Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest 7037866" data-source="post: 9357494">Probably because there aren't specific examples as you seem to think--it is more about a preference of playstyle when balance comes into the scene.By the players? Probably. From the DM? Probably not.To use your examples, the player of the fighter feels inferior when he does 8 damage, maybe uses Action Surge, and then misses--compared to the sorcerer who can't fail at casting a spell that does sufficient damage on average that even making the save the orcs will likely fall or be in single-digit hp. The fighter player starts to feel like "why do I bother?" It ceases to be a team-game when one or two PCs, especially due to MC dips, blow others away on a fairly consistent basis.And the monk player will likely feel just as miffed because they took the damage but the wizard didn't because of a 1st-level spell--which the monk could have with a 1st-level dip...It only becomes rare because once groups like mine experience, we change things so they are no longer as likely a problem in balance, or that paying for that imbalance comes at a higher cost.This is very much table-dependent IME. Once newer players see the power-gamer aspect of MCing, most of them jump on board and their PCs typically have 2-4 classes! I just started a new game about a month ago, and as soon as the PCs hit 2nd level, half the party grapped the level dip! I had to remind them of how I run MCing. Take the dip, but you're committed. One thought better of it and decided to delay--maybe going the dual-class style route later on.Most people when given a more enticing, powerful option will take it. I can't think of many people who would go back to watching analog TV with HD out there...Because it is purely for gamist reasons. It has nothing typically to do with the character's development, story, etc.You grab a level of cleric for heavy armor? The player knows there is a feat that grants you heavy armor proficiency, right? Of course, the bonus IMO would really be grabbing some cantrips and a couple 1st-level spells if you're going to game it.Do these players ever justify how they suddenly gained a level of Cleric? Was there any downtime for it? Role-playing with another PC about learning about the gods? Some experience which compelled them to join a "priesthood" or whatever?The same goes for dipping for a cantrip or 1st-level spell, either of which could also be gained via a feat.Now, I'll give you a perfect example. One of my players has a Rogue and want to MC to Warlock for the build. But he has no idea what patron he wants, etc. and told me whatever might work for the story/game would be fine with him. I had an idea based on a NPC travelling with the group and the Rogue died in our last session. The NPC was able to revive him, but that experience is the first step towards his transition into gaining Warlock abilities and discovering his patron, etc.IMO that is awesome stuff. But if players are MCing to dip to grab X or Y, that should be a clear sign X or Y is likely too strong, etc.Cool, I'm glad none of it disrupts your games. And man, I would LOVE to get to play in 4 games a week! I'm lucky if we get in one session between both groups... sigh. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />Anyway, as DM I know I have as much power as I want in things I can throw at the players, but when some PCs excel due to dips, and others don't have as powerfully built PCs, challenging them because more difficult for me. If I want to challenge the powerful PCs, the weaker ones can suffer (not as effective, more likely to die, etc.). If I challenge the weaker ones, the powerful ones run over things.It's possible, as I manage, but it is harder to do and frankly running my games, prep, etc. is enough work--especially since I end up DMing 75+% of the time. It is easier (and thus more fun for me) to limiting MCing and avoid the potential issues.Because it isn't just about them, but about me (as DM) as well.Sure, but subclasses are meant in most cases to handle the thematic issues. Instead of a Fighter/Wizard, you have either the Eldritch Knight or the Bladesinger. It is one niche I feel is unfilled IMO is the gish. You have the full-class Paladin and Ranger as half-divine and half-primal, but you don't really have a full-class half-arcane option.Ok, why is it significant to her story, and what (feature/mechanically) did you gain from the warlock dip?Without knowing your reasons for the dip, I really couldn't say.At least WotC had the foresight to make most strong features come online at 2nd-level, so you are going to pay more for them. However, I think MCing into a casting class should drastically restrict cantrips and spells gained at 1st-level.It's understandable. Players contribute more to the bottom line than DMs. Although DMs will spend more, there are many more players than DMs, so the player contribution is probably around twice or more the DM contribution in terms of profits to the company.Of course, then like [USER=7030563]@ECMO3[/USER] says, "Why deny players power for their PCs?" And that is a philosophy WotC seems to agree with wholeheartedly.</blockquote>

Verification