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

[HammerMan]

Heh... you think this is 5E specific? Uh... nope! Not at all! ALL editions of the game had most of their mechanics be completely generic and only became what we think of them to be BECAUSE we layered fluff on top of them.

"What's that? When playing 3E I get +10d6 additional damage if I'm on the opposite side of a monster than my friend? By gods! That CAN ONLY MEAN that I've found a secret, sneaky location on the creature's body and stabbed it RIGHT THERE! THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WHY I DID SO MANY EXTRA d6s IN DAMAGE! IT HAD TO BE A "SNEAK ATTACK" from FLANKING!"

"But what if we say you are just really skilled and do that damage by just getting around the monster's guard? Couldn't you do that extra damage that way?"

"NO! NO WAY! SNEAK ATTACK! ONLY SNEAK ATTACK!!! HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THE MECHANIC COULD BE SOMETHING ELSE!!!"

back in 3e (and even through today) one of the things I have found so funny is the combat mastery of being a thief (yes we changed name to rogue)

back in 2e most fighters had weapon specilization (+1 to hit +2 damage) and the most common damage die was d8. You could not 'finesse' a weapon so damage came from Str that was normally higher on a fighter, and fighters got more attacks and specilization gave more too. so even when a thief (yes now called rogue) got a x2, x3, or even the mighty x5 backstabs they were mostly doing LESS damage than a fighter of equal level (not always but on average)

starting in 3e when +1d6 SA started (up to 10d6 at 20th level) adding dex to hit and damage on some weapons, and you often had rogues (still thief) doing MORE damage.

I have had many people ask "Why are thief/assassin/rogue/_____ better at finding openings to deal more damage then train warriors?" many time (sometimes to annoy me sometimes as new players really wanting to know)

 

[CleverNickName]

My point was for both.

Generic classes (maybe levels 1-2) or just start with subclass.
Any time from level 7-12, add on prestige class options.

I wouldn't want to turn subclasses INTO prestige classes.

Picking a Subclass at ~3rd level, then picking a Prestige Class at ~11th, could be an interesting alternative to multiclassing.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Picking a Subclass at ~3rd level, then picking a Prestige Class at ~11th, could be an interesting alternative to multiclassing.

That was also a good reason for it. You could have a Fighter - Eldritch Knight - Swordmage (?) or something.

 

[CleverNickName]

It might be a lot of fun if Backgrounds worked more like the Kits of older editions, and Subclasses worked more like Prestige Classes of older editions.

Or it might be a colossal nightmare of cherry-picking and min/maxing. Hard to say.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It might be a lot of fun if Backgrounds worked more like the Kits of older editions, and Subclasses worked more like Prestige Classes of older editions.

Or it might be a colossal nightmare of cherry-picking and min/maxing. Hard to say.

True. Our group has added things to backgrounds, such as weapon and armor proficiencies, knowledges (just added), and possible magic. Which is why we can use them along with just race to run the game at a level 0 before gaining your class.

I'll have to dig out kits... that might give me more ideas.

 

[cbwjm]

Something else I've found to be an issue when designing subclasses is that a cool idea is often lost when you can't get the subclass until 2nd or 3rd level.

I've had ideas for the way of the mountain monk who doesn't use Dexterity for AC but instead substitutes in Strength, signalling the ability to endure blows rather than Dodge them. This doesn't work when you have to wait until 3rd since you lose out on AC for those early levels when you're most vulnerable.

The mauling reaper was going to be a barbarian subclass, again you have to wait until 3rd level so initially you're stuck using weapons rather than unarmed strike.

I know many people say to "just start at 3rd level" but I think that misses the fact that many people want to start at 1st and work through those early levels, even if it only takes a single adventure to level up.

Instead we're stuck with having to make changes to the base classes, adding additional abilities to get the concept across at level 1.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Something else I've found to be an issue when designing subclasses is that a cool idea is often lost when you can't get the subclass until 2nd or 3rd level.

I've had ideas for the way of the mountain monk who doesn't use Dexterity for AC but instead substitutes in Strength, signalling the ability to endure blows rather than Dodge them. This doesn't work when you have to wait until 3rd since you lose out on AC for those early levels when you're most vulnerable.

The mauling reaper was going to be a barbarian subclass, again you have to wait until 3rd level so initially you're stuck using weapons rather than unarmed strike.

I know many people say to "just start at 3rd level" but I think that misses the fact that many people want to start at 1st and work through those early levels, even if it only takes a single adventure to level up.

Instead we're stuck with having to make changes to the base classes, adding additional abilities to get the concept across at level 1.

Even the designers said that this was a problem. The example given was the Valor Bard, who could not wear more than light armor and use simple weapon until 3rd level.

Same thing with the new monk favored weapon feature...at 2nd level! If its my signature weapon, why must I wait after 2nd level to use it as part of my class!? You even that to already be proficient with this weapon to be eligible to the feature, so you are stuck using you subpar STR for one random level, because reason!

 

[HammerMan]

Something else I've found to be an issue when designing subclasses is that a cool idea is often lost when you can't get the subclass until 2nd or 3rd level.

I've had ideas for the way of the mountain monk who doesn't use Dexterity for AC but instead substitutes in Strength, signalling the ability to endure blows rather than Dodge them. This doesn't work when you have to wait until 3rd since you lose out on AC for those early levels when you're most vulnerable.

The mauling reaper was going to be a barbarian subclass, again you have to wait until 3rd level so initially you're stuck using weapons rather than unarmed strike.

I know many people say to "just start at 3rd level" but I think that misses the fact that many people want to start at 1st and work through those early levels, even if it only takes a single adventure to level up.

Instead we're stuck with having to make changes to the base classes, adding additional abilities to get the concept across at level 1.

yup all great examples... but even just the PHB has arcane trickster/eldritch knight/battlemaster/Bladesinger all things I can't imagine 'turning on' at level past 1

 

[Blue]

Not giving the bulk of your class special features until 3rd is a brilliant move in terms of balancing 5e-style multiclassing. 1st level dips that get you all the foundation of a class is just too much, too liable to be cherry picked.

 

[HammerMan]

Not giving the bulk of your class special features until 3rd is a brilliant move in terms of balancing 5e-style multiclassing. 1st level dips that get you all the foundation of a class is just too much, too liable to be cherry picked.

yes. This is why I would prefer more uniform classes and more 4e style multi class. You give up something a fighter could do at 5th level to get something a wizard can do at 5th level... not something a wizard can do at 1st level.