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

[Clint_L]

I ran a D&D Camp for mostly neuro-divergent kids over the summer. I started my Grade 9/10 beginner campaign for the term last week, and start the Grade 11/12 one today. I've been doing it for years. I know whereof I speak on this issue.

Obviously there are some kids who could step into a complex character or a Level 5 character right away. These are a minority, and typically have had some exposure before (have friends/family members who play D&D, own the PHB or Starter Set but never got a chance to play, etc.). But a lot of others have to have hit points and dice rolls explained, let alone the nuances of spell selection and sorcery points. So the first session, which I am about to run today, with 8 players, is about just getting the basics down. Encouraging a tiny bit of role-playing. Helping them learn that first you roll to hit and then you roll damage but only if you hit. This is what a "saving throw" means, and where to find it on your character sheet. And so on.

You gotta roll back all your accumulated knowledge of D&D and gaming in general and meet new players where they are at, acknowledging that there is a vast amount of information coming at them. And most players pick it up quickly! By the end of one two hour session, they generally have the basics down, and are excited to get to level up. Then I give them a couple sessions at level 2 so they can explore a few of the nuances of play now that they have a few more abilities, and by level 3 they are mostly ready to really fly with their characters. Encounters, traps, puzzles, NPC interactions get more complicated. And they have enough of a sense of their class to make their own sub-class choice without me telling them what to do.

It's really important that OneD&D remain accessible to brand new players. I really don't understand the problem with keeping Level 1 simple. I love playing a level 1 character, but if I didn't it would be easy enough to start a campaign at level 3 or whatever. I'm sure we've all done it.

 

[payn]

I think there is a major difference between D&D being easy to explain and learn and having subclasses at level one. This sounds like cramming a preference into an argument about something unrelated. Also, it's totally anecdotal.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think there is a major difference between D&D being easy to explain and learn and having subclasses at level one. This sounds like cramming a preference into an argument about something unrelated. Also, it's totally anecdotal.

Just about all evidence in every thread is anecdotal. The only hard data (DnDB) is dismissed as unrepresentative (by those whose opinions are not supported by it).

That said, while I believe that subclasses at level 1 would further complicate things, based on my anecdotal evidence, it pales in comparison to the spellcasting system. That is by far the biggest barrier to entry, and is used by too many classes.

 

[payn]

Just about all evidence in every thread is anecdotal. The only hard data (DnDB) is dismissed as unrepresentative (by those whose opinions are not supported by it).

That said, while I believe that subclasses at level 1 would further complicate things, based on my anecdotal evidence, it pales in comparison to the spellcasting system. That is by far the biggest barrier to entry, and is used by too many classes.

Exactly my point. There are piles of complicated items in D&D, its a complex game. Instead of saying things shouldn't be done in the name of ease of learning, you should do them in a way that is easy to understand and teach.

 

[Clint_L]

I think there is a major difference between D&D being easy to explain and learn and having subclasses at level one. This sounds like cramming a preference into an argument about something unrelated. Also, it's totally anecdotal.

Yes, of course it's anecdotal. I haven't done a blinded, peer-reviewed study. But as noted, I have a LOT of experience at it, so I think my anecdotal knowledge is pretty relevant here. Have you just run a camp for 20 new players, many on the spectrum, a number of whom were enrolled by their parents and didn't even know what D&D is? I did.

And it is not unrelated at all. The discussion is about adding subclasses at level 1, which would add significant complexity to the first game for new players. That's the whole point of the sub-classes: you have the basic class and then you get to specialize by adding complexity. Thus, one way to help D&D be easy to explain and learn is to hold off on adding that complexity until players have a little experience under their belts.

It's a moot discussion anyway, though, so probably not worth much more effort. They aren't going to make fundamental changes such as adding sub-classes at level 1. That's not what OneD&D is. But Pathfinder is a thing, for those who feel like they really need more complex character generation right out of the gate. It's a good game, too.

 

[Yaarel]

Yes, of course it's anecdotal. I haven't done a blinded, peer-reviewed study. But as noted, I have a LOT of experience at it, so I think my anecdotal knowledge is pretty relevant here. Have you just run a camp for 20 new players, many on the spectrum, a number of whom were enrolled by their parents and didn't even know what D&D is? I did.

And it is not unrelated at all. The discussion is about adding subclasses at level 1, which would add significant complexity to the first game for new players. That's the whole point of the sub-classes: you have the basic class and then you get to specialize by adding complexity. Thus, one way to help D&D be easy to explain and learn is to hold off on adding that complexity until players have a little experience under their belts.

Suppose choosing a subclass at level 1 is a NECESSARY for various class and character concepts.

How would you go about doing it?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Suppose choosing a subclass at level 1 is a NECESSARY for various class and character concepts.

How would you go about doing it?

I’d like to see a demonstration of “necessary” as opposed to somebody’s preference.

 

[Xamnam]

Suppose choosing a subclass at level 1 is a NECESSARY for various class and character concepts.

How would you go about doing it?

Find a way to concisely, but clearly, make the flavor and concept of each abundantly clear, and more importantly, add as few additional mechanics as absolutely possible over classes that don't require that.

 

[Yaarel]

I’d like to see a demonstration of “necessary” as opposed to somebody’s preference.

I gave a number examples for each class earlier in the thread.

But for example, a Warlock requires a pact at level 1. And so on.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I just want D&D to decide whether I'm supposed to play the whole game or not. This fake zero level thing means 10% of the game is worthless to me.