D&D (2024) What happens when a multiclass character loses a prerequisite?

[James Gasik]

This somewhat reminds me of the many debates around reincarnation "oh too bad, your Paladin is a Dwarf now, so you stop being a Paladin".

While supported by the text of the spell, amusingly, non-human Paladins showed up all over the place after awhile- there's a reincarnated pixie Paladin in Castle Greyhawk (but nobody takes that book seriously), and in the novels, we got first Dragonbait, Miltiades (initially a fallen paladin if memory serves), and my personal favorite, Shield of Innocence (let's see, non-human monstrous race, good alignment, non-standard divinely powered class, wears a cloak with a hood and dual wields scimitars, nope nope, completely unique character concept, I swear!).

Granted, Dwarven Champions and Vindicators (Complete Book of Dwarves) are basically Paladin-equivalents, but it really felt (at the time) that TSR was giving out mixed signals.

 

[GMMichael]

Mixtral AI had this to say:

In Dungeons & Dragons, when a character loses a prerequisite for a class they have multiclassed into, they do not lose the abilities they have already gained from that class. However, they cannot gain any more levels in that class until they once again meet the prerequisites.

Which makes me think there will be another debate fallacy soon (if not already): appeal to AI.

 

[cbwjm]

I do remember this, if I remember correctly the person writing was upset because his DM told him he had to revert to fighter.

That rings a bell, I think I'd be annoyed if I had to become a fighter after being a paladin or ranger for a few levels just because I'd lost some stats.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

This somewhat reminds me of the many debates around reincarnation "oh too bad, your Paladin is a Dwarf now, so you stop being a Paladin".

While supported by the text of the spell, amusingly, non-human Paladins showed up all over the place after awhile- there's a reincarnated pixie Paladin in Castle Greyhawk (but nobody takes that book seriously), and in the novels, we got first Dragonbait, Miltiades (initially a fallen paladin if memory serves), and my personal favorite, Shield of Innocence (let's see, non-human monstrous race, good alignment, non-standard divinely powered class, wears a cloak with a hood and dual wields scimitars, nope nope, completely unique character concept, I swear!).

Dragonbait was a special case, as his species was essentially the "humans" of his homeworld. The fact that he could be a paladin was used to drive in that the Saurials were something unique, and not just another kind of demi-human.

Otherwise, one might be forgiven for mistaking Saurials for Lizardmen

 

[James Gasik]

Dragonbait was a special case, as his species was essentially the "humans" of his homeworld. The fact that he could be a paladin was used to drive in that the Saurials were something unique, and not just another kind of demi-human.

Otherwise, one might be forgiven for mistaking Saurials for Lizardmen

I mean, yeah, I know, but it was still a big shift from "only humans can be Paladins" to "well, actually other race/species can be Paladins, just not the ones in the PHB" lol.

And Miltiades is/was human, just undead at the time- like I said, it was less about the actuality of what was going on than how it felt to my younger self.

"If an Orog can be a Paladin, why not a Half-Elf? Or a Halfling?" being the sort of question I started asking myself. And it turns out I wasn't alone, oddball characters started popping up in the D&D games I was playing at the time as well. I then branched out to other games without that sort of "humancentric" focus, and by the time I came back to D&D, with 3e, race/class locking was a thing of the past.*

*Which I viewed as a great thing, but I know that there is some contention about it. One friend of mine claims it makes race/class less "special" when anyone can be a Paladin and you don't need a random 17 somewhere to do it. And that you could no longer have classes that were "just better" than others.

Flash forward to today, and people are still arguing that some classes are better than others, lol.

But I guess I should let this tangent drop, it's not really what the thread is about, lol.

----

Back to multiclass prerequisites, I'm not even sure why they still exist. On the one hand, most people who want to enter another class are probably already going to have good ability scores for that class.

And they don't even make sense in some cases- you don't need a high Intelligence to be a Wizard anymore, for example. A guy I played with in Adventure League had an Orc Eldritch Knight with an Intelligence of 10 (Volo's Orc, with the -2 Int no less). Once he got to level 7, he decided he'd be better served switching to a full caster class- but he couldn't become a Wizard, despite already being able to cast Wizard spells, without a higher Intelligence!

Luckily, someone had a Headband of Intellect they'd picked up in a mod, and a deal was struck, but it still seems like a very odd situation to be in.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

there's no rule that says anything about this. (Especially since 5e does not actually have absolutely-permanent-cannot-be-reversed ability score loss as a mechanic, so you're already inventing new rules if you're doing that.)

This. There is no rule for permanent ability score loss in 5e, therefore there are no rules for how to deal with the consequences. The issue was created with a house rule, ergo it can only be resolved with a house rule.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I'd just let them keep taking levels in that class. But they'd need to regain that point if they wanted to add a 3rd class, due to the minimums also being needed in order to multiclass out of a class.

 

[Fanaelialae]

This. There is no rule for permanent ability score loss in 5e, therefore there are no rules for how to deal with the consequences. The issue was created with a house rule, ergo it can only be resolved with a house rule.

That's inaccurate, at least for 5.14e (not sure about 5.24e, as I haven't done a thorough read through). While rare, there are official mechanics that can permanently reduce your stats. For example, you draw the Idiot from the DoMT, reducing your Intelligence by 1d4+1 permanently.

 

[Horwath]

I would ignore it, same way I ignore prerequisite in the 1st place.
Idea has no sense at all, unless class has as a single class same requirements.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's inaccurate, at least for 5.14e (not sure about 5.24e, as I haven't done a thorough read through). While rare, there are official mechanics that can permanently reduce your stats. For example, you draw the Idiot from the DoMT, reducing your Intelligence by 1d4+1 permanently.

At least based on the sources available to me, there is no such card in the 5.0 Deck of Many Things. There is the Puzzle card of the optional (and nastier, for the bad cards) Deck of Many More Things, but now we're talking about a single rare possibility of an optional variant of an extremely powerful and notorious artifact that will never appear in most games.

99.9% of players will never even see this card. The vast majority of those who do won't be MC'd into a class that requires specifically Int to take (since that's only two classes, Wizard and Artificer). Do you have anything else? Because if this is your only example then I feel pretty confident about my claim, with a single carve out for "if you get really unlucky with a nastier version of the Game-Ruining Deck."