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

[Bacon Bits]

This is something I go back and forth on, like much of 5E.

I can understand having subclasses at 3rd level, or having them at 1st level, or even 2nd... but it seems strange to me this isn't uniform. Now, I've already adapted all classes to gain subclasses at 1st level, but I was wondering how others might feel about it outside our group.

So, would you like to see all classes choose their subclass at 1st Level?

Thanks for your input!

Yes, without a doubt.

The one thing that has consistently annoyed me about playing an Artificer, Bard, Rogue, Wizard, Barbarian, and so on is when your subclass gives you a proficiency, or grants you a substitute ability modifier (e.g., Battle Smith Artificer).

If it's armor or weapons, it means you have to buy new equipment. It can't be your starting equipment.
If it's a skill, tool, or language proficiency, it's probably something that should be pretty important to your character, so you really should know how to do it immediately.
If it's a substitute ability modifier, it means you're very likely to have terrible modifiers until you get it.

The real pain is that the only benefit to doing it like they did with delaying proficiency is the multiclassing rules. It really, really frustrates me when they make classes needlessly less playable at low level because if they don't then multiclassing is broken... when they should just fix the multiclassing rules. It's especially irritating because Cleric (Tempest, War, Order, etc.) still lets you abuse it! The delay doesn't even really matter!

 

[DND_Reborn]

The delay doesn't even really matter!

No, it doesn't. And IMO even a delay to level 2 or 3 is hardly a big deal if you get features which really make your PC more powerful.

I have never been a fan of d20 multiclassing and prefer the multiclass as subclass option. I mirror subclasses like EK or AT if you take Fighter or Rogue as your main class and have Wizard become your subclass. But multiclassing is really a different beast.

 

[CleverNickName]

The real pain is that the only benefit to doing it like they did with delaying proficiency is the multiclassing rules. It really, really frustrates me when they make classes needlessly less playable at low level because if they don't then multiclassing is broken... when they should just fix the multiclassing rules. It's especially irritating because Cleric (Tempest, War, Order, etc.) still lets you abuse it! The delay doesn't even really matter!

Yep, multiclassing has been a problem for as long as I can remember. It's better in 5E than it has been for a while, but it's still...
...well, let's just say I'm glad it's optional. How would you tweak 5E to fix multiclassing, assuming all subclasses are gained at 1st level?

 

[Faolyn]

I'm not sure I follow. Why would a subclass even need to fundamentally alter the base class so much that it no longer plays like the base class?

Let's say you have only four classes: Warrior ('martial focus'), Sneak ('skill focus'), Mage ('full caster'), and Priest ('half caster.'). These are the chassis that you will build your character concept on.

Now let's say that out of ten dozen different subclasses, you decide to go with Acrobat (the first one that came to mind, but it could be anything). If you choose the Warrior class, your Acrobat would be a martial focus and would feel more like a swashbuckler or skirmisher...but if you chose the Sneak class, your Acrobat would be more like a catburglar or ninja. If you chose the Mage or the Priest class, it would gain the appropriate amount of magical talent, making it feel more like a shadowdancer or assassin, or something entirely new.

While I think this is a cool idea, there might be a problem with certain class features. For instance, something like Rage. Would you want only a single violent rager archetype, or multiple types--and how would it work with a caster class? Or your Acrobat--why would anyone take a Warrior Acrobat over a spellcasting Acrobat?

 

[Faolyn]

Yeah, especially since the default for 1st level is just 300 XP usually earning and leveled by the end of level 1.

But, it begs the question: if you can level out that quickly, why not just start with it done?

It's my understanding that most groups (or at least a large number of them) start at level 3 anyway, exactly because of this.

 

[CleverNickName]

While I think this is a cool idea, there might be a problem with certain class features. For instance, something like Rage. Would you want only a single violent rager archetype, or multiple types--and how would it work with a caster class? Or your Acrobat--why would anyone take a Warrior Acrobat over a spellcasting Acrobat?

That's where the game designers would have to come in (and I'm not one). These things will need to be mapped out properly, and would require significant overhaul from their current versions. But if they do it right, I think it could be the best character advancement system ever.

Your question about why someone would choose a particular option when there are better* options available: well that's a question for the ages, one that has been debated ever since the first Dwarf took a level of Bard. I'm not sure there will ever be an answer.


*for any given definition of the word... more optimized, more sensible, easier to play, more popular, more damage output, etc.

 

[Lyxen]

It's my understanding that most groups (or at least a large number of them) start at level 3 anyway, exactly because of this.

I'm not sure where that information comes from, because at least the stats of DDB show that there are tons of level 1 and 2 characters there, and that most characters never go past level 5, which seems a very short range if you start at level 3...

 

[DND_Reborn]

It's my understanding that most groups (or at least a large number of them) start at level 3 anyway, exactly because of this.

I hear of it sometimes on this forum, but I've never encountered it IRL. If a group has a reason for beginning at higher level because the adventure demands it, that's one thing, but not because it is necessary to their character concept, etc.

 

[CleverNickName]

If the DM says we are starting at Level 3, I'm almost certainly going Warlock or Cleric.
It's probably not any more of a head-start, but it just feels like one.

 

[J.Quondam]

But, anyway, the purpose of the poll was to see if there was an sort of consensus, which of course there isn't. Sigh...

Honestly, I doubt there ever will be. And I suspect that's just because different players come to the table with very different approaches to developing PCs.

Just as a rough take, it seems to me there are two broad approaches. One is the player with a fairly well-defined character concept in mind, and they want to play that character in some form right off the bat. The other is the player who starts with a random schmo, and they want to see how that schmo develops solely in response to whatever happens in the game. Obviously, it's a continuum, but those seem like fairly dominant poles.

It would be kind of nice to see both approaches obviously supported in the game. It's not clear how possible that really is, though, especially if one table has players from both of those "poles."