Character Building: The Dip

"Remember how we always thought there wasn't a way to kill a toon? Well, Doom found a way: Turpentine, Acetone, Benzine. He calls it The Dip."

Multiclassing gets a bad rap. Lots of people see it as the source of design problems or bad balance. Some games like 4e sought to remove its teeth by giving several standardized methods of multiclassing. After all, you only get so many powers despite how many classes you want to take, so it's not likely to cause issues. Pathfinder used the carrot instead of the stick and provided a bunch of single classes that FEEL like a two-in-one multiclass, like Slayer, Investigator, Warpriest(which is really just an alt paladin but I digress), Shaman or Hunter. They want you to feel like you don't HAVE to mutliclass to achieve the feel you want. Star Wars D20 even limits what you get for "free" when multiclassing, as opposed to taking the class from level one. However, it's a really fun way to build a character and a staple of PNP gaming, in my opinion. Unfortunately, it really is where a lot of things can go wrong in game design. Mostly this reputation is undeserved, but every so often it does cause a legitimate problem. Sometimes class abilities have some insane interaction with another ability that isn't intended. Other times important abilities are "front loaded" into a class to help people achieve class identity at low levels. Today among other more basic concepts, we're discussing those front-loaded classes.

The Dip is arguably a problem in game design. I can kind of see it. Basically, it's when it's enticing to take just a few levels of a class because of either how dense those levels are, or how important those low level abilities are. I'm not gonna judge on the concept until later, I'm just going to talk a little bit about the two most popular dips, and also how to identify classes that have this kind of thing. Dippable classes, as it were. Man, remember dipped ice cream cones? I haven't had one in at least fifteen years. There used to be a little ice cream stand in the shopping center near my house. It got turned into a Kodak store, then it closed down. The little building's not even there anymore, because nothing good lasts and everything eventually turns to shit.

...Anyway... the trope namer, the big daddy, and the reason we're having this discussion at all is fighter. 3.0's designers wanted to make sure the fighter is a tough guy from day one, because he's got to protect the rogues, the wizards, and the bards until they can stand on their own. This is as old as first edition. Hell, it's probably as old as the miniatures game Chainmail. Because of this, though, taking just two levels of fighter in a twenty level build is insanely lucrative, and it's true even in Pathfinder. The list of important benefits you get is:

Two combat feats.
Simple and Martial Weapon Proficiencies.
All three Armor Proficiencies.
Shield proficiency. Some archetypes or games even get tower shields.
2D10 HP
and a bump in both Attack Bonus and Fort Save.

It's a lot of shit, and it's for two reasons: One is the 'rules' of proficiencies in D20: even one level gets you all of them. It's also because the fighter gets an extra "bonus" feat at level one to help him fill out and be tough. Proficiencies and the AB bump can be very helpful to a "sort of combative" class like rogue or bard to push them further into the spotlight. Note that even though these are combat only feats you must take, you can still take some purely defensive stuff like toughness or dodge and come out ahead.

Our next culprit is Unchained Rogue from Pathfinder. Yes, Rogue is the new Fighter. Basically, Pathfinder saw that Rogue, Barbarian and Monk were lacking. It also saw that Summoner was likely too powerful, due to superior action economy in a single character. So, its version of Unearthed Arcana, a book called Pathfinder Unchained, contained updated versions of the classes. In the case of Barbarian, Rogue and Monk, you can even play the old ones if you want, it's just with Barbarian and Rogue I don't know why you would. This needed buff caused Rogue to turn into a hellaciously good 3 or 4 level dip class for a mainline bruiser type in particular.

Unchained Rogue is a great example of importance of abilities dipped into as opposed to density. We're taking four levels in this example as well, not two. Our relevant bonuses are as follows.

Four levels of superior 8+INT skill points
Two rogue talents
2D6 Sneak Attack
Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, and Trapfinding
Debilitating Injury
Finesse Training 2

Debilitating Injury is a list of free, low powered but no-save penalties applied to anyone taking damage from your sneak attack. So what's Finesse Training, I hear you not asking me at all? It's Weapon Finesse for free at level one, and then at level three it's the ability to add dexterity to damage for a single weapon in the weapon finesse list. Our second rogue talent at level four can extend that ability to any weapon in the book, even the silly ones. So yeah, remember when I talked about Stat Dependencies? If you do, you already know why this is nuts. It lets someone playing a melee character "double down" on dexterity, pumping one ability score instead of two, choosing a dex bonus race instead of an "all things considered" race and being able to dump-stat strength. You may end up without that particular weapon in hand, but even then, weapon finesse still applies to everything in its short list. You're not screwed, just kind of.

So when should you dip? Well, first off if you're a pure(as in 1:1 caster level and up to 9th level spells) caster class, you can generally forget it. Those spell levels are hyper-important to you and you're better off trying to find a prestige class that gives spell caster levels, or, in the case of Pathfinder, playing a "half-caster" like magus, mesmerist or alchemist. With that out of the way, you want to first look at what you're losing. In 3.X this probably isn't a hell of a lot considering lack of high level abilities in most classes, but in PF it means losing access to those. It also means getting your core class abilities a little late, which might just be something you've got to live with.

A special note on missing out on things, before we continue. This is kind of scummy of me to even mention, but a lot of your multiclassing decisions are gonna be driven by how long you expect the game to run. If you were never going to hit 20 anyway, you're not missing out on that level 20 weapon mastery, or quivering palm, or grand discovery, or whatever the shit else there is. In general, games ending lower lend themselves more to funky multiclassing or dipping, because nobody's going to see any higher level abilities anyway.

With that out of the way, I suggest making two real quick outlines of your character and seeing what the impact of taking a couple levels of something else is. If you've got the time and inclination, even try one that's a more mixed build, like 10/10 or 12/8 instead of 16/4 or 18/2. Ask yourself what you're gonna use those two feats for, or ask yourself how useful(or fun) pumping DEX instead of STR will be. I can't give you a hard answer without getting more specific about what you're stacking the dip class with. In the case of casters, be very careful, and ask yourself if putting your character behind on spells is worth whatever you're dipping for.

So how do you identify other dip classes? That can't be the only two, right? Right. First off, look for anything in the first six levels that's not reliant on a class level. Yes, this means most caster classes are 'out' for dips. A few lower level spells can be nice utility early on, but later you can easily buy magic items to emulate it, and you'll be wishing you hadn't taken those levels. Basically, if you're only going to have a few levels it means things intended to scale like a fighter's Bravery ability are useless to you. However, there's a lot of abilities scattered around that act independently of class level, like a paladin's Divine Grace or a monk's AC bonus. Look for things like that, maybe things which are intended to scale with ability scores and not levels. You also want to look for anything that's going to give you a bump in an area you're lacking at, like extra skill points, better class skills, save bonuses or proficiencies. A fighter who takes four levels of rogue is adding a TON of skill utility to his character, for example.

A final note goes to attack bonus. You need to be aware of how far back, or forward your dip is putting you. You also need to be aware of how a 3/4ths class scales: 0,1,2,3,3,4,5. This means that you should have some serious thought before taking more than 4 levels, since level five is where you lose your second point of AB. Also be aware of iterative attacks: You want to get them as fast as possible, and you definitely don't want to rob yourself of an attack by taking too many levels in another class. 6, 11, and 16 are your "break points".

So the final question remains. Is this right? Is this bad design? Maybe. If a class has a million reasons to take two or four levels and none to take any more, it absolutely is bad design. Like Fighter in 3.X. Otherwise though, it's a consequence of assisting low level play, and the only fixes I find acceptable are ones like Star Wars D20 where multiclassing into something doesn't give you everything starting as it does. Even then, it makes for a weird problem where your first level ever is a really important choice. You have no idea how much of a problem it was trying to explain level one skill points to people in 3.X D&D was. Is it a scummy thing to do? Well, I advocate building the absolute best character you can, but there's a point at which this attitude can be taken to an extreme. If all you're trying to do is better define the character you have in your head or reach a capability you want to play, I really don't see a problem. Still, this is one of those things where you shouldn't be surprised if someone gets annoyed with you.