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

[variant]

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.

There's nothing confusing about it. If they don't have the affinity for the rules to know how to choose a class option then they shouldn't be playing anything but the Basic rules where there are no options.

 

[Warbringer]

There's nothing confusing about it. If they don't have the affinity for the rules to know how to choose a class option then they shouldn't be playing anything but the Basic rules where there are no options.

Nothing to do with options.

 

[variant]

Nothing to do with options.

If it isn't options then, you must think some people are complete idiots. If that is truly the case, they probably can't do addition and shouldn't be playing role playing games.

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

While I have no dog in this fight, I will say that unified mechanics (your symmetry here) does have inherent advantages that are much more compelling than the gratuitous "symmetry for the purpose of symmetry":

1 - It aids designers in creating intra-class balance (build/subclass balance) and balance across classes, across the level spectrum.
2 - It aids designers in better understanding (and communicating to the player-base) the component variables of group synergy and force multiplication across the level spectrum.
3 - It aids designers in designing and comparing monsterC power across the level and adventuring tier spectrum.

Together, those encounter inputs create a predictable model for encounter output which, in turn, allows for more focus on the other mechanical moving parts (such as battlefield dynamics and story/color elements) that create exciting challenges at the table.

Beyond that it also:

4 - Facilitates more rewarding, functional hacks and homebrew elements (from new classes, to monsters, to larger scale elements such as Encounter Cards or Mass Battle Rules) by groups/players/GMs...and therefore less wasted time on frustrating, dysfunctional hacking and homebrew game elements.

Tight, clear, math and symmetry is good for its results both in play and in the extra-play tinkering (same as any engineering project).

 

[variant]

While I have no dog in this fight, I will say that unified mechanics (your symmetry here) does have inherent advantages that are much more compelling than the gratuitous "symmetry for the purpose of symmetry":

1 - It aids designers in creating intra-class balance (build/subclass balance) and balance across classes, across the level spectrum.
2 - It aids designers in better understanding (and communicating to the player-base) the component variables of group synergy and force multiplication across the level spectrum.
3 - It aids designers in designing and comparing monsterC power across the level and adventuring tier spectrum.

Together, those encounter inputs create a predictable model for encounter output which, in turn, allows for more focus on the other mechanical moving parts (such as battlefield dynamics and story/color elements) that create exciting challenges at the table.

Beyond that it also:

4 - Facilitates more rewarding, functional hacks and homebrew elements (from new classes, to monsters, to larger scale elements such as Encounter Cards or Mass Battle Rules) by groups/players/GMs...and therefore less wasted time on frustrating, dysfunctional hacking and homebrew game elements.

Tight, clear, math and symmetry is good for its results both in play and in the extra-play tinkering (same as any engineering project).

It leads to pure homogenization of classes which isn't a good thing. Every class also has things outside of their subclass which needs balanced around. Trying to jam a subclass into a set level pattern means you need to balance the classes around their subclass instead of vice-versa. Classes as a whole need balanced, not their subclasses. One class could easily have more powerful subclasses than another, but be balanced as a whole.

 

[FireLance]

It leads to pure homogenization of classes which isn't a good thing.

It leads to more homogenization, which isn't the same as pure homogenization, any more than giving both wizards and clerics up to 9th level spells in 3e (clerics previously only had up to 7th level spells) meant that they were now the same class.

And as far as I'm concerned, this reduction in symmetry is one more reason to stay with 4e. Unfortunately, and it may just be my cynicism and general world-weariness talking, but I don't think WotC can give me what I want (e.g. AEDU subclasses as options) without annoying a good large number of the gamers they are hoping to sell 5e to.

 

[GSHamster]

Having it all happen at the same level is also good for group dynamics. It means that all the players encounter the choice at the same time and can help each other with it.

As a DM, can say to the entire group, "You guys just hit level 3, let's talk about subclasses, and everyone take their time and choose a subclass for the start of the next session."

 

[Li Shenron]

I just want to chime back in to say that I purposefully avoided listing "symmetry per se" as a benefit.

Rather, I mentioned 3 possible benefits, with the caveat that they aren't major benefits, but what I wanted to discuss is if the current asymmetric situation really has benefits itself, because I see some but they aren't major either IMHO.

The (admittedly minor) benefits of having subclasses always start at 3rd level IMHO could be:

- support apprentice tier concept: since at the moment all subclasses represent specialization*, not choosing your subclass while you are still an apprentice enforces the concept of apprentice itself

- equality: all classes treated the same, all require 2 levels of apprentice before going into a specialization

- multiclassing: if you dip into another class 1-2 levels only, you would be a more generic member of that class, and you'd get into some specialization only if you take 3+ levels, once again this connects to the concept of apprentice tier also when taking up a secondary class

*Note the following important shift about Clerics in the last packet: until the previous packet, a Cleric's subclass was defined by her deity, and clearly a D&D Cleric is always a "Cleric of deity X" since the start. It makes little sense (except in a very non-standard setting!) for a Cleric not to have a deity until a certain level. But now, the subclass is your choice of domain. It's very different... you still choose your deity at level 1st, but each deity typically has more domain, so choosing your domain is indeed a specialization, it is what differentiate you from other clerics of the same deity. Maybe you choose Justice domain because you join the inquisitor path, while your collegue (same deity) chooses the Protection domain because she will take the parish path.

Instead, the situation about Paladin is not fully compatible with subclass being a specialization, and it is therefore an exception. This is because the Oath is still alignment-based (presumably at least, since now we only have visibility to one Oath only) so it makes little sense that you choose between being a Paladin or a Blackguard only at 3rd level... I don't know what to say here, except that the Paladin still looks unresolved to me, since I don't know yet for sure if it will only have "good oaths" or also others, tho I presume the latter.

 

[steeldragons]

Rather, I mentioned 3 possible benefits, with the caveat that they aren't major benefits, but what I wanted to discuss is if the current asymmetric situation really has benefits itself, because I see some but they aren't major either IMHO.

The (admittedly minor) benefits of having subclasses always start at 3rd level IMHO could be:

- support apprentice tier concept: since at the moment all subclasses represent specialization*, not choosing your subclass while you are still an apprentice enforces the concept of apprentice itself

- equality: all classes treated the same, all require 2 levels of apprentice before going into a specialization

- multiclassing: if you dip into another class 1-2 levels only, you would be a more generic member of that class, and you'd get into some specialization only if you take 3+ levels, once again this connects to the concept of apprentice tier also when taking up a secondary class

I just want to pipe in here and mention that I don't believe these to be "minor" benefits. What you list here are major benefits to the structure of starting subclasses/specializations at 3rd level. The fleshing out and making real mechanical in-game and meta-game of their purported "apprentice" levels/tier.

These are GREAT benefits and make "common sense", mechanical sense, give/offer roleplaying potential, plot points/twists, all kinds of character development stuff as well as, for the meta-gamer and balance-happy crowd, an overarching "rule" that specializations aren't available until 3rd and, while I disagree with opinions this is homogenizing/symmetry of all classes to be the same, there is a symmetry and "balance"...an innate fairness, that the game does well to incorporate...and often overlooks or ignores in lieu of the hopeless quest for ultimate "balance."

The cleric (and/or paladin for that matter) situations work well as, noted above, a Cleric PC is immediately (1st level) a "Cleric of Whocares". Making the specialization a domain of that deity makes, again, complete sense as it balances/puts en par with the specializing of other classes. A deepening of their understanding and access to the mysteries of their religion/spirituality. Totally works.

For the Paladin, this works perfectly well with, either, permitting them domain specialization in line with their belief system or selecting an Oath at 3rd level. I have absolutely NO immersion, suspension of disbelief, balance or mechanical problems with having a 1st and 2nd level paladin being the squire-in-training or acolyte or initiate but has yet to take on his/her formal vows/oath. (Not to mention the story/background/lore of a "Blackguard" is more about being someone who breaks/abandons/doesn't live up to the vows you took, not taking a specifically "vow to be evil." Though in a game like D&D the latter is certainly possible.)

There's no reason [that I can see] a mage or ranger should need...or be allowed in RAW...to specialize at 2nd level. "Cuz it's a 'dead' level" is a nonsense reason for anything, at all times. You can play the game without "getting somethign" every level...you're working towards what you "get" next and mastering what you already "got." the concept of "dead levels=bad" needs to be burned from the gaming consciousness in a divine )or natural or arcane, I don't really care which) fire. The mage and ranger can wait til 3rd to get a subclass, the same as everyone else.

It's not about "balance", but about a sense of "fairness."

 

[Warbringer]

If it isn't options then, you must think some people are complete idiots. If that is truly the case, they probably can't do addition and shouldn't be playing role playing games.

In a country where microwave ovens come with a warning about attempting to dry pets in them, I've give up reasonable expectations.

But getting news younger players and DMs into the game is critical, get them to play 4 or 5 times with the new game is paramount. To me, variations in when classes get "something" is bad game design, its a (minor) complication that just doesn't need to be there.

After the first 3 levels, hell yeah, build up the complexity so it refects the "role playing" environment, but get them there first.