D&D 5E Multiclassing ability score prerequisites—required for balance or an unnecessary hurdle?

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I actually think the 13 requirement should be higher for groups who specifically use the "rolling for stats" method, since it is potentially so much easier to get qualifying stats that way than with standard array or point buy. But for point buy and standard array-using groups, I think the 13 should be lowered to 12.

I also do not like the removal of minimum stat requirements for classes for single class characters, though in previous editions some of those minimums were too high. I would say a character should at least be of average ability in the stat (or stats) connected to a class for a single-class character, so a 10 or 11 minimum.

Overall, while 5E is meant to be simpler, I prefer the class qualification requirements to be a little more complex, in order to represent the effort needed by a character to learn new things.

I have toyed with this houserule for multiclassing when using point buy in my group:

Single class: minimum of 10 in all primary stats
Second class: minimum of 12 in all primary stats for that class. In no overlap in stats, original class stats can still be less than 12.
Third class: minimum of 14 in all primary stats for that class. Non-overlap stats same rule as above.
Fourth class or higher: up the minimum by 2 each time.

That leaves a triple-class character as a viable option over the life of the character.

If I were to ever run another campaign where stats are rolled, I would up all those minimums by 2 to account for the higher starting scores.

I am also not a fan of single-level dips, so in some campaigns I have required characters to get at least 3 levels in a class before switching to a new class

 

[Xetheral]

I actively encourage multiclassing in my games, and removing the stat requirements has caused no balance problems whatsoever.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Neither - they're a suggestion. Ignore them as you wish. Or do not.

Or heck, do. Then do not! Then do every other campaign! And twice on Tuesdays!

 

[mellored]

The rule has a mechanical balancing purpose, as it prevents multiple level 1 dips in classes.

No, it doesn't prevent anything. 13 is a small cost that's easily surmountable. Most of the time it's -2 to Con.

(which are generally optimal)

No, it's not generally optimal. Most 1 level dips aren't worth slowing down your main class. 5e has done a good job making each level count.

Even the better ones, like wizard X/cleric 1 for armor, only really provide alternatives, not optimal.

I mean, would you rather be...
wizard 4/cleric 1 with armor, or wizard 5 with fireball.
wizard 5/cleric 1 with armor, or wizard 6 with potent cantrip.
wizard 16/cleric 1 with armor, or wizard 17 with wish.
wizard 17/cleric 1 with armor, or a wizard 18 with at-will shield and hold person?



IMO, it's there to guide people from making mistakes, and for the flavor. 13 makes sure they have at least a +1 in all their abilties, and makes the monk second guess going into paladin and ending up with a really weak character.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I agree with Mellored about being 'OP', single class is close enough good, and with ASIs tied to class level there is an extra cost. If you want every PC to be Morrison the Multi-Faceted go ahead and drop the requirement, otherwise keep it. I don't see a mechanical problem. If you loather multiclassing, esp dipping, then have a min 13 for the first extra class, 15 for second, then 17 etc.

 

[MoonSong]

I have a player in a new campaign I will be starting soon who dislikes the fact that there are ability score prerequisites for classes when multiclassing, including for a character you are already playing. In his words:



My initial thought is that I don't see a problem with the rules and I am hesitant to ignore them until I given some thought to balance issues. I guess the way I look at it is that if you think you are going to want to multiclass, use the point-buy approach and make sure you have a 13 or higher in all the attributes that you need for your multiple classes. I think the rule rewards the character who focuses on a class, e.g., becomes the best fighter she can be. That said, I can see an argument the other way—why can't I multiclass in something even if low in an attribute important for that class. I just won't be as effective in that class. So what? I want it for the skills, spells, etc.

I guess that it comes down to it just being easier for me to stick to the rules as written as much as I can. I may be even easier, initially, to just give players what they want. I like to be a say-yest DM, but that can lead to issues down the road if you don't give any thought to the repercussions.

Any thought? Do you find the RAW to be important to keep balance or are they just an unnecessary hurdle to multiclassing?

I would say, and I'm plagiarizing myself with this, the score minimums are too high for casuals and negligible for powergamers. Also to date practically no combo has been reported as truly broken, that I know of.

Two cases: the trinity of paladin/warlock/sorcerer the four "powerful" combos are allowed by default, any run of the mill paladin qualifies by default, but no dex paladin can even multiclass. Any powergamer planing from day one can have a rogue that multis into paladin or cleric regardless of story or play, without even having to come out with the flimsiest of excuses, but a rogue assassin player playing organically cannot ever find religion in-game because she doesn't qualify for any of the divine classes. I mean she can start changing her ways, but can only ever learn how to become a better assassin without ever getting any better at prayer.

One reason those lines are whited out on my books...

 

[Phazonfish]

No, it doesn't prevent anything. 13 is a small cost that's easily surmountable. Most of the time it's -2 to Con.

Umm, I wouldn't call -2 to Con a small cost. It's not a prohibitively large cost, but it's definitely a meaningful enough cost to make you ask yourself how valuable to opportunity to get those benefits is. Not how valuable are those benefit, how valuable is the option to spend your level up ON those benefits.

I mean, would you rather be...
[...]
wizard 17/cleric 1 with armor, or a wizard 18 with at-will shield and hold person?

I think I'd rather be the Cleric 1/Wizard 17. I mean, I've finished my spell progression so I don't have to worry about getting behind on that, plate mail would be real nice, as a Life Cleric I get Bless and Cure Wounds + at least 1 spell from a very good list so Bane or Healing Word or a utility spell of some sort would give me lots of options for my low level spell slots, and best of all? I still get Spell Mastery next level. Sure I lose out on Signature Spell, but that's not a huge loss. Now if Signature Spell was the level 18 ability and Spell Mastery was the capstone then it'd be a tough choice.

In general though, I totally agree with you. Even the best dips don't result in a character overwhelmingly stronger that just monoclassing.

 

[MNblockhead]

Thank you all for the great responses. I think that, while my general rule is that in my campaign I will try my best to stick to RAW, if this is important enough to the player I'll wave the requirement. I'm planning on a session zero for character creation, so everyone will be on the same page.

 

[schnee]

IMO it's a useful way to make people mindful of abusing dump stats.

I think it's cheesy as hell for an 8 CHA to take a level dump into Sorcerer for some cantrips and utility spells so they can put those points somewhere else min-maxy.

Make them have a character that's plausible to be a hero in that class. Above average in the prime stat is not a big deal.

 

[Blue]

I would say, and I'm plagiarizing myself with this, the score minimums are too high for casuals and negligible for powergamers. Also to date practically no combo has been reported as truly broken, that I know of.

Two cases: the trinity of paladin/warlock/sorcerer the four "powerful" combos are allowed by default, ...

But this right here is an argument for the restriction. The examples you give are ones where the primary ability score line up so it's easy to multiclass with. Unless you are telling me that no other combinations of classes can be as powerful, the reason why those particular ones are considered powerful for multiclassing is because they are allowed. If there wasn't a rule, there would be a lot more. This is part of the balance it provides.

As for the "negligible for powergamers", I think you are mostly addressing the case of a one extra ability at 13. but once you start needing multiple at 13 that you wouldn't do so you can cherry pick from several classes it adds up and takes a chunk of point-buy that is a real opportunity cost.