you will always have those that will want to dip into another class during the course of that PCs progression no matter what class they start with. You see other PCs in your group doing things that your PC can't and you get envy. Sometime it isn't even the other PCs you are playing with but maybe the last one you played. You liked that PC so much but it was time to retire him/her or maybe got themselves killed. Now you are playing a new race and a new class and before long you are wishing you could do the things your last character did and decide it's time to "dip" into that other class.

 

[Gadget]

I think the question can really only be answered from an optimization standpoint, since Role Playing preferences, goals and reasons will vary. Also, I don't think the question of capstones is all that relevant, unless most of the campaign is going to be played at high levels. D&D design has evolved over the years, and very juicy bits that might come into play in a distant and potential (maybe even unlikely) future is no longer considered a balance against current forbearance.

That being said, I think some classes or 'builds' lend themselves to dipping. People often mention that playing a blade'lock is improved quite a bit by taking first level as a fighter for the added weapon and armor proficiency, though I would not dream of saying this is 'required'.

I think Monk is a class that is not terribly conducive to 'dipping' though it is still possible.

 

[Satyrn]

Guillaume le Rouge

Nice use of the oh-so-common typo.

 

[Kabouter Games]

Nice use of the oh-so-common typo.

You know, I hadn't noticed that. I was just going for Will Scarlet in French.

Bob

 

[Psikerlord#]

Another way to put this might be, "Which capstone abilities are so desirable that they deter you from dipping into another class?" But sometimes you don't even look that far ahead. Sometimes it's just "What do I want next?"

I realize that this is very subjective, and dependent on HOW you play a character. For example, I have a paladin that doesn't use weapons that pierce or slash (no points or edges). I'm tempted to dip into warlock for Eldritch Blast, but I keep finding excuses/reasons to stay with Paladin.

Anyone else feel like that?

Related questions might include, "Is there a class that you'd likely NEVER dip into?" if you were already Class ABC or "Is there a class that REQUIRES dipping to be worthwhile?"

Best not to use the multiclassing rules at all imo. Game is more balanced this way/less minmax breaking potential