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

[jmartkdr2]

It's funny how people both want all their goodies at level 1 and still want significant progression and choice at all levels after...

I'd say it's more like:

People want to play the character they envision as soon as possible. If I'm in an edgy mood and want to play a scythe-wielding dark warrior, I don't want to wait 5 levels (a few months IRL) to do that. I want to have a scythe from the get-go.

But that's not the same as wanting everything from level one. I'm okay with spells taking a while, with maneuvers and magical weapon boons and other, non-defining stuff happening when we get to it. In fact, in an ideal world I want that stuff to come form in-game events rather than class levels to prevent dissonance.

Long story short: this is why gishes need their own class. So they can start gishing right away, and get the rest of their magic and weapon-skills later.

 

[jmartkdr2]

3 classes.

full caster
half-caster
non-caster

Serious question: at that point, why not just let people pick "more magic" or "more not-magoc" each level and not use classes at all?

I think most experienced players could manage than and take advantage of the flexibility, and those classes don't do anything for the game - nothing's easier or clearer or better defined or more balanced

 

[Delazar]

I would like them all at level 3.

I would also like all subclasses to give features at the same levels, so that you can apply a subclass to any class.

 

[Arilyn]

It's funny how people both want all their goodies at level 1 and still want significant progression and choice at all levels after...

Some classes already get their subclass at 1st level. These classes aren't getting all their goodies right away. Personally, I'd like there to be a few more "slots" for subclasses as well. Right now it can take a while to really feel like you are that particular flavour of your class.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Some classes already get their subclass at 1st level. These classes aren't getting all their goodies right away. Personally, I'd like there to be a few more "slots" for subclasses as well. Right now it can take a while to really feel like you are that particular flavour of your class.

Yeah, this reminds me how I would like to see subclass features maybe at 3, 5, 7, and 9 (maybe 11), but then return to the concept of prestige classes, allowing you to branch out in a different direction or go further.

For example, you might have a Rogue (Mastermind) (Crime Lord) where Mastermind is your subclass at level 3 and in tier 3 you can pick up Crime Lord as a prestige class. Or maybe instead of Crime Lord you go with Master Spy, or something else?

I think neglecting prestige classes was a big let down in 5E.

 

[billd91]

I'm perfectly fine the way they are. But if there were a change, I'd put them all at level 3.

 

[HammerMan]

Yeah, this reminds me how I would like to see subclass features maybe at 3, 5, 7, and 9 (maybe 11), but then return to the concept of prestige classes, allowing you to branch out in a different direction or go further.

For example, you might have a Rogue (Mastermind) (Crime Lord) where Mastermind is your subclass at level 3 and in tier 3 you can pick up Crime Lord as a prestige class. Or maybe instead of Crime Lord you go with Master Spy, or something else?

I think neglecting prestige classes was a big let down in 5E.

this is a great example...

in 4e we had paragon paths at level 11 and epic destinies at level 21. Imagine if every class got a 'subclass' at level 1 somewhere between 3rd and 5th you got a heroic theme, at 11th you got a paragon path and at 16th you got an epic destiny... and where subclass are all class spesfic, heroic theme, and paragon path can go to multi classes and epic destiny was 100% useable by anyone.

 

[DND_Reborn]

this is a great example...

I never played much 3E, but played a lot of d20 SW and loved the prestige class concept in that, so anything along those lines I think would be good. It gives characters more paths to follow instead of feeling stuck in the same gear all the time.

 

[HammerMan]

I never played much 3E, but played a lot of d20 SW and loved the prestige class concept in that, so anything along those lines I think would be good. It gives characters more paths to follow instead of feeling stuck in the same gear all the time.

if i remember right (I might not be) the d20SW also alternated with feat and talent so every level you had a choice... (maybe that was SW saga?)

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't care either way. Because quite frankly, if I have an idea for a character it comes out of its narrative and story, and not its game mechanic. If I want to play a Drunken Master Monk... I can play that Drunken Master Monk at 1st level even if I don't get Drunken Master-specific game mechanics until 3rd level. And this is true across the board.

Because guess what? Here's a little secret... most game mechanics do not IN ANY WAY actually represent the narrative they are supposed to symbolize. You can look at most of the game mechanics given through subclasses and come up with countless different narratives for what those mechanics represent.

I mean look at the Drunken Master. At 3rd level you get four mechanics:

1) Performance skill
2) Brewer's Supplies
3) Take Disengage action as part of another action
4) Gain 10 feet of movement

When you look at these four mechanics, devoid of any indication of what class and subclass they go to... no one would look at these and say "Oh, well, of course these represent a Monk and a Drunken Master one at that! That's the only possible thing they could be for!" No... in fact I'd be willing to bet that seeing the Brewer's Supplies tool proficiency would probably make most people think this was some sort of Dwarven subclass before anything else. Probably like a Dwarven Skald to take into account the Performance skill and being able to move away from being attacked. That's just as viable and quite frankly even probably more likely a guess than a "Drunken Master", because those Jackie Chan films are not nearly as ubiquitous as the stereotypes surrounding dwarves are.

Let's take another one. If we didn't already know, what would we guess these four mechanics represent for a Class and Sub-class when all the flavor is removed?

1) +1d8 damage on an attack if the target is below its hit point maximum
2) +4 AC against a creature that has hit you for one turn
3) use one action to attack each creature adjacent to you
4) use a reaction to halve the damage of an attack against you

Now what do these represent? Probably a good amount of us might know this is one of the paths of the Hunter Ranger... but there is nothing in those four abilities that tell us the Ranger is the only weapon-using class that could possibly have those abilities. After all, they are really all just generic combat bonuses. Any class could have them. We could easily come up with fluff and narrative as to why a Fighter would have those sub-class features. Or a Rogue. Or a Barbarian, or a Paladin, or a Monk etc.

And this is exactly why I don't need any sub-class game mechanics to come in at 1st level across the board... because the mechanic we'd get is never so specialized that it's ONLY possible representation is the sub-class that is giving it. So the mechanic is actually not giving us what we want. What we WANT is the story that the mechanics represent. But we can get that faster, better, and easier by how we play the character. And that does more to symbolize my sub-class than any mechanic. I will play a drunken master long before any game mechanic need come in to "assist" in my portrayal. I will play a hunter long before any game mechanic need come in. My Oath of Vengeance will be blatantly obvious by how I play my PC, and I don't need "Target is Frightened" and "Gain Advantage on attack rolls against target for 1 minute" to do it.

Are the additional mechanics nice? Sure! New mechanics to use are always fun. But they don't supercede how I visualize how my character acts. I can have my character act however I want with or without them, so my "sub-class" will be evident from the very beginning of my PC's career.