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

[MJS]

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!

Thats one of my main oppositions. Any class or multiclass stat requirement forces all characters through a cookie cutter. Those requirements should be taken as suggestions only.

As for my DMing, I did select "other requirement" - that being the class shifting must be roleplayed. I won't allow it for gamist purposes only, no matter what the stats are. This is a loose requirement, but it's there. Don't go thinking a 1st level spellbook will appear in your pack because, out of the blue, you took a level in mage, because you want invisibility two levels from now. That's fine, but let's see that character show interest prior to the class change or multi. If its to be a spontaneous change, lets work something out that makes sense to the character. That's all I ask -

ex. Mage practicing with sword despite the -6 , takes a warrior level
- halfling thief eats mushrooms, becomes druid
- druid hit by lightning, takes level in berserker
- fighter with interest in ancient languages takes lvl in mage

multiclassing is a rich opportunity for character development

 

[Jester David]

Get Str 14 Dex14 Con 12 Int 9 Wis 14 Cha 12, pick human, start as mage or bard, you now qualify for all other eight classes. How is that preventing abuse? .

Because you're locked into a specific race, set starting class, and limited stat array. As opposed to any stats, any starting class, and any race.
There'll never be rules completely free of abuse but you can limit it. So you can't easily and freely take five different classes and max all your saves.

I'm not against providing optional rules for multiclass restrictions, but they must be that, optional. And they rather be based on something other than ability scores -specially such a narrow minded approach to them, why do I need a str15 if I want to be an archer fighter?, why do I need uber intelligence if I want to multiclass Mage(sorcerer)?, why high Dex if I want to be a conman Rogue?- , point buy manipulation is one of the tools the DMs have for establishing the mood of a campaign, and having something as important as multiclassing pinned down on it reduces the ability of the DM to customize her campaign.

1) These are unfinished rules. It takes 5 seconds to make an archer fighter or sorcerer exception. Which are much more likely to exist in the final rules.
2) Right now they're obviously testing how people react to stat restrictions in general. They don't need to be perfect to gauge the fan reaction.
3) Some DMs are going to want to restrict multiclassing. And it's far easier to have those rules laid out and designed by professionals than ask DMs to balance it themselves.
4) Pulling it aside as an optional rule doesn't really change much.

 

[r0gershrubber]

I think it's interesting how divided the poll is.

It seems to me that the stat prerequisites don't actually fix any of the problems identified by the supporters of the prerequisites, and they may create additional problems.

(A) If a player wants to min/max and abuse the multi-classing system, they'll plan the character from level 1 to circumvent the limits. The restrictions will only prevent the most inept min/maxer.

(B) The prerequisites don't actually impose a narrative restriction. If a Fighter with 15 Int in a lengthy dungeon wants to suddenly start casting Mage spells, the prerequisite won't stop her.

(C) Problems A and B can only be solved by a competent DM. What's more, the stat prerequisite can actually introduce new problems that the DM has to create exceptions to address. For example, what if a player has a narratively-justified reason to multi-class, but an inappropriate stat restriction prevents it? We have already identified that the Fighter's Strength prerequisite is not appropriate for all Fighter concepts.

(D) I think it's worth reiterating that this concept of multi-classing (i.e. as a career change) is inconsistent with 2e multi-classing (i.e. being multi-classed from the beginning). In this case the ability prerequisite justification in the multi-classing chapter is inappropriate because from a narrative perspective it is not a career change. Consequently, the prerequisites actually take the game further from its roots.

 

[Jester David]

Question
In a game built around modularity, where it is expected the DM will customize some of the rules...

is this:


really completely different from this:


- that the entire subsystem is broken? Does the little box drawn around the rule matter that much?

 

[MJS]

To me, a lot depends on whether the 5th edition has a "Spirit of the Rules" paragraph, and bonus points if they use Gary's from his DMG. That one paragraph that gives the players the keys to the funhouse is what it's all about.
There's probably an ancient dragon magazine forum or article debating this very topic- ability requirements, so trust me, it won't be settled by what is printed in the 5th. But if they get the spirit right, it will all be good.

 

[n00bdragon]

Simply put: Yes, yes it does matter that much. Or should I assume that rolling d20s for attack rolls is optional too? When you present something as the default you're doing two things:
1. Organized play tends to go with this.
2. New players tend to go with this.

Of course, it doesn't even belong as a presented option. It's never been sufficiently explained why this rule needs to exist beyond a vague "Well something needs to be done about those gosh darn powerbuilding multiclassers!" or "But m-m-muh story" as if free multiclassing is either broken (it's not) or gets in the way of roleplaying (it facilitates it). Sure, that's a bit of a strawman but it's more or less true is it not?

 

[MoonSong]

Simply put: Yes, yes it does matter that much. Or should I assume that rolling d20s for attack rolls is optional too? When you present something as the default you're doing two things:
1. Organized play tends to go with this.
2. New players tend to go with this.

Of course, it doesn't even belong as a presented option. It's never been sufficiently explained why this rule needs to exist beyond a vague "Well something needs to be done about those gosh darn powerbuilding multiclassers!" or "But m-m-muh story" as if free multiclassing is either broken (it's not) or gets in the way of roleplaying (it facilitates it). Sure, that's a bit of a strawman but it's more or less true is it not?

There is also some degree of one-tru-way in the sense of "Thou shall not dare to dilute the holy archetypes that were handed us from heaven itself", I've sene many voices opossing free unrestricted multiclassing from "It is overpowered, abusable, exploitable", "not a roleplayers thing", "it makes D&D into a point buy game", "it has to be restricted", "it has to cost something". I understand there are some valid concerns, that is why I think giving detailed optional rules for DMs who want it or need it is fine, placing them as standard rules though makes it harder for people who don't need them or want them to remove them. When they are labeled as "optional" you know that not having them won't tear the system to shreds, for many here that is easy to see, but not many DM's have that level of foresight or rules mastery, specially newer ones. Let new players taste the effects of unrestricted multiclassing, and let them decide if they want to restrict it or not, then give them solid rules if they chose to do so, not the narrow-minded, full-of-loopholes, roleplay-limiting ones we have right now.

 

[Nellisir]

I'm a big fan of player choice. I never did 3d6 roll in order for stats, I ignored prereqs in 1e and 2e, and I ignored level limits when I wanted. I'm cool with custom builds, and I think of just about every rule in the book as optional. That's probably why I don't care about the prerequisites. They're handy if I want them, and simple to ignore if I don't. I also don't expect them to make it into the final ruleset as written.

The arguments against them are interesting. It's hard to know what to expect if the prerequisites are an optional rule, though. If you're arguing against them on the grounds of player choice, what are you going to do if your DM decides to implement them?

I like the idea of level limits, though. Level limits make much more sense in 3e-style multiclassing than they do in 1e/2e style.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Im all for Multiclass Prerequisits

 

[Mistwell]

Get Str 14 Dex14 Con 12 Int 9 Wis 14 Cha 12, pick human, start as mage or bard, you now qualify for all other eight classes. How is that preventing abuse?

Because you needed to reduce all your stats to the minimum to meet a class requirement, and needed to use a race which the designer already has admitted will be changed to remove those ability boosts in the final version?

I mean come on, you are saying you see no difference between those stats and typical stats, no cost at all in it?

I'm not against providing optional rules for multiclass restrictions, but they must be that, optional.

Must? Or else what?