jmartkdr2
Hero
Wolves howl in the distance
An elephant trumpets...
everyone is confused why there's an elephant here.
D&D 5E Should All Subclasses Be Gained at 1st Level?
An elephant trumpets...
everyone is confused why there's an elephant here.
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
Actually, this was what I was trying to achieve in some ways with my "Fewer Features" idea.
For example, if you could take your subclass at level 1, but choose a different feature instead.
Level 2 you take your level two feature
Finally, at level 3 the subclass makes since so you go back and grab the feature at level 1.
Theoretically, you could play your entire PC without ever picking up your subclass.
jmartkdr2
Hero
If you make a further assumption (all subclass features are gained at the same levels and have the same amount of power), it's a lot easier - and a lot more limiting in some ways, since now non-multi subclasses have to adhere to the same strict-ish schedule of power.
It's one thing to make "and also a wizard, the subclass" balance with "and also a fighter: the subclass", but trickier to throw in things like berserker, thief-acrobat, and evoker in the mix. You can't have paladin oaths be more or less meaningful than sorcerer origins*
*well, not easily. Sorcerers might need to be built oddly, to separate origin from subclass. I could say similar things about clerics and warlocks...
On the other hand, some subclasses already make sense as being available to multiple classes, like beastmaster and assassin.
It's probably possible, but it's one of the more ambitious ideas to overhaul the class system I've encountered.
Faolyn
(she/her)
Experience and Reddit. I don't know from DDB. Most of my games have gone on much farther than 5th level.
Bacon Bits
Hero
Honestly, I'm not sure how I'd change multiclassing. I'm not much of a fan of the mechanic anymore. I just don't think it works very well as a concept. You can try to fix it, but I think the best solution to a-la-carte is called GURPS. That is to say, it fundamentally doesn't work.
One simple solution would be to adopt something like 3e favored classes, but not in the way most people remember them. Instead, the rule is: you can only increase a level in a given class if no other class you have is lower level. For example, if you're a Fighter 3/Wizard 4, when you reach level 8 you cannot gain a level of Wizard, because Fighter is lower level. You'd have to wait until level 9 when you're (presumably) a Fighter 4/Wizard 4. If you then took a level of Rogue, you'd have to wait until you got those levels equal before you could take anything else.
The drawback, of course, is that adds a severe hindrance to multiclassing, because it assumes each class level is of equal value. That's not true. Fighter 5, Fighter 11, and Wizard 5 are phenomenally more powerful than many other levels. The devs knows this already -- it's not a secret -- which is why they don't frontload levels 1 and 2 as much. However, this does mean that such a character needs to get to level 9 before they can get one level 5, and that's not worth it. It's too high of a cost. Even AD&D knew that, and that was when character levels didn't do very much of anything at all.
There are other simple solutions. You could apply a cumulative -1 penalty to the character's proficiency bonus (to a minimum of +0) for each class beyond the first. The drawback is that it has really weird side effects on incentives the more that you think about it. You could say that when you multiclass away from a class, you can never return to it. The drawback is that the really abusive builds aren't affected by that at all.
The other option is to invent something more complicated. A special multiclass class, or nuanced rules for abilities. The drawback there is the complexity itself. Multiclass rules are already fairly simple as possible solutions to the problem, but they're still one of the most complex rules in the whole game.
Lyxen
Great Old One
That counts for nothing, online discussions and polls are at best hundreds of players, DDB has stats for tens of thousands of players at the very least. As for myself, absolutely all of our campaigns and the ones that I've heard of have all started at level 1, with just one at level 2.
Frozen_Heart
Hero
How much impact do you think subclasses should have on the core class compared to in 5e?
Going back to the original topic of the thread: I think that if a class-based choice will change how you use your ability scores, it should be made at 1st level. The typical example here is the Valor Bard, who needs a high Dex if they intend to do any fighting at the start but once they get their medium armor and martial weapon proficiencies can get by pretty well with Strength.
I would also like to see more choices made throughout advancement. Maybe not as big as the subclass choice, but decently-sized ones. As a good example, I present the Warlock: choice of patron at first level, an orthogonal choice of path (tome, blade, chain) at third, and then ongoing choices of invocations every few levels. As a bad example, I give you the Paladin: once they've chosen their Oath, they're pretty much on autopilot.
I would also like to see more choices made throughout advancement. Maybe not as big as the subclass choice, but decently-sized ones. As a good example, I present the Warlock: choice of patron at first level, an orthogonal choice of path (tome, blade, chain) at third, and then ongoing choices of invocations every few levels. As a bad example, I give you the Paladin: once they've chosen their Oath, they're pretty much on autopilot.
Well is that a subclass problem or the fact that too many 1st levels of classes don't have a class feature with options.
Like a bard should be able to choose between an extra cantrip, extra skill or medium armor at level 1.
You don''t need a whole stinking subclass to choose Armor,, Cantrip, or Skill.
Similar Threads
