D&D 5E Subclasses/choice points at 3rd level

[Li Shenron]

In the current playtest packets, every class gets the subclass/choice point at 3rd level, except IIRC Ranger & Mage (at 2nd) and Cleric (at 1st).

Would you like to see them all synced at 3rd level, or do you prefer them to be scattered?

I think that currently the only reason why it was anticipated for Ranger and Mage is to "cover" an otherwise "dead level" (while they both get a new spell level at 3rd), but it should be easy to fix by adding one small additional feature at level 2, or move it up from level 1.

OTOH for Clerics I guess that the reason for Domain to be granted at 1st is manyfold. One reason could be that while there is no problem for a Mage to specialize in an arcane tradition later (and actually it might make more sense, since it's a specialization), a Cleric is otherwise defined by her faith since the start, she can't really wait until 3rd level to pick her religion! However, in this packet the Cleric's choice point was also changed from deity to domain, and it is suggested that deities normally have multiple domains each, so it now really works more like a specialty... A Cleric of Lathander is a Cleric of Lathander since 1st level, even tho she might choose to specialize in the Light domain or another aspect of her deity only at a later level. I see no problem with this...

Another reason could be because of the bonus proficiencies, but again the base Cleric is self-sufficient with light/medium armors and simple weapons for a couple of levels. It doesn't matter that much if a Cleric of Thor can't wield a Warhammer until 3rd level, because she's not actually able to get additional abilities in using a specific weapon style, which require feats (but for the specific case of one deity's favored weapon, proficiency might also be handwaved at 1st level).

I don't see much problem either with domain spells. At 1st level, she'd get normal 1st-level clerical spells. At 3rd level, she may get some additional 1st level spells from domain and always has them prepared. Not strictly necessary to get all these at 1st level for the mechanic to work.

Overall, I think these subclasses/choice points could all be uniformed to 3rd level. Not much benefit really, but at least it feels more equal, more in line with the concept of "apprentice tier", and also feels slightly better IMHO for multiclassing. Or not?

 

[Pseudopsyche]

I just rolled up a cleric of Vandria for D&D Encounters, and it would have felt weird not to choose my domain upfront. Why shouldn't my cleric of a war god not be able to use his great sword from day one?

It remains to be seen whether domains at level 1 present a balance issue with multi-classing, but I don't think symmetry is a good enough reason to delay this choice until level 3.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

They don't need to be the same point; they need to be at the point that makes sense for the class. I'm ok with spreading class abilities out over a couple of levels to eliminate dead levels and allow choices. The order of choices, though, should ensure the class feels like its archetype from the start. If there's a defining class feature of the class -- spellcasting for wizards, say -- you shouldn't have to wait three class levels to start developing that class feature. At the same time, we don't want everything at level 1 to avoid single level class dips. I can see that it's a tough thing to balance. (Though for multi-classing, perhaps an approach is that you only ever get to take the first class level of *one* class, or if you take a class level of another class, you get that level. So if I'm a fighter 2 and I take wizard at third level, I get the features of Wiz 3, not Wiz 1.)

Domain choice for clerics makes sense to me at level 1, though certainly the abilities associated with that domain choice could be spread out over a couple of levels. What I want to avoid is the feel of (L1) generic cleric, (L2) generic cleric, (L3) *bang*, Sun cleric!

 

[Warbringer]

Given that this is the "beginner" series, 1-3 level, they should be at be same point, simply for consistency and ease. Any confusion for new players ad DMs has the opportunity to bring playing he game to a halt as players look up rules... Don't do it.

 

[Li Shenron]

I just rolled up a cleric of Vandria for D&D Encounters, and it would have felt weird not to choose my domain upfront. Why shouldn't my cleric of a war god not be able to use his great sword from day one?

For the same reason why an illusionist wizard, a dragonslaying ranger, a fighter-knight, a rogue-thief etc. should or should not.

The question is: why do only some of them get it immediately while the other have to wait?

They don't need to be the same point; they need to be at the point that makes sense for the class.

Only it just makes more or less the same sense at 1st or at 3rd or at another level, depending how you (want to) see it.

 

[Pickles JG]

Why shouldn't my cleric of a war god not be able to use his great sword from day one?

Because you are a novice in the order being trained in the important parts of piety before being allowed to hit people with your sword.

OTOH it's the same as low level wizards wanting to use spells to defeat their enemies for the War Cleric to use his big sword from day one.

But really I would prefer they were aligned for symmetry & I am sure they can be balanced either way but I am not invested in it enough to care really one way or the other.

 

[Warbringer]

They don't need to be the same point; they need to be at the point that makes sense for the class.

I disagree. At this tier they need to be a simple and clear as possible for new players and DMs to encourage them to keep on playing to next level.

Little differences that make sense to us as mature players can be confusing and indecipherable to newbies.

 

[the Jester]

I think symmetry for the purpose of symmetry is a worse design goal than having each class make sense on its own.

Nor do I think choosing a domain or what have you is too complex for the average newb. These are the same types of people who picked up Magic: the Gathering and had to figure out banding.

 

[Warbringer]

I think symmetry for the purpose of symmetry is a worse design goal than having each class make sense on its own.

Nor do I think choosing a domain or what have you is too complex for the average newb. These are the same types of people who picked up Magic: the Gathering and had to figure out banding.

I'm not sure that this is the same target audience as MtG, especially listening to branding podcast. I don't subscribe to the "if your too dumb to work it out, tough" mentality, and think we should be doing everything possible to make the game inclusive.

If that means a few levels of symmetry for levels my players wont play, or level through in less than a gaming session, works for me.

Personally, I'd love to see these early levels intuitive enough for a 6-8 year old to play; Get em early

 

[1of3]

I'd move them to three. Clerics get their defining feature, Channel Divinity, at level 3. And the OP's reasoning about dieties vs. domains makes sense to me.