D&D 5E Should All Subclasses Be Gained at 1st Level?

[aco175]

I voted to just get rid of them. I think lowering them to 1st level will just make the cherry-picking easier to make overbalanced builds. At that point, why even keep them when you could just make a feat or something that serves the same purpose.

I would rather see a better multi-class set of rules that allowed a cool acrobat build where I could take 3 levels of fighter and add 3 levels of thief or wizard to fit my tastes.

I could also see the other classes be a subclass. You take fighter and at level 3 you add rogue or cleric as a subclass. You may only get half casting or partial backstab, but it is like multiclassing and keeps the base class solid so you still can get 15th level abilities and not feel cheated since you are only level 8/7 and not 15.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It doesn't have to be first level, but I think the current design is both the result and cause of a lot of class issues in 5E, and moving them all to the same level would be extremely helpful.

In general it would be good to see faster progression of class features. One of the weaknesses of design of 5E is that it spreads out class features across all 20 levels, despite the designers knowing perfectly well that the vast majority of play in is the L1-10 range, and it's particularly rare for people to play above L15, and nothing about 5E particularly encourages that to change or improve. It's particularly bad design because with 4E it was essentially a solved problem on both fronts - there were both encouragements to play at higher levels, and also more rapid progression of class features in levels 1-10. Both were just outright lost with 5E (4E had other problems at higher levels, but they're separate and unrelated).

 

[DND_Reborn]

In general it would be good to see faster progression of class features.

I'll refer you to my prior thread on this:

D&D 5E - The "Faster Features" Variant (+)

Have you played a PC to level 20, to obtain your capstone feature and rejoice in newly found power and ability, only to have the adventure... end? Have you played many campaigns, making it to level 10 or 12 even, just to find the adventure is suddenly over, and look at those higher lofty levels...

www.enworld.org

I currently have a version for classes to go to level 15 (more or less by just removing ASIs from the class level features and making them overall character level features).

 

[DND_Reborn]

I could also see the other classes be a subclass.

Something like this, which is one of the multiclass options we use:

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I currently have a version for classes to go to level 15 (more or less by just removing ASIs from the class level features and making them overall character level features).

Honestly it's mystifying that they're not pure character level features. I blame Fighters and idiotic design carried over from 3E. They should have made them character level features and just given the Fighter extra ones if they wanted to maintain that 3E nonsense. Or just not done that, and had Fighters with more actual Features.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Honestly it's mystifying that they're not pure character level features. I blame Fighters and idiotic design carried over from 3E.

Pretty much.

The clear distain for giving fighters anything more interesting than bigger numbers is strong.

 

[toucanbuzz]

Went with leave as-is because getting those abilities should give players something exciting to look forward to when leveling. Then again, I'm currently running a slower paced game to extend our roleplay opportunities (e.g. royal politics, families, local mysteries). In a default game, you might get to level 3 in one session.

 

[HammerMan]

I have said before and will again, the warlock chaise is the best 2 subclasses 1 at first and 1 at 3rd is for this argument. (although mini feats like invocations for additional specialization even for people with the same 2 subclass is also a major boon.

 

[briggart]

Honestly it's mystifying that they're not pure character level features. I blame Fighters and idiotic design carried over from 3E. They should have made them character level features and just given the Fighter extra ones if they wanted to maintain that 3E nonsense. Or just not done that, and had Fighters with more actual Features.

Fighters in 3E had bonus feats, not ASI. ASI were every 4th level for each class. Moving ASI from class to character level features is going back to 3e design, so I'm not sure what do you think is carrying over in current 5e implementation?

 

[jmartkdr2]

No, buy more classes should get them at first level than currently do.

Like fighters need some more specificity early because a couple subclasses rely on skills that aren't basic fighter skills - that is, they use magic and it's weird that magic comes out of nowhere. But I also think you could push back the fighting style feature to make room for it - you can just choose to use a greatweapon without the style.

Put another way: if subclasses can change the party role of the character, they need to be available at the start. If they don't really do that (ie paladin) it's okay to leave the final decision until it's mechanically relevant (ie paladins don't need to finalize their oath until they get actual oath features.)