D&D (2024) Subclasses should start at 1st level

[Clint_L]

Why do people think beginning players will struggle with selecting a subclass at 1st level? It's weird to me to think that, since they already do with some classes; or do people not allow a new player to run a cleric, sorcerer, or warlock? New players are fine with 1st level subclasses and you hardly need the 1st 1 or 2 levels to "learn your class". It honestly sounds a little insulting to me.

Because I work with tons of new players, as I explained, and they do. I don't "think" it, I know it. I think it is easy for experienced players to forget how steep the initial learning curve on D&D is. There are new players who don't even know what an RPG is.

 

[Yaarel]

Because I work with tons of new players, as I explained, and they do. I don't "think" it, I know it. I think it is easy for experienced players to forget how steep the initial learning curve on D&D is. There are new players who don't even know what an RPG is.

Is it worthwhile starting newbies at "level 0"?

Now, by using race and background feat, it is feasible to do a level 0 before choosing a class.

Fewer variables can help some players get an easier sense of how a roleplaying game works.

 

[cbwjm]

Because I work with tons of new players, as I explained, and they do. I don't "think" it, I know it. I think it is easy for experienced players to forget how steep the initial learning curve on D&D is. There are new players who don't even know what an RPG is.

And I've had the opposite experience, I've had new players coming in who are starting at level 5 and they had no issue with figuring out subclasses or spells, none of whom had any help from me. They read the class/subclasses and figured it out for themselves. If you have people that have trouble, then that's what starter sets and pregens are for.

An additional note, I don't know if it is just for the playtest, but they seem to be suggesting subclasses and spells so any new player can always take the suggestions if they're having trouble. Combined with starter sets and pregens, I feel like that's more than enough help for new players.

 

[Charlaquin]

And I've had the opposite experience, I've had new players coming in who are starting at level 5 and they had no issue with figuring out subclasses or spells, none of whom had any help from me. They read the class/subclasses and figured it out for themselves. If you have people that have trouble, then that's what starter sets and pregens are for.

Also, like… Every single one of us here was once a new player, who apparently succeeded in learning the game, most likely in a time where the rules and available options were much more complex than they are now. Granted, that complexity has been a barrier to entry for many others, and it makes sense to try to reduce it. But that’s why 1D&D is offering suggested options for those who don’t want to make the decision themselves.

An additional note, I don't know if it is just for the players, but they seem to be suggesting subclasses and spells so any new player can always take the suggestions if they're having trouble. Combined with starter sets and pregens, I feel like that's more than enough help for new players.

Exactly.

 

[CleverNickName]

"Back in my day, you picked a subclass when you got to "Name" level. I bet you don't even remember what a Name level was! That was the level by which your character had made a name for themselves, which meant ninth level for most of us! Ninth! Three times as long as this new-fangled 5th Edition that the kids won't shut up about! It took ages, and by the time you got to that level, literal years had passed since you'd rolled up your character! And you couldn't even remember why you decided to be a Paladin in the first place! And that's the way it was, and we liked it!!"

Seriously though, thanks to the Name Level mechanics of BECM, and the Prestige Class mechanics of 3.5E, it just feels weird to get subclasses so soon in 5E--some of them are available even at 1st level. It feels like--I dunno, like I don't really have anything to look forward to. No major decisions to make, nothing to work toward, no pivotal moments in my character's career, nothing to strive for. It feels like everything gets mapped out at 1st level, and...that's it. The biggest decision I'll end up making after that point is whether or not to get another +2 bonus to Whatever, or some kind of feat. Everything else has already been decided.

I get why people want subclasses at 1st level. Heck, people want as much as possible at 1st level so that they can be done with it, "get it over with." And that's totally fine, I don't want to keep them from doing it. (And it looks like it would be a losing battle anyway, following the trend from BECMI to the present day.) I just hope the devs leave enough flexibility in the game for those of us who still want delayed gratification and major character build decisions past 1st level.

 

[Charlaquin]

"Back in my day, you picked a subclass when you got to "Name" level. I bet you don't even remember what a Name level was! That was the level by which your character had made a name for themselves, which meant ninth level for most of us! Ninth! Three times as long as this new-fangled 5th Edition that the kids won't shut up about! It took ages, and by the time you got to that level, literal years had passed since you'd rolled up your character! And you couldn't even remember why you decided to be a Fighter in the first place! And that's the way it was, and we liked it!!"
View attachment 263342

Seriously though, thanks to the Name Level mechanics of BECM, and the Prestige Class mechanics of 3.5E, it just feels weird to get subclasses so soon in 5E--some of them are available even at 1st level. It feels like--I dunno, like I don't really have anything to look forward to. No major decisions to make, no pivotal moments in my character's career, nothing to strive for. It feels like everything gets mapped out at 1st level, and...that's it. The biggest decision I'll end up making after that point is whether or not to get another +2 bonus to Whatever, or some kind of feat. Everything else has already been decided.

I get why people want subclasses at 1st level. Heck, people want as much as possible at 1st level so that they can "be done with it." And that's understandable, it's totally fine, I don't want to keep them from doing it. (And it looks like it would be a losing battle anyway, following the trend from BECMI to the present day.) I just hope the devs leave enough flexibility in the game for those of us who still want delayed gratification and major character build decisions past 1st level.

Amusingly enough, I actually agree about wanting more build elements to look forward to after 1st level. I just don’t want subclass to be among them. 1st level is where subclass has the greatest potential to deviate from the base class In meaningful ways. Theoretically, a 1st level subclass could grant full casting, whereas a 2nd level subclass can only grant half casting at most, a 3rd level subclass can only grant 1/3 casting, etc. And as others have pointed out, it’s weird for a rogue to retroactively become a wilderness expert when they pick up the Scout subclass at 3rd level and suddenly go from untrained to expert in Nature and Survival. The later a Subclass comes, the weaker its ability to transform the base class, and the longer a player who wants to play the concept represented by the subclass has to wait before they can see that concept realized.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Because I work with tons of new players, as I explained, and they do. I don't "think" it, I know it. I think it is easy for experienced players to forget how steep the initial learning curve on D&D is. There are new players who don't even know what an RPG is.

You and me both. And I absolutely start campaigns involving newbies at level 0 rather than level 1.

And I've had the opposite experience, I've had new players coming in who are starting at level 5 and they had no issue with figuring out subclasses or spells, none of whom had any help from me.

Also, like… Every single one of us here was once a new player, who apparently succeeded in learning the game, most likely in a time where the rules and available options were much more complex than they are now. Granted, that complexity has been a barrier to entry for many others, and it makes sense to try to reduce it. But that’s why 1D&D is offering suggested options for those who don’t want to make the decision themselves.

Two words: Survivor Bias. I'm not saying that neither of these experiences exist (I've seen both of them and am definitely personally at the "can handle much more" end of the spectrum). Just because some people can handle something and almost all of that are part of the group doesn't mean that handling it should be a rite of passage.

As for the Scout, it's an exceptionally poorly written subclass that incentivises you to not take Nature or Survival at level 1. On the other hand an only slightly better written subclass would give you proficiency or expertise, encouraging people to be wilderness-wise from level 1 (because expertise is good) rather than deliberately encouraging them not to. While I'd agree that a Scout is how not to do it the problem is with the specific subclass not the general case.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Is it worthwhile starting newbies at "level 0"?

Now, by using race and background feat, it is feasible to do a level 0 before choosing a class.

Fewer variables can help some players get an easier sense of how a roleplaying game works.

I did it just 3 month ago. Having newbs start at level 0 works fine. I gave them level 2 hp though to not frustrate them too much.
When they finally leveled up to 1st level, I was glad they did not have to chose a subclass immediately. Those that had to chose at level 1 could not make a sensible choice. So I just gave them one that was appropriate for their character.

That said, I think level 0 should officially be a thing and I think level 1 (or better: level 0) feats help making a level 0 character feel as if background mattered.

Seasoned warrior: lightly armored.
Wizard's apprentice or priest: magic initiate. And so on.

Also, I think the default starting level should be 3 and there should be optional rules to start with level 2 or 3 hp.
This way, you can start your career as dual or tripple classed character or a specialist in your class.

I think, subclass at level 2 would be ok, but making a real choice at level 3 when you have played your character a bit and know what they are actually doing in the party (most probably something entirely different feom what you thought at level 1).

 

[Mephista]

Keep in mind that Fighting Styles are now level 1 feats. And you can only get them if you take a Warrior class....

 

[Yaarel]

I did it just 3 month ago. Having newbs start at level 0 works fine. I gave them level 2 hp though to not frustrate them too much.
When they finally leveled up to 1st level, I was glad they did not have to chose a subclass immediately. Those that had to chose at level 1 could not make a sensible choice. So I just gave them one that was appropriate for their character.

That said, I think level 0 should officially be a thing and I think level 1 (or better: level 0) feats help making a level 0 character feel as if background mattered.

Maybe the race can determine the level 0 hit points, typically like Human at 8 hit points (max of 1d8) plus Constitution bonus.

Some races like Dwarf can be a bit tougher.

Then the class training adds on top of this.

Seasoned warrior: lightly armored.
Wizard's apprentice or priest: magic initiate. And so on.

Yeah. It is fine to mix-and-match, like a planned Fighter taking Magic Initiate at level 0. But there are advantages to getting a headstart in the planned class concept.

Also, I think the default starting level should be 3 and there should be optional rules to start with level 2 or 3 hp.
This way, you can start your career as dual or tripple classed character or a specialist in your class.

I think, subclass at level 2 would be ok, but making a real choice at level 3 when you have played your character a bit and know what they are actually doing in the party (most probably something entirely different feom what you thought at level 1).

As long as the subclass and its flavor are listed separately from the base class, I am comfortable with each class recommending a default class at the 1st level.