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

[MNblockhead]

Multiclassing ability score prerequisites—required for balance or an unnecessary hurdle?

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:

Recently found out about a 5e rule that bugs me. There is no requirement to take a class but there is a requirement to multiclass both FROM and to a class (eg 19 levels of any class with any attributes is legal but if you want to multiclass 1 level of something else, suddenly you have to meet attribute requirements for the class you already have 19 levels in). It bugs me that the requirement is retroactive (it should be either there is a requirement or there is not for the first class). However, after further thought, I think I could live with it if Paladin was "(Strength or Dexterity) and Charisma" - I had a Dex Paladin (that I had to rebuild because I multi-classed) and I've seen other Dex Paladins - it is a perfectly viable build except that it is illegal to multiclass. Thoughts?

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?

 

[guachi]

I think they are the kind of rule that's easier to include and then ignore than not have in the first place.

Overall, I'm ok with the rule. In fact, I as DM go further and require some kind of in game justification before allowing a multi class.

This isn't generally a problem. It's an encouragement for the player to use his imagination and engage with the world instead of solely engage with the rules.

 

[nswanson27]

I think it's to stop some super-cheese, but honestly it kinda begs the question of why they don't just make 13 a requirement for the primary stat(s) for all classes, whether players multiclass or not.

 

[James Gasik]

I dont really see a problem with ignoring the stat requirements for multuclassing. Its a throwback to things like human dual class requirements that only exists to "balance" multiclassing as if it was this potent option by default. Some may argue that some combinations are powerful, but others are not, making a general rule to balance them as opposed to a more specific rule somewhat suspect in the first place.

 

[Greg Benage]

Won't someone think of the poor Dex sorcadins?

 

[Blue]

I'm rather for it. When drawing, you need to understand the rules to break them effectively. Multiclassing is the same way - you need to have facility in both what you are doing and in what you are picking up in order to do both at the same time.

On a balance side they help prevent some cheesy abuses or cherry-picking. "Hey, I'm going to pick up two levels of paladin so I can smite with all of my bard levels" or what have you.

I don't feel it's onerous to be at least somewhat talented to combine two separate disciplines and use them together effectively.

 

[Tony Vargas]

On a balance side they help prevent some cheesy abuses or cherry-picking. "Hey, I'm going to pick up two levels of paladin so I can smite with all of my bard levels" or what have you.

It doesn't really prevent them, just puts a price-tag on them. If you don't have a use for the minimum you have to meet.

It's a more nearly-meaningful limitation in point-buy or array than with random generation, just like in the olden days. Far from high requirements limiting or balancing a class, such classes just became a further reward for rolling high.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I have seen some multiclasses not happenkng because of those requirements... and usually that was ok or even good as indeed it would have been cherry picking.

 

[Phazonfish]

I rather like this limit. I think some of these requirements need to be tweaked a bit though. It's really easy to multiclass into fighter (because who doesn't put a few extra points in Dex?) despite it offering action surge (and proficiency in Con saves and heavy armor if you start in it). Warlock (pact of the blade) and Paladin are both Cha and Str centric, so despite clashing (only ever so slightly though, I don't see this as a problem, but that doesn't mean your DM won't) fluff-wise and having a powerful synergy, taking levels in both is easy; I mean, I don't play a lot of gishes, so for all I know all bladelocks run off Dex instead of Str, but personally I think Curse Bringer looks really appealing.

Another great thing about these limits is that their minimum is an odd number in a stat, so either you have to either allocate your ability scores as if the minimum were one point higher or deal with the fact that you paid for a bump to a score that doesn't increase it's modifier.

 

[Shiroiken]

The rule has a mechanical balancing purpose, as it prevents multiple level 1 dips in classes (which are generally optimal). You have to meet the requirements for the original class, otherwise you'd start with the one you don't meet the requirements for, avoiding it altogether. An argument could be made for putting the requirement on all classes, but this would have been seen as too restrictive in the relaxed 5E environment. Removing the requirement won't hurt for the average player, but power-gamers and min-maxers could easily abuse it.

In world the explanation is that you can excel at a single class, regardless of natural ability, because of training, To split your focus with another class, however, requires greater natural ability in not only the new class, but your original one as well.