D&D (2024) Change multiclassing prerequisites?

[Shiroiken]

If WotC was consistent, they'd require a minimum 13 to qualify for the class, not just multiclass. That idea would likely be very unpopular.

 

[mellored]

I feel multiclassing would work better if there is a "level 0".

There kind of is. You get stats, a level 1 feat, racial features, and extra skills.

And they are moving subclasses to level 3. So it's less front loaded.

Also removing the prerequisite doesn't affect the more powerful combos, since those ones already have aligned stats. I.e. ranger/rogue or warlock/paladin.

An 8 Int paladin to grab a level of wizard is never going to be a power move. But someone might find it fun to get a lot of rituals.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I think the minimum score to multiclass out of a class should be eliminated. As funny as the idea of being too stupid to give up wizardry is, I don't think it makes things more fun, and all the other "low score means you can't switch to another class" cases make even less sense.

I think it's reasonable in principle to have a suitable score requirement to multiclass into at least some classes (and given that 5.5 is likely to have fewer prime ability score based things and more proficiency bonus or whatever based things, it actually seems more reasonable for the new edition than 5e), but I don't think it really adds enough to be worth having a rule. Multiclass dips are very powerful, but ultimately the opportunity costs of those delayed levels in your main class start adding up pretty quick, especially in actual play where the levels come slow.

 

[DammitVictor]

The first main problem is that in a system of exponential growth, you're trading the highest-level features of one class for the lowest-level features of one or more other classes. This is most notable with spellcasters and, in 5e, the difference between high-level spells and low-level spells being upcast in high-level slots.

The second main problem is that it's practically a tautology that the defining features of a class need to come early because... they're the defining features of the class, members of that class need to have them. But then, it comes too easy for members primarily of another class to get those features by taking a short dip in the class... and then the designers start spreading those features out and pushing them up to higher levels so that single-class characters don't really "come online" until higher levels, and multiclass characters can't get those features without trading even more of the highest-level features of their class.

It adds up to a system that can only produce unviable, underpowered characters when practiced as intended, and playable-- balanced or overpowered-- characters only through exploitation of unintended and overpowered rules interactions.

I've also got a subjective complaint, that I just can't wrap my head around how a character can stop getting better with the class features of a class that they're using every day.

The AD&D rules were a clunky mess, but they were more or less functional for portraying a character who was more or less two or three different classes. The first set of Fourth Edition rules, the feats, were personally unsatisfying; the second set, the hybrids, were better but fell down on account of the way classes intersected with the ability scores. Sort of how 5e multiclassing only really works with the Charisma-based classes.

 

[Yaarel]

Also removing the prerequisite doesn't affect the more powerful combos, since those ones already have aligned stats. I.e. ranger/rogue or warlock/paladin.

An 8 Int paladin to grab a level of wizard is never going to be a power move. But someone might find it fun to get a lot of rituals.

Fair point. The ability score prereq doesnt prevent power combos, thus doesnt serve as an effective balancing mechanism.

There kind of is. You get stats, a level 1 feat, racial features, and extra skills.

And they are moving subclasses to level 3. So it's less front loaded.

The 2014 Fighter gets its subclass at level 3. It still is very front-loaded at level 1, as are most classes. It takes many feats of design space to equal a level 1 Fighter, including hit points, save proficiency, weapon-armor training, etcetera. Similar goes for the other classes.

The cool thing about dividing the level 1 into level 0 is, one can play level 0 characters, such as teenages.

Also, one can play a level 1 Fighter who dabbled in spellcasting, thus swapping some Fighter features for Wizard features, or viceversa.

 

[Yaarel]

I think the minimum score to multiclass out of a class should be eliminated. As funny as the idea of being too stupid to give up wizardry is, I don't think it makes things more fun, and all the other "low score means you can't switch to another class" cases make even less sense.

This kinda convinced me.

The prereqs make less sense narratively. (I am changing my vote from 13 to None.)

 

[Vaalingrade]

It's a guardrail to keep you from accidentlying into making a character that doesn't work, but there are reasons to dip that wouldn't be germaine to the class's main stat. So none, but explain each class's main stat and then warn about MCing into a something you don't have the stats for.

 

[mellored]

It's a guardrail to keep you from accidentlying into making a character that doesn't work, but there are reasons to dip that wouldn't be germaine to the class's main stat. So none, but explain each class's main stat and then warn about MCing into a something you don't have the stats for.

Sure. A line that says "not all combination work well together" would work just as well.

But then let me make a Str / Wis horizon walker ranger/watcher paladin, hunting abjurations and other extra planer beings.

 

[Clint_L]

No restrictions. Let players decide for themselves.

 

[Li Shenron]

It's a guardrail to keep you from accidentlying into making a character that doesn't work, but there are reasons to dip that wouldn't be germaine to the class's main stat. So none, but explain each class's main stat and then warn about MCing into a something you don't have the stats for.

I think that's what WotC said, but it's inconsistent with single class characters who don't have any requirements. If they really wanted to protect beginners, they would have put minimum scores for each class. Reality is that probably this was a byproduct of bad playtesting politics which favored the pet peeves of some "premium" playtester, without making it part of a bigger picture.

Multiclassing is already one step beyond the basic way to play the game, in fact it's presented as optional. Choosing to play a PC that purposefully has a flaw is also one step beyond the standard. The books shouldn't really tell you as an experienced player that you shouldn't play something like that. Sorry but "doesn't work" applies only to those who can't make it work! I've played spellcasters with a negative modifier in their primary spellcasting stat and I made them work: had the rules had a minimum ability score and had my DM decided not to handwave such requirement, I would have missed the fun of playing those dumb wizards and absent minded clerics! It would have been WotC telling me "you cannot have fun with such characters, you must play more regular characters even if you don't want to".

So best thing is not to have ANY requirement or restriction, let players play what they want and be responsible for their mistakes, and if they really want to babysit beginners do so in the form of suggestions not requirements.