Multiclassing restrictions, 5e vs 3.X

[Occasional Sage]

In 3.X, imbalanced multiclassing carries an XP penalty. The XP penalty for having base classes at too-different levels is widely dismissed for being metagamey and generally oppressive.

In 5e, multiclassing carries attribute requirements. I have seen many comments about the requirements, but not about houseruling them away.

My questions are, then: are these attribute floors observed in play, and if so why are they perceived differently than 3.X's "balanced advancement" requirement?

[Magic Myrmidon]

I haven't DMd yet, but if I did, I'd just ignore the requirements. The DM I play under ignored them as well.

As for why they're viewed differently, can't be sure. But for one thing, it's not nearly as much of a headache to keep track of.

[Xyk]

I haven't DMd yet, but if I did, I'd just ignore the requirements. The DM I play under ignored them as well.

As for why they're viewed differently, can't be sure. But for one thing, it's not nearly as much of a headache to keep track of.

Yeah, the headache in calculations made me houserule it out in 3.5, because (though I haven't looked in some time) I think it gave XP penalties, and I generally use shared experience, so it would just be a huge hassle. In 5e, it looks like you just get fewer proficiencies and have ability requirements, which seems like something of a reference to 2e, and just sort of adds to verisimilitude for me. It somewhat restricts things like wizard/fighter action surge spells when the wizard has a background of sage, 9 strength, and hasn't done more than wave his arms in 35 years, (i.e. the 5e multiclass rules encourage meshing roleplay and character building and I like that.)

That being said, I only last week started DMing my first 5e game and they're all still level one, so I don't know how it works in practice.

[calebrus]

Just be happy that the requirements aren't as strict as they were in 2e. Back then you needed a 15 in the main stat of your original class, and a 17 in the main stat of the class you wanted to Dual Class into. And when you consider that point buy wasn't a thing, and that 3d6 (*not* 4d6b3) was the standard stat distribution method, and that there were no stat increases at all during leveling, and that this option was only available to humans, these were some pretty darn strict requirements.
And even if you did happen to meet all of these requirements, you couldn't use ANY of the abilities from your original class AT ALL until your level in the new class was higher than your level in the first class. If you did, you earned ZERO XP for that adventure.

Demi-humans had their own thing, which leveled two or three classes from the start, simultaneously, from a specific list available to each different race, and could never change that choice. Kind of like Gestalt from 3e. But the way that it worked, your HP didn't scale nearly fast enough, so it was basically a trap that would make you wind up dead.

In comparison, requiring a 13 or two is basically a joke.

[ChubbyRain]

The restrictions on 5e MC work quite well in some regards but not in others.

If you want to MC two classes that share different primary ability scores it makes you spread yourself thin and many people won't want to do that cause it makes your character suck a bit.

If you MC two classes with similar ability scores then you won't even notice the requirement since you have it already.

3e MC problem is that the system and classes itself was unbalanced, you could get a lot for 2 levels M
and had no reason to go further in some classes cause they plain out sucked. Having no restrictions would work better in 5e where most classes keep up with the game in some way (mostly as strikers) and have class features that are worth investment in the class beyond a level or two. The feat issue would stop to much MCing.


I introduced (via DMG) a new ability score called "Multiclassing". You could multiclass a number of levels equal to your score but only a number of different classes equal to your modifier + 1 (minimum 1).

Fighter has an 8 (-1) as their MC score. This fighter may multiclass into one other class (-1+1 = 0, minimum 1) for a total of 8 levels.

A Paladin has a MC score of 18 (+4), she may multiclass into 5 other classes (4+1 = 5) that add up to 18 levels.

No ability score prerequisites, if you become a MC sorcerer and don't have high Cha, well that is punishment enough. You will be stuck with non-combat spells for he most part.

[rollingForInit]

I don't mind the MC ability score requirement. It makes sense. What makes less sense is the inconsistency, since you can start out as a class with any ability score. 8 Int Wizard? Sure, as long as you take it on level 1 and not as a multiclass. Which is weird. They should either apply ability score requirements for classes, or remove them from multiclassing.

[calebrus]

I don't mind the MC ability score requirement. It makes sense. What makes less sense is the inconsistency, since you can start out as a class with any ability score. 8 Int Wizard? Sure, as long as you take it on level 1 and not as a multiclass. Which is weird.

Not true.
MC requirements need to be fulfilled from both classes, the one that you have now, and the one that you want to enter.


They should either apply ability score requirements for classes,

They do.

If you start as an 8 Int Wizard, good luck, because you will always be an 8 Int Wizard, as you don't have the 13 Int required to MC out of Wiz.

[Giant2005]

Not true.
MC requirements need to be fulfilled from both classes, the one that you have now, and the one that you want to enter.
He wasn't talking about multiclassing. He was highlighting the issue that someone without a class and an Int as low as he likes has the the talent to be a Wizard yet a Rogue (Or something) with an Int as high as 12 isn't smart enough to be a Wizard.
It is a fair point - even single classed characters should probably have to meet the classes multiclass requirements, even if they have no intention of multiclassing.

[burninatortrog]

Explicitly disallowing 12-Int single-classed wizards would probably have been a waste of text.

[Giant2005]

Explicitly disallowing 12-Int single-classed wizards would probably have been a waste of text.

But explicitly disallowing a Barbarian with sub 13 str or a Cleric with sub 13 Wisdom or a Rogue with sub 13 Dex wouldn't be. The wizard is pretty much the only class that doesn't have viable stats to focus on which aren't the usual primary.

[xyianth]

The fluff reasoning for the requirements is that you need to have a modicum of natural aptitude in all of your classes to handle the strain of training in multiple classes. Single classed characters only have to train in one class, and therefore have lower required aptitude to 'keep up.'

I find the requirements helpful as they add a little extra 'cost' to multiclassing. The only complaint I have is with the requirements on rangers and paladins. Both should require str or dex 13 and 13 in their casting stat. This would better reflect the potential types of rangers and paladins that are possible. This is how it works at my table: ranger requires 13 wis and (13 str or 13 dex) while paladin requires 13 cha and (13 str or 13 dex).

[some guy]

I find the requirements helpful as they add a little extra 'cost' to multiclassing. The only complaint I have is with the requirements on rangers and paladins. Both should require str or dex 13 and 13 in their casting stat. This would better reflect the potential types of rangers and paladins that are possible. This is how it works at my table: ranger requires 13 wis and (13 str or 13 dex) while paladin requires 13 cha and (13 str or 13 dex).

I like this and gonna steal it for my house-rules.

[Elderand]

The fluff reasoning for the requirements is that you need to have a modicum of natural aptitude in all of your classes to handle the strain of training in multiple classes. Single classed characters only have to train in one class, and therefore have lower required aptitude to 'keep up.'

I see it more as multiclassing you're starting up a second, entirely different class and need to be naturaly talented enough to pick things up very quickly in it while also being good enough to not loose what you could already do. Super intensive crash course whitout loosing capability in the first class due to lack of practice.

On the other side any idiot can learn to do just one class no matter how poorly suited to it they are simply because they got years of training/apprenticeship behind them.

[Person_Man]

I basically ignored multiclass restrictions in every edition. Its never been much of an issue.

It is worth noting that in 5E, multi-classing is a lot more problematic then it was in 3.X, even if you ignore the ability score requirements. Players that multiclass often (unintentionally) screw themselves, because many multi-class combinations suck. Most builds that rely on weapon damage (as opposed to cantrips) basically need Extra Attack (or 3d6ish Sneak Attack) at 5th level another damage bump around 11th level in order to remain viable, spellcasters can't take more then a few levels of a non-caster class, Pact Magic doesn't mix with anything, mutliclassing denies you access to higher level spells known, and so on.

Many multi-class combinations are viable in 5E, but it requires a high level of game mastery to understand them. So I see no reason to add an extra restriction to it.

[ChubbyRain]

I basically ignored multiclass restrictions in every edition. Its never been much of an issue.

It is worth noting that in 5E, multi-classing is a lot more problematic then it was in 3.X, even if you ignore the ability score requirements. Players that multiclass often (unintentionally) screw themselves, because many multi-class combinations suck. Most builds that rely on weapon damage (as opposed to cantrips) basically need Extra Attack (or 3d6ish Sneak Attack) at 5th level another damage bump around 11th level in order to remain viable, spellcasters can't take more then a few levels of a non-caster class, Pact Magic doesn't mix with anything, mutliclassing denies you access to higher level spells known, and so on.

Many multi-class combinations are viable in 5E, but it requires a high level of game mastery to understand them. So I see no reason to add an extra restriction to it.

Yes and no. You can go the whole game with a 16 or 18 in your main stat and do just fine.

You still will hit AC 19 (quick peak at high range of AC) if you have a 16 strength (+3), you just need to roll a 10 at higher levels and there is always advantage. A spell DC of 17 isn't too shabby either. A lot of classes have features now that are just as good as feats and feats aren't something that is needed or you can't play a concept (most issues with concepts are taken away by the game itself, not by not having feats).

One build I've come to absolutely love is the 8 Cha Half-Orc Valor Bard. Works wonders. I might fluff it to be the Valore Valor Bard and name him Brannigan.

[kaoskonfety]

Amusingly I'm looking at further restricting multi classing and upping the stat requirement for both classes from 13 to 16.
Letting you multiclass the "stat sharing" classes fairly easily but drilling into a different fields ranges from "I have to stat out this way fairly hard on purpose, High elf Rogue/Wizard" to "dear god why/how monk/Warlock Barbarian?"

Multiclassing is not an integral part of the game, while I like the players having options I also want them making choices from the start and role-playing - the players handbook as a shopping list always bugged me.

*** also ditched the EXP penalty thing from 3rd - it was 20% headache, 2% needless restriction, 78% useless at actually stopping someone abusing/using the mutliclass rules. All I saw it "succeed" at doing the one time it was applied was screwing people who were mutli-classing badly (for either Role Play or "bad at math" reasons) even more.

People who were bad at math did not need to be handed extra math and a penalty for being bad at math.

[Myzz]

Amusingly I'm looking at further restricting multi classing and upping the stat requirement for both classes from 13 to 16.
Letting you multiclass the "stat sharing" classes fairly easily but drilling into a different fields ranges from "I have to stat out this way fairly hard on purpose, High elf Rogue/Wizard" to "dear god why/how monk/Warlock Barbarian?"

Multiclassing is not an integral part of the game, while I like the players having options I also want them making choices from the start and role-playing - the players handbook as a shopping list always bugged me.

*** also ditched the EXP penalty thing from 3rd - it was 20% headache, 2% needless restriction, 78% useless at actually stopping someone abusing/using the mutliclass rules. All I saw it "succeed" at doing the one time it was applied was screwing people who were mutli-classing badly (for either Role Play or "bad at math" reasons) even more.

People who were bad at math did not need to be handed extra math and a penalty for being bad at math.

Or... if you want to make it more difficult, just make all the MC in outs to be MAD.

Barbarians require 13 Str and Con
Bards require 13 Cha and Int
Cleric require 13 Wis and Cha
Druid requires 13 Wis and Con
Fighter requires 13 Str and Dex
Monk requires 13 Dex and Wis
Paladin requires 13 Str and Cha
Ranger requires 13 Dex and Wis
Rogue requires 13 Dex and Con?
Sorcerer requires 13 Cha and Int
Warlock requires 13 Cha and Con
Wizard Requires 13 Int and Dex

Otherwise limiting MC by just upping the 1 stat Results in nearly everyone going a Cha class plus 1 other stat, since half the classes use charisma.

Caster Example = Bard/Sorc/Warlock/Cleric/Druid (Cha+Wis)
Melee Example = Barb/Bard/Fighter/Sorc/Warlock/Paladin (Cha+Str)

[FightStyles]

Although I haven't came to it yet, and probably won't with my gaming group of players. I would implement something a little different if they try multiclassing into 3+ classes. In such, the first class is the standard requirement of 13 in the respective abilities. However, at the 3rd class it would require that you are exceptionally great at all the classes and therefore all the requirements go up to 15 (including your current classes). For example, take the following characters (horrible) stats:

Str: 15
Dex 16
Con: 10
Int: 14
Wis: 10
Cha: 12

Starts out wizard, (dumb, I know right?) then multiclasses into a rogue which is fine since INT>13 and Dex>13. However, next class they want to go barbarian, but won't be able to even though his STR>15 for the new requirement. This is because INT now needs to be >15 (his DEX is fine since it's >15).

[Myzz]

Although I haven't came to it yet, and probably won't with my gaming group of players. I would implement something a little different if they try multiclassing into 3+ classes. In such, the first class is the standard requirement of 13 in the respective abilities. However, at the 3rd class it would require that you are exceptionally great at all the classes and therefore all the requirements go up to 15 (including your current classes). For example, take the following characters (horrible) stats:

Str: 15
Dex 16
Con: 10
Int: 14
Wis: 10
Cha: 12

Starts out wizard, (dumb, I know right?) then multiclasses into a rogue which is fine since INT>13 and Dex>13. However, next class they want to go barbarian, but won't be able to even though his STR>15 for the new requirement. This is because INT now needs to be >15 (his DEX is fine since it's >15).

Still doesn't address Bard/Sorcerer/Warlock... just keep pumping Cha
or even Fighter/Paladin/Sorcer/Bard... keep pumping Stra and Cha (which is harder than just Cha for sure)

[OldTrees1]

I cannot see a situation where the 5E restriction is both reasonable and restrictive however the majority of the time it is not restrictive.

There are many cases where it is reasonable (13 Int to become a Wizard) but in those cases it is not restrictive since Wizards already want Int. So the vast majority of the time I will not notice its impact because it will have no impact. The small minority of the time I will notice it will be when it has an impact and that impact seems unreasonable for some reason (no High Str/Low Dex Rog/Barb Thugs?) but those cases I expect to be are rare as most exceptions to reasonable rules.

So while I deleted and forgot about the 3E multiclass xp penalty, I think I will merely make case by case exceptions to the 5E multiclass restriction.

[eastmabl]

I don't mind the MC ability score requirement. It makes sense. What makes less sense is the inconsistency, since you can start out as a class with any ability score. 8 Int Wizard? Sure, as long as you take it on level 1 and not as a multiclass. Which is weird. They should either apply ability score requirements for classes, or remove them from multiclassing.

In theory and in practice, level 1 characters have spent their whole lives working up through commonerhood, eventually becoming a level 1 Character Class. This culmination in a character class typically will take the character until early adulthood to achieve.

With this amount of time, you have plenty of time to learn to do something without necessarily being all that good at it. A wizard can learn how to conjure up cantrips and first level spells without them being particularly potent or effective (see your Int 8 wizard). A fighter can fight with all of the weapons without being especially effective at striking with any of them (see a Str 8 fighter). A thief might be quite knowledgable about how to unlocking doors without being the most quick fingered at the task (Dex 8 rogue with Expertise in Thieves' Tools). With enough time, the Edition recognizes that anyone can do anything.

And from level 0 to level 1, you have oodles of time to justify this. However, in practice, most multiclassing is something that comes up during adventuring - a player goes into a dungeon for a week as a Rogue 3 and comes out the other side as a Rogue 4/Cleric 1. Leveling up tends to be a speedy process which requires you to be better than average bear to justify your sudden ability to cast spells in less than a week's time. Because of this "time crunch" if you will, it seems reasonable that 5e will impose a requirement on multiclassing.

That being said, it is possible that players might not level up as quickly and can take the decade to learn how to cast a cantrip despite their subpar Intelligence score. In these cases, Mearls' doctrine of "Rulings, Not Rules" would apply, and a DM could justify ignoring this multiclass requirement.

Edit: my argument is post-hoc analysis. It could just as easily be a way to avoid the unfun AD&D rule of "you need X scores in these stats to be a Paladin" at the outset while maintaining some control over multiclassing.

[xyianth]

...
Multiclassing is not an integral part of the game, while I like the players having options I also want them making choices from the start and role-playing - the players handbook as a shopping list always bugged me.

How is multiclassing taking away from roleplaying? I have never understood this opinion that increased player options takes away from roleplaying opportunities. Classes aren't characters, personalities, mannerisms, or even necessarily a 'job.' If you are a roleplaying a dual wielding, spell slinging, outdoorsman with a tendency to brood in the background; you could be a ranger, an eldritch knight, a warlock, a paladin, a rogue, or some hodge-podge mix of classes. Your class(es) define what you can do, not who you are.

If you want to limit multiclassing, be honest about why. Don't make arbitrary stat changes that punish MAD multiclassing even more without touching SAD multiclassing at all.


... For example, take the following characters (horrible) stats:

Str: 15
Dex 16
Con: 10
Int: 14
Wis: 10
Cha: 12

How is that horrible stats? Even assuming you somehow got +2 dex and +1 str from your race, that is still an array of 14/14/10/14/10/12. This would cost 29 points using point buy. 5e is not 4e, you do not need max stats to be effective. You will be just fine with a 16 in your main stat throughout the game. Don't impose restrictions on multiclassing that even characters using above average stats have difficulty meeting. It is always better to be up front about your expectations, rather than bury them behind arbitrarily difficult mechanics. The up front way of presenting your rules change: characters are limited to 2 total classes. This has the benefit of limiting SAD multiclassing options as well as MAD multiclassing options.

[rollingForInit]

He wasn't talking about multiclassing. He was highlighting the issue that someone without a class and an Int as low as he likes has the the talent to be a Wizard yet a Rogue (Or something) with an Int as high as 12 isn't smart enough to be a Wizard.
It is a fair point - even single classed characters should probably have to meet the classes multiclass requirements, even if they have no intention of multiclassing.

This, exactly. If MC has ability score requirements, then taking the class at level 1 should have as well. The PHB states the reason for this difference is something like, it's easier with the first class because you're a beginner, whereas multiclassing happens in less time so you have to be extra talented. Which doesn't make sense at all. You can be a 16-year-old level 1 Wizard at the start of a campaign (or even younger), who's been training for a few years (or any amount of time) ... who's to say that multiclassing into Wizard doesn't happen during a 3-year-long downtime?

[Shining Wrath]

This, exactly. If MC has ability score requirements, then taking the class at level 1 should have as well. The PHB states the reason for this difference is something like, it's easier with the first class because you're a beginner, whereas multiclassing happens in less time so you have to be extra talented. Which doesn't make sense at all. You can be a 16-year-old level 1 Wizard at the start of a campaign (or even younger), who's been training for a few years (or any amount of time) ... who's to say that multiclassing into Wizard doesn't happen during a 3-year-long downtime?

I've never seen a game with more than a few weeks downtime (sail voyage around half of Eberron).

If you want to houserule that the multi-classing requirements can be reduced or waived if you have enough down time, that makes sense.

Me, I kind of like multi-class penalties because too many classes just seems anti-fantasy genre to me. I can see the guy who blends two classes because neither really describes a character concept; I can see the guy who started down one path and then a life event sent him down another. Three or four or five classes? I feel like that's breaking immersion. The ones I've seen posted seem contrived, trying to combine Eldritch Blast with Sneak Attack with Smite and so on.

[eastmabl]

who's to say that multiclassing into Wizard doesn't happen during a 3-year-long downtime?

In practice, they absolutely don't. Parties break up once they've been apart for so long.

However, Rulings - Not Rules. If you can justify it to your DM, go for it.

[Xetheral]

In theory and in practice, level 1 characters have spent their whole lives working up through commonerhood, eventually becoming a level 1 Character Class. This culmination in a character class typically will take the character until early adulthood to achieve.

...

However, in practice, most multiclassing is something that comes up during adventuring - a player goes into a dungeon for a week as a Rogue 3 and comes out the other side as a Rogue 4/Cleric 1.

I don't believe this to be a universal description of "theory and practice". It's just as valid to say that the character trained in some sort of fusion discipline but just happens to be required by the system to pick a single class at level 1 to model their character. In this view, characters aren't necessarily more trained in their first class than their second.

For example, consider a character who has a background as a street tough. She could plausibly take fighter OR rogue as her first level, and then the other at second. She's spent just as much time learning to be each class.

Similarly, most multiclassing I see is planned from the start and worked into the backstory, rather than being picked up in play. The system requires the classes to be selected sequentially, but it can still be used to model characters who train multiple classes simultaneously.

[EvanescentHero]

I don't believe this to be a universal description of "theory and practice". It's just as valid to say that the character trained in some sort of fusion discipline but just happens to be required by the system to pick a single class at level 1 to model their character. In this view, characters aren't necessarily more trained in their first class than their second.

For example, consider a character who has a background as a street tough. She could plausibly take fighter OR rogue as her first level, and then the other at second. She's spent just as much time learning to be each class.

Similarly, most multiclassing I see is planned from the start and worked into the backstory, rather than being picked up in play. The system requires the classes to be selected sequentially, but it can still be used to model characters who train multiple classes simultaneously.

And if you're planning to multiclass from day one, chances are you'll have the relevant stats from day one regardless of if you need them, so this is pretty much a non-issue.

[Xetheral]

And if you're planning to multiclass from day one, chances are you'll have the relevant stats from day one regardless of if you need them, so this is pretty much a non-issue.

I was pointing out a limitation I saw in a suggested explanation for why logical consistency doesn't require multiclass stat requirements to apply to singleclass characters.

[rollingForInit]

I've never seen a game with more than a few weeks downtime (sail voyage around half of Eberron).

If you want to houserule that the multi-classing requirements can be reduced or waived if you have enough down time, that makes sense.

Me, I kind of like multi-class penalties because too many classes just seems anti-fantasy genre to me. I can see the guy who blends two classes because neither really describes a character concept; I can see the guy who started down one path and then a life event sent him down another. Three or four or five classes? I feel like that's breaking immersion. The ones I've seen posted seem contrived, trying to combine Eldritch Blast with Sneak Attack with Smite and so on.


In practice, they absolutely don't. Parties break up once they've been apart for so long.

However, Rulings - Not Rules. If you can justify it to your DM, go for it.

I know downtime doesn't last that long usually, but it's certainly suggested that it could, especially at higher levels (DMG 127).

Which is why I think it's silly to have restrictions in one place and not the other. I don't really care which way it is, it's just strange and inconsistent. If you can be a level 1 Wizard with 8 Int, you should be able to be a level 2 fighter/1 Wizard with 8 Int. I get why the restriction exists, mechanically, and I don't really mind that at all. But I think some other type of restriction would've been better in that case. This one just doesn't make sense to me. Even less so for some classes. For instance, why would an 8 Cha character not be able to sell his soul to a devil in exchange for power?

[burninatortrog]

The reason ability score prerequisites apply to multiclassing but not to the core rules is because multiclassing is an optional rule, and the ability score prerequisites would be completely superfluous in a game without multiclassing.