D&D 5E Using Subclasses at Level 1?

[DND_Reborn]

As an aside for multclassing since it seems to be a concern for many, I am not doing multiclassing RAW. You might have seen my other thread on it. I have an option for multiclassing there.

Anyway, another idea for multiclass is going old-school. You get both (or all three) classes at once, but you never get a subclass for any of them--all you get is base class features.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Because not all groups follow the level rate suggested by WotC that the first couple levels should only take a session or two. Also, I don't want players beginning with over twice the hp they would otherwise have.

I would be more inclined to simple roll up levels 1-3 (sans HP) into a "level 1" I suppose, but then that would make multiclassing (which I am not going to "just don't use it") an issue.

Then you are better off just not thinking of characters as "generic" types up until they get their first subclass feature. It'd be a lot easier to just rename the 1st level features to be in theme with the subclass. So a character isn't a Wolf Totem barbarian only when they gain their first Wolf Totem feature at 3rd level... instead they are a Wolf Totem barbarian from the very beginning whose first features are "Wolfen Rage" and "Hardened Wolf Pelt". And your Paladin of Vengeance gains "Inquisitor's Sense" and "Allied Restitution" at 1st level.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Then you are better off just not thinking of characters as "generic" types up until they get their first subclass feature. It'd be a lot easier to just rename the 1st level features to be in theme with the subclass. So a character isn't a Wolf Totem barbarian only when they gain their first Wolf Totem feature at 3rd level... instead they are a Wolf Totem barbarian from the very beginning whose first features are "Wolfen Rage" and "Hardened Wolf Pelt". And your Paladin of Vengeance gains "Inquisitor's Sense" and "Allied Restitution" at 1st level.

This isn't about flavor or anything like that, so re-skinning the features isn't the issue. Also, I don't think of characters as generic anyway, especially my own.

And before you ask, in case you or someone else is going to, I am not "trying to solve a problem." A lot of people think threads often about addressing a problem and many are. I don't have any issue with the RAW, I am just considering bumping subclasses to level 1 because it makes more sense to me. I see most subclass features as less powerful than those otherwise granted at level 1 and 2.

 

[GlassJaw]

I like it, for many of the reasons you cited. Not sure I would do it on a whim though. I don't think it would have too many balance implications per se (5E is good like that) but it would result in some cascading issues (dead levels, larger separation between subclass abilities, mutliclassing concerns, etc).

 

[DND_Reborn]

I like it, for many of the reasons you cited. Not sure I would do it on a whim though. I don't think it would have too many balance implications per se (5E is good like that) but it would result in some cascading issues (dead levels, larger separation between subclass abilities, mutliclassing concerns, etc).

The more I think about it the more I am inclined to do it. With a little shifting around, I can probably even avoid the dead levels.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If you're not going to use multiclassing, there'll likely be minimal issues.

If you are, you can limit the benefits of the subclass, at 1st to some sort of ribbon, or simply use the standard progression only for MCing into the class.

(I know its not what youre after, but, Just staring at 3rd is also a fine idea, in general, especially to create the best possible impression on new/returning players. You can have classic MC combos at 3rd, characters feel more competent, and encounters are more manageable than at 1st.)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This seems to me to violate the "if it aint broke" rule.

 

[DND_Reborn]

This seems to me to violate the "if it aint broke rule".

If that was true, no one would EVER house-rule a thing. 5E plays perfectly well strictly RAW.

 

[GlassJaw]

The more I think about it the more I am inclined to do it. With a little shifting around, I can probably even avoid the dead levels.

Go for it. I'm curious to hear how it goes. For a home game, it's easy enough to monitor and address any balance issues. A published product would require something more regimented of course.

 

[Salthorae]

I dislike that subclasses come so "late" for some classes as well, but It's never bothered me enough to try something like this. It'd probably be fine shrug, especially if multiclassing variant option isn't allowed, or if allowed it was limited to "no more than one" or something so you limit the # of dips.

It seems a little odd that the backstories are they are brand new lvl 1 beginning their adventuring careers... and already have access to advanced techniques and knowledge.

I'm having this debate in another thread right now. They may be beginning their adventuring careers at level 1, but they could not adventure and live their lives as skilled professionals per the PHB/DMG/XGE rules for "Working".

That + Backgrounds tells me that Level 1 PC's in 5e aren't supposed to be fresh to the world/naive PC's a la the Hero's Journey.

They are fresh to the world of Adventure, but not to their chosen profession (class) or how they grew up (background). In those things, they are already proficient enough to actually earn a living doing them.

EDIT: sure, you could play them as young fresh-faced people, but then I'd limit the background options in some way for skills/tools/etc. Dunno. There is a cognitive dissonance for me between the fact that level 1 PCs in 5e are able to make a living with their skills/abilities at a Comfortable lifestyle level and the classic "hero's journey" from fresh faced farm person (Star Wars, Wheel of Time, etc. etc, etc.), so I err on the rules side and assume older people as PC's.