D&D 5E Ability Score Requeriments for Multiclassing, yay or nay?

[Remathilis]

One problem I forgot to mention in my first post is that the ability requirements are based on a stereotypical and narrow-minded view of each class. Multiclass fighters have to have a Str of 15. But what if I want to play an archer fighter or a swashbuckler-like finesse fighter that prefers Dex over Str? Nope, you still need a 15 Str. WotC built fighters tough! Rawr!

This might be the first argument that I've seen that is logical.

That said, I find it a bit of a non-issue. I don't think I've ever seen anyone play a full-class or multi-class character with less than a 16 in their primary stat. I just haven't seen clerics with 12 wisdom or a fighter with a 7 strength. It will prevent casual dipping (I'm going to grab 1 level of barbarian for fast movement, martial weapons and d12 hp) and force characters to play to their strengths.

 

[Mistwell]

As mentioned in another thread, the Stat Prerequisites won't stop mad level dipping.

They help, when combined with the constantly delay, and eventual loss, of ability/feat advancement from continual multiclassing.

 

[MoonSong]

This might be the first argument that I've seen that is logical.

That said, I find it a bit of a non-issue. I don't think I've ever seen anyone play a full-class or multi-class character with less than a 16 in their primary stat. I just haven't seen clerics with 12 wisdom or a fighter with a 7 strength. It will prevent casual dipping (I'm going to grab 1 level of barbarian for fast movement, martial weapons and d12 hp) and force characters to play to their strengths.

Obviously we have never played together (you cannot just predict the scores on my characters just form class alone), and in 4e hitting is just way too important, but for example Battle clerics can dump Wisdom, 3.x allows for more room: crossbow fighters can have any kind of str score (including 8), "showy" rogues can have a dex as low as 13, blasty and gishy sorcerers even get away with having 14 cha, I've played paladins and know of rangers with a wisdom so low they don't get to cast spells, monks are so mad they don't have a single primary, even 2e with it's score requirements to be a class allows for some pretty low scores all over the place. It all comes to playstyle, of course in a charop heavy game you'll never see such characters, but they exist in more story and character driven games, and it is exactly there that such a steep and harsh requirements/restrictions hurt the most. I don't doubt some groups will need a way to stop endless dipping, but ability score requirements fall short on them (really, the current restrictions allow for a 9 class dipper while greatly restricting the ability of any non-optimized character to get a second class)

 

[Nellisir]

I like the intent, and don't mind the implementation. Will I use them in my game? Not sure. I might, but with the inclusion of a few "free passes" - ie, elves can multi-class as figher/mages without penalty, and dwarves as cleric/fighters, and halflings as fighter/thieves.... Or maybe not. I don't know yet. They're easy to ignore if I want.

 

[MoonSong]

They help, when combined with the constantly delay, and eventual loss, of ability/feat advancement from continual multiclassing.

You know this "cure" is worse than the so called disease, the feat trade up is fair by itself, the score requisites contribute little or nothing to it, what they do instead is to hurt people who want to engage in "fair" or "legitimate" multiclassing and find they should have planned for it from day one because they cannot do it, the rules restrict them from doing it.

You may not miss a single ability up if built the right way, when you have managed to get countless powers from dips, why would you want extra dex when you get to cast in heavy armor? or any extra score when you have tons of skill and save proficiencies that make up for it? why worry about a bigger con when you can heal yourself over and over? or also the fact you have prepared lots of spells? and your physical attacks combine the effects of rage, smite, superiority and Sneak attack? . Meanwhile people like me get deprived of playing hundreds of interesting characters because they don't fit in the narrow and stereotypical prejudices of the score requirements.

 

[Greg K]

I didn't vote.
1) I think the minimums stated are too harsh. I think a character just should have to be above average
2) They are based on one interpretation rather than recognizing a broad variety of fighter and rogue archetypes which might focus on other ability scores.
3) I think there should be other prerequisites as well.

 

[MoonSong]

I didn't vote.
1) I think the minimums stated are too harsh. I think a character just should have to be above average
2) They are based on one interpretation rather than recognizing a broad variety of fighter and rogue archetypes which might focus on other ability scores.
3) I think there should be other prerequisites as well.

Wouldn't it be better if there were other requisites and none of it was about an ability score?. You know a common thing on all edditions previous to 4e was the ability of the DM to lower or increase the ability scores of her players according to the campaign, and having something so important as multiclassing attached to it will have unexpected and ugly consequences when done, passing from completely unreachable on lower powered campaigns to completely trivial on higher powered ones.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Any issue I may or may not have with the stat requirements would pale in comparison to the pure, unbridled hatred I have for 3E-style multiclassing itself.

 

[KidSnide]

I'm not sure I like how the restrictions work in practice because I agree with the point that they seem to restrict some perfectly reasonable builds (like a Dex based fighter/rogue build) as well as some highly sub-optimal builds that players end up taking for pure role-playing / character development reasons.

At the same time, I do like how the multiclassing restrictions generate a penalty for the (otherwise generally favorable) strategy of pushing as hard as you can for a 20 in your primary stat. I haven't done to work to see how the math plays out, but there is at least a theoretical tension between different min-maxing strategies. In the abstract, that's a feature even though I'm skeptical that it's worth the cost.

-KS

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I didn't like them at first, though they've grown on me.

What I would really prefer, though, is a system that makes multi-classing something that lets characters grow naturally, but prevents 20 level planned builds.