Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6274103" data-attributes="member: 7006">I'm for whatever makes for the best use of space in the Player's Handbook.Me personally... level dipping has never concerned me.  I figure that if a particular table and DM is okay with a PC dipping into a level of some other class, that's up to them.  The only issue I would have would be if those level dips increased the PCs power too far ahead of the other players at the table (thereby rendering those other players feeling like what they do doesn't matter next to the "super-character").  But in that regard... I would hope the DM was smart enough to police the situation and keep the supposed "super-characters" in check.I do think though the best use of space in the PHB is not needing to create "multiclass" versions of the classes in the book... but just design the classes such that one level of dipping doesn't actually overpower anyone.  So if a PC takes a level or two of another class... then they're still just like any other PC at the table because the classes were designed effectively.And as far as the "years and years to train" argument for wizards... I've never personally looked at it that way myself.  Cause quite frankly, I've always found the wizard's story weird that it took them years and years and years to learn a handful of cantrips and a pair of spells... but then once they became an "adventurer"... they could gain umpteen levels over a matter of months/weeks/days (depending on how the DM structured his campaign's story), with their power and spellcasting ability growing exponentially over an insanely shorter period of time.  That way of looking at the wizard's story never made a lick of sense to me.</blockquote>

Verification