So what do you consider a dip?

[nickl_2000]

What percentage of levels into a second class would you consider a dip vs when it is a non-dip multi-class?

I know this is completely subjective, but I'm curious what people think.

[RogueJK]

Depends on what you're dipping for. Generally 1-3 levels. But on some builds, 5 levels into a martial class for Extra Attack would still be considered a "dip", especially if you're expecting to put 10+ levels into your primary class.

Also depends on what level you're building towards. 3 levels is certainly a dip if it's building towards a split that's more like 17/3, or 10/3, or 6/3, etc. But 3 levels isn't really a dip if you're building towards a 3/3 character in a campaign that's only going to 6th level.

So as a loose rule, I'd say 5 or fewer levels, as well as noticeably less than 50% (perhaps even no more than 33%) of your total envisioned character level.

[Unoriginal]

What percentage of levels into a second class would you consider a dip vs when it is a non-dip multi-class?

I know this is completely subjective, but I'm curious what people think.

I would say 2 levels is a dip, arguably 3.

More than 3 it's less "deviating from main road to grab something" and more "walking two paths".

[OldTrees1]

Is it a dip? I think of dips and entering and leaving without returning. Test:

Take the current character. Double/Triple/etc the character's level (ignore level caps). How much did the individual classes level up? Did they scale with total character level or were some of them independent of total character level?

Consider three characters that are both Warlock 2 / Paladin 3. If we apply this test and see their 10th/15th levels are
A 10th: Warlock 2 / Paladin 8 and 15th: Warlock 2 / Paladin 13th
B 10th: Warlock 3 / Paladin 7 and 15th: Warlock 5 / Paladin 10th
C 10th: Warlock 4 / Paladin 6 and 15th: Warlock 6 / Paladin 9th

That first character (A) is a dip. The other characters (B & C) are not dips.

What about a character with 1/9 at 10th and 2/18 at 20th? That is a heavily skewed multiclass in my eyes, but it is a boundary case.
What about a character with 5/5 at 10th and 5/15 at 20th? This is a deep dip in my eyes, but it is a boundary case.


Edit:
Another theory of dipping is the proportion is what matters. Test:
Levels in class A * Number of classes / Total Character level < Some threshold
If a 2/8 is a dip then a 4/16 is a dip under this metric. However it would say a 5/5 that became a 5/15 might or might not be a dip.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I would say 2 levels is a dip, arguably 3.

More than 3 it's less "deviating from main road to grab something" and more "walking two paths".

I'm with Unoriginal.

[Hytheter]

Personally I'd say up to 4. Enough to pick up a few features without missing out on an ASI and not losing too much of your main class. Though that's probably a step too far if your main class is a full caster since you'll miss out on 9th level spells.

[Zhorn]

I'd say it comes down to how many levels you have overall, as flat numbers will look very different at different level ranges.
Example, calling 2 levels a dip, but being a 4th level character with 2 levels in two different classes?

instead:

1/4th of your total levels or less.
Anything more than that is not a dip.

[SLOTHRPG95]

Personally I'd say up to 4. Enough to pick up a few features without missing out on an ASI and not losing too much of your main class. Though that's probably a step too far if your main class is a full caster since you'll miss out on 9th level spells.

Agreed for higher levels (T3 or T4). For T2 I'd say 3 or 4 levels is too big of an investment to be called a dip, and in T1 I think dip is a somewhat meaningless term. This is just talking numbers, though. I think equally important is what you're looking to get out of your multiclass. A Fighter 1/Wizard X who never makes a weapon attack after 1st level and basically plays like a tougher Wizard is a dip, arguably even at 2nd level. On the other hand, a Fighter 1/Wizard X whose go-to combat action is swinging a maul after self-buffing w/ Haste or Tenser's Transformation is arguably not a dip even at high levels (T3/4).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Personally, I think of it more as intent rather than some form of number/percentage based thing.

A dip is when you think of yourself as "really" X, but take a few levels of Y for the sake of a few particular features. So if your idea is "I'm going to take just enough levels in Y to get <feature>, but really I'm X", you're dipping. Of course that becomes harder to maintain when X and Y are relatively close; I'd struggle to say that a Paladin 6/Sorcerer 7 sorcadin "dipped paladin."

On the other hand, if you had mostly narrative reasons to switch classes, even at 1-2 levels, I'm less likely to call it a dip. I played a bardlock that was warlock 2, bard X. Classic warlock dip, but the character was designed around the idea that they were bootstrapping their bard career by making a deal with a servant of the god of music; the deal with the pact was that I had to go adventuring in exchange for the power he was granting. Was that a dip? Maybe. But I'd be more likely to say that someone who was warlock 2, bard X but did it explicitly and only for agonizing eldritch blast, without any consideration of patrons (effectively treating it as a bundle of disassociated mechanics) "dipped warlock".

But that's just me and my idiosyncratic use of language.

[Lunali]

Most people that the distinction would be relevant for have mostly built their character out to level 20. With that being the case, I would consider some things a dip even if they were your highest level at the time. A 1/2 sorceror/warlock that is done leveling warlock, I would consider warlock a dip even though it's the highest level class.

Rather than a specific percentage, I would say that if you think of the character as one specific class, everything else is a dip.

[Hytheter]

Agreed for higher levels (T3 or T4). For T2 I'd say 3 or 4 levels is too big of an investment to be called a dip, and in T1 I think dip is a somewhat meaningless term. This is just talking numbers, though. I think equally important is what you're looking to get out of your multiclass. A Fighter 1/Wizard X who never makes a weapon attack after 1st level and basically plays like a tougher Wizard is a dip, arguably even at 2nd level. On the other hand, a Fighter 1/Wizard X whose go-to combat action is swinging a maul after self-buffing w/ Haste or Tenser's Transformation is arguably not a dip even at high levels (T3/4).

Very true. I guess the ultimate answer is really "it depends."

[BloodSnake'sCha]

It is like the sand pile problem.

I will say that even 6 or 7 levels can be a dip(paladins).

It depends on what you get from it and how much you lose.

Actually, even 11 levels can be a dip if what you get from it is secondary to the character concept.

[Dork_Forge]

Raw numbers I draw the line at 3 levels, 4 is beyond just dipping, but it really depends what level the play is at and what level the character will end at.

If you are a 7th level character at the end of the game but took 3 levels in a secondary class, I wouldn't call that a dip as it's almost half your total levels.

[Kane0]

1-3 levels in anything less than a tier 4 game

[Pex]

No more than two levels.

Three levels is getting the subclass for most classes. Obviously you want what that gives you, but three levels is a major investment. You made an effort.

Note that I don't find dipping to be an inherently bad thing. I care about the player's attitude and how he plays the game. He's allowed to enjoy the game mechanics.

[chainer1216]

1 or 2 levels is a dip, 3 and up is a much larger investment.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

1 or 2 levels is a dip, 3 and up is a much larger investment.

May I ask why?
Some classes have nothing worth the final 3 levels in them.
15% not main class is not a lot.

[chainer1216]

May I ask why?
Some classes have nothing worth the final 3 levels in them.
15% not main class is not a lot.

Nobody plays to lvl20, the VAST majority of games only hope to get to lvl9 before falling apart, so making judgments by that metric seems flawed to me.

Once a class gets to it 3rd level you've reached a point where you get all its main identity.

[stoutstien]

Nobody plays to lvl20, the VAST majority of games only hope to get to lvl9 before falling apart, so making judgments by that metric seems flawed to me.

Once a class gets to it 3rd level you've reached a point where you get all its main identity.

Little bit of a hyperbole there. 40% of my games see tier 4 and only 2 games I've ran in 5e failed to reach level 10. The VAST majority of games are unaccounted for because they don't sell report and don't frequent third party sites.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Little bit of a hyperbole there. 40% of my games see tier 4 and only 2 games I've ran in 5e failed to reach level 10. The VAST majority of games are unaccounted for because they don't sell report and don't frequent third party sites.

I agree, the only games I played that did not reach level 20 were official modules (which we rarely use) and one shots for reasons I believe I don't need to explain (some of the one shot were in tier 4)

[Kuulvheysoon]

On the other hand, I've run 5E games for years and years and never hit T4. Closest that I've ever been was a game that ended at 15th level.

But I think that counting on games to always reach that point is foolish at best. Games certainly do reach 20th level, but I believe that they're more outliers than fact, and that the majority of games do end before that point.

[Amnestic]

Even in tier 2 I consider 3 levels a 'dip'. Tier 1 I guess it's muddier.

[Theodoxus]

For me, it's never about levels, it's about what are you getting and why you need a specific level in a different class to get it.

If you're taking a level or two of fighter for a fighting style or action surge, that's a dip. Proficiencies and other bennies are nice (like second wind) but not why you went fighter (if it's just for a fighting style, you could have gone ranger or paladin instead... but why burn an extra level unless you're also looking at picking up a few spells... (and that begs the question as to whether it's a dip in the first place).

Grabbing Devil's Sight with 2 levels of warlock - that's a dip. Doesn't matter if you're a sorc and are using the regenerating slots, or a shadow monk wanting see through their own magical darkness.

I could be persuaded to be shown that taking a martial class to 5 for extra attack is a dip, but I'd really want to know what the primary class would be in that case. I can't think of many times where "dipping" that deep into a secondary class to fulfill a specific desire wouldn't be better done with either a true multiclass (which I honestly think this edge case is) or going a different route completely.

Dipping is to meet a need that a subclass won't/can't provide.

[RogueJK]

I could be persuaded to be shown that taking a martial class to 5 for extra attack is a dip, but I'd really want to know what the primary class would be in that case. I can't think of many times where "dipping" that deep into a secondary class to fulfill a specific desire wouldn't be better done with either a true multiclass (which I honestly think this edge case is) or going a different route completely.

Battlemaster Fighter 5/Rogue X would be a good basic example of such a martial dip.

Or something a bit more exotic like a Ancestral Guardian Barbarian 5/Rogue X ranged kiting tank build, or a Ranger 5/Cleric X WIS-based Shillelagh/PAM build.

[Theodoxus]

Battlemaster Fighter 5/Rogue X would be a good basic example of such a martial dip.

Or something a bit more exotic like a Ancestral Guardian Barbarian 5/Rogue X ranged kiting tank build, or a Ranger 5/Cleric X WIS-based Shillelagh/PAM build.

I don't deny that they're good examples... I'm just not sure I'd call any of those dips.

The BM/Rogue is missing 3d6 sneak and massively delaying a lot of better rogue features, presuming it was something like F1/R2/F3(or F5)/R5(or Rx)/F5/Rx Not exactly sure what the advantage of grabbing battlemaster maneuvers are, since you're not getting more or larger dice - seems like it'll end up handicapping the build if it goes much beyond 10th level, and at that point, F5/R5 is definitely not a dip...

Barbarian/Rogue has the same problems, but with fewer base class features. You get a little more out of the subclass though, but again, it won't feel like a dip until late tier 3, tier 4 - and you'll be missing features that will probably make you want to rebuild the character.

Ranger/Cleric for a shillelagh build? Nah, you'd either grab a level of druid on that Ranger, or go Nature Cleric 1 if you wanted armor. Cleric is bringing absolutely nothing to a strict shillelagh build - that's definitely not a dip by my definition, but a multiclass that is using a moderate amount of synergy to try to be as SAD as possible while playing Little John.

I guess I'll modify my definition, slightly. If you're grabbing a feature as a 'dip' that's 5th level or higher (extra attack, Aura of Protection, evasion, etc) and you're not (or only occasionally) using the rest of the kit that comes with that dip, then fine, I'll concede it's a dip. But generally, once you're 5 or 7 levels into a class, you're going to be using every feature that class offers, as often as you can, even if the character would never call themselves a fighter or rogue or paladin or whatever; that's not a dip.

[RogueJK]

Not exactly sure what the advantage of grabbing battlemaster maneuvers are

Riposte gets you off-turn sneak attacks, one of the few ways to gain such. And Feint or Trip are ways to generate Advantage for melee attacks, for times when you can't otherwise trigger Sneak Attack. Plus, Fighter 5 gets you Extra Attack, which means a 2nd chance to land your Sneak Attack each turn (in case your first attack misses).

All those add up to more frequent sneak attacks.



Ranger/Cleric for a shillelagh build? Nah, you'd either grab a level of druid on that Ranger, or go Nature Cleric 1 if you wanted armor. Cleric is bringing absolutely nothing to a strict shillelagh build - that's definitely not a dip by my definition, but a multiclass that is using a moderate amount of synergy to try to be as SAD as possible while playing Little John.

Ranger doesn't need Druid or Nature Cleric to get Shillelagh, thanks to Druidic Warrior Fighting Style. The point of that build is to make a more melee-inclined frontline Cleric by dipping Ranger, and without being overly MAD by requiring you to max both STR and WIS. It stacks 3x melee attacks per turn on top of the Cleric's buffing/spellcasting ability, all in a nice WIS-SAD package, while also getting some added damage from Ranger subclass abilities.


I had played an early version of that build as a Hunter Ranger 5/Nature Cleric X back when 5E was relatively new, which worked well at the time. However, thanks to Tasha's Druidic Warrior Fighting Style, you're no longer locked into just that one somewhat lackluster Nature Cleric subclass, and can now choose from any Cleric subclass. And a Swarmkeeper, Fey Wanderer, or Gloomstalker Ranger would likely work even better than a Hunter these days, thanks to those newer Ranger subclasses having additional direct benefits from a high WIS.

[OldTrees1]

I guess I'll modify my definition, slightly. If you're grabbing a feature as a 'dip' that's 5th level or higher (extra attack, Aura of Protection, evasion, etc) and you're not (or only occasionally) using the rest of the kit that comes with that dip, then fine, I'll concede it's a dip. But generally, once you're 5 or 7 levels into a class, you're going to be using every feature that class offers, as often as you can, even if the character would never call themselves a fighter or rogue or paladin or whatever; that's not a dip.

So a Fighter 1 / Rogue 19 that uses all of Fighter 1 is not a dip, but a Fighter 1 / Rogue 19 that only uses Fighter level 1's Blindsight Fighting style and ignores Second Wind, Shield, and Proficiencies is a dip?

[Dimers]

Two levels is a dip, three is an investment.

A build can consist of 100% dips, in my opinion -- if someone has two levels each of five classes, then regardless of what the player wants from each class, I consider it aaaaaaall dip. (I also consider it very weird, but that's probably consensus here.)

[Zhorn]

A build can consist of 100% dips, in my opinion -- if someone has two levels each of five classes, then regardless of what the player wants from each class, I consider it aaaaaaall dip. (I also consider it very weird, but that's probably consensus here.)
5? You gotta pump those numbers up. Those are rookie numbers.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZCIh_3b5K8

[Witty Username]

Dipping is a state of mind.
going into a class for a feature and duck out, that is a dip.
going into two classes to make something that the classes cannot do alone mechanically and thematically, not a dip.

Take for example a warlock/bard:
If I take warlock because I am trying to roleplay a bard with a demonic pact, or a warlock that uses their patron powers as an actor to entertain the masses. not a dip
If I am trying to get cha to my attack and damage, a dip
Generally though, 1-3 levels you are probably dipping.

I remember one character I have in the works (may need a game to play it) is essentially a Tyrande Whisperwind build.
Gloomstalker ranger/life cleric because I was wanting to put together a cleric healer that is good with a bow because elf. Is this a dip because I am starting with ranger for some goodies but am playing a cleric primarily? Is making a stealthy healer with a mix of support and aggressive skills enough of its own thing? I don't think of it as a dip, especially in the tier 1/2 stage. But I could see an argument for it.
Either way, dipping I feel is not an action so much as a motivation.

[Keravath]

I'd agree with the others that a dip is 1-3 levels in another class.

I don't think the reason for the multiclassing affects whether I would call it a dip or not. Any multiclassing should really be justified by the character background, backstory or in game experience.

I have a Yuan-Ti pureblood character who is quite naive. Started off as being trained as a guard and hunter for the settlement since purebloods are the lowest on the totem pole. Had some experiences as part of their backstory in which they interacted with a GOO who as a reward for their aid allowed the character to learn some things and opened up their mind to other directions of thought. This was the explanation for the character having two levels of GOO warlock followed by sorcerer resulting in a 1 Fighter/2 GOO warlock/X draconic sorcerer. The first two classes are essential parts of the character backstory but they are still dips as far as I am concerned since it isn't a large investment in the class.

Anything that requires 5 levels in my opinion isn't a dip - that is 1/4 of the entire character's progression and is a significant amount of time and effort in a class even if the other 15 levels might be in something else.

P.S. I also have a level 17 - 12 AT rogue/5 warlock and the warlock levels are not a dip - they are a really essential part of the character that took a lot of time to develop.

[Joe the Rat]

1-2 is a dip.
3-4 is a glaze.
More than that is creamy filling.
.
.
To break down the snideness:
1-2 levels is a splash and smattering of features. It definitely adds a little something, but you are still recognizably more of the main
3-4 puts a fuller coat of what you are dipping into - Those warlock levels are giving you a rich chocolatey layer to your sorcerer (you blastspammer you), or those Battle Master Maneuvers or extended crit range... or Rune upsizing for the Barbarian, but it's still fundamentally the same baked good.
More than that, and while you may still look like the main, those levels are going to significantly change your flavor and texture. A five-level "dip" for extra attack means that extra attack is now a big aspect of your fighting approach - adding more chances to sneak attack, or freeing your BA, or the cleric swinging a hammer more often than casting spells in combat... and the other features you picked up along the way.

[OldTrees1]

1-2 is a dip.
3-4 is a glaze.
More than that is creamy filling.

Does this change if the character's total level changes?
Case 1: A 3rd level character on a 1-5 campaign.
Case 2: A 5th level character on a 1-10 campaign.
Case 3: A 9th level character on a 5-15 campaign.
Case 4: A 5th level character on a 5-20 campaign.
Case 5+: Your own examples

[Keravath]

Does this change if the character's total level changes?
Case 1: A 3rd level character on a 1-5 campaign.
Case 2: A 5th level character on a 1-10 campaign.
Case 3: A 9th level character on a 5-15 campaign.
Case 4: A 5th level character on a 5-20 campaign.
Case 5+: Your own examples

I realize you weren't asking me :) ... but I don't think his definition has any dependence on character level.

All first level characters are "dips" since they only have the 1st level features of the class they are playing and how they will develop is yet to be defined. A third level character could be "glazed" or a couple of "dips" if they are multiclassed. A 5th level character is either "creamy filling" :) ... or a "dipped glaze" if leveled in two classes. The level the campaign goes to is irrelevant since the definition is based on the range of class features available to the character.

There is a significant power jump in all classes at level 5 due to either extra attack or 3rd level spells or equivalent. Level 3 and 4 typically offer a class archetype and an ASI. Level 1 and 2 offer up a range of fundamental class features without necessarily getting very deep into the class. So I think the posters definitions for "dip", "glaze" and "filling" are pretty reasonable and independent of the total character level or the expected campaign play levels.

[Ashrym]

1 level is a dip. 2-3 is a splash.

[Yakmala]

Personal opinion: 1-2 levels is a dip. 3+ levels, you're just a regular multi-class character.