Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 intently May 28, 2015 12:00:15	If you want a certain ability or two, how do you decide whether to get them via level dips or feats? Obviously the two choices are rarely identical, but they're often very similar. Very broadly, which is a more valuable resource: feats or levels?   Example: Caster wants medium armor/shield and proficiency in Con saves. Option A: start as level 1 fighter; Option B: start as caster with odd Dex and Con and get proficiencies via feats.
#2 niklinna May 28, 2015 13:29:50	This is a very broad question! It depends on the tradeoffs you want to make. Doing a dip means losing a level's worth of your progression in your major class, which for casters going fighter means a level of spell slots. Early on that can be difficult, especially at level 1, since you're not even a caster in your example, and then you are behind on spell and major class feature progression. If you just want one, or maybe two proficiencies or whatever, and can get them in a single feat, obviously the feat is the better choice. If you need to take two separate feats to get them, you have to weigh the options of losing a class level or a more class-relevant feat (or two).
#3 mellored May 28, 2015 15:07:08	levels are slightly more valueble. though they are pretty close. in general classes get a feat and a little extra, like 1 ki, or an extra spell slot. that said, feats don't require prerequisit feats like levels have prerequisit levels. also, clerics are good for dipping casters, as you don't lose a spell slot.
#4 BW0222 May 28, 2015 15:22:45	There are four main reasons to multi-class or otherwise gain abilities -- whether through race, feats, other ability abilities.   a) Survival. You are too weak and need the ability, typically at lower levels. Wizard is pretty week in some campaigns (especially with only two or three players), so you take Cleric 1 / Wizard for the armour, shield, weapons, and hit points and healings spells. You are specifically giving up gaining wizard abilities for an extra level, in return for being more likely to survive at lower levels.   b) Power. You gain certain abilities which greatly enhance your primary focus without signficiantly taking away from your primary ability.   c) Roleplaying. Your background, current circumstances, etc. which you wish to reflect in your abilities, skills, spells, etc.   d) Campaign specific reasons. Something really specific is happening in the campaign in which you need some skill or ability. This is simliar to (c), but it is simply imperative. You've been stuck in an elven forest for five levels need to learn elven. Someone has a legendary magical sword and needs proficiency. It is a sea-based campaign and swimming is necessary.   The (a) case is still perfectly valid in 5e. Some times (especially in smaller parties) it is still hard keeping the party and certain classes alive through low-levels. It is up to the players if they want to be cunning enough to get to 3rd or 4th-level without say a cleric or a wizard with low hit points and armor. Then again, some players like the challenge or aren't willing to give up delaying higher level abilities. You typically don't have feats (except variant humans) and in general, few single feats are likely to make as much of a difference to survival as to be worth it. There isn't a feat able to give a wizard/1 heavy armor, shield, weapons, healing spells, 2hp, etc. If (a) is necessary... the choice is typically multi-classing.   In 5e, I don't see (b) being that coming with multi-classing. Multi-classing has a much greater cost than in 3.x.. A level or two of one class is rarely going to give you any abilities useful at higher levels which is worth delaying the abilties your main class would gain. Feats or ability increases tent to be better for this.   For (c), either is fine. Presumably, you don't care if you aren't optimal to a point. If you want to say that you were initially raised by druids and then captured and put in the fighting pits... whether you play a druid 1/barbarian or a barbarian with the magic initiate feat, you'd appear the same. Other players would likely have no idea that you were one as opposed to the other. Obviously, this only works for humans, so if you wanted to be an elf raised by druids and sent to the fighting pits... you'd have to multi-class.   For (d), typically feats are better. In general, you are looking for a specific ability (language, skills, spell, etc.) and taking an entire class is unoptimal and comes with a lot of junk which you mgiht have to explain away. If you need a language, the linquist feat is perfect. If you need to learn waterbreathing... take the ritual casting feat. If you need to use a sword... take the weapon proficiency feat.
#5 intently May 29, 2015 10:16:07	BW0222 wrote:
(Reply to #5) niklinna	intently wrote:
#7 GladiusLegis May 30, 2015 11:27:25	If you're planning for the long haul (all the way to Lv. 20), a big factor to look out for is how good your primary class' capstone is. Rangers and Warlocks, for example, will gladly dip a level in another class because their capstones suck. Barbarians and Fighters, who have great capstones, not so much.
#8 durntaur May 30, 2015 11:34:02	GladiusLegis wrote:
#9 intently May 30, 2015 13:51:57	Too bad most dips are most valuable early. Delaying core features stinks   GladiusLegis wrote:
#10 FunkySpunk May 30, 2015 14:07:20	I like dipping. I think it's cool to have a character with a couple of classes.    JMO
#11 GladiusLegis May 30, 2015 22:25:18	intently wrote: