OneDnD Subclasses at first level and multiclassing

[mellored]

You start counting from one, so that doesn't make a lot of sense.

Ability scores start counting from 8
Ability modifier start counting from 12
Proficiency bonus starts counting from 2.
Dice start counting from 4.

So no, start at 1 argument is long gone.

Let the groups decide where they start

Yes.
With differing levels offering differing amounts of options.

 

[Horwath]

I don't think the default starting level should be level 3. You start counting from one, so that doesn't make a lot of sense. Merging the abilities/subclass to level 1 AND starting at level 3+ should be optional rules in the DMG. Let the groups decide where they start and with what.

then 1st level characters need more stuff so they aren't boring to play.

in last 8 years we only started one campaign from 1st level. The very 1st campaign of 5E.
Everything else started from 3rd to 6th level.

DMG should have option of level zero for few features to start with.

 

[Maxperson]

Ability scores start counting from 8

Ability scores start counting from 3, because 3 to 18 when rolling stats. Levels start at 1 since 1-20.

Ability modifier start counting from 12

Those also start at 3, because 3-18 when rolling stats.

Proficiency bonus starts counting from 2.

Proficiency is not level, which goes from 1 to 20. It would make no sense for level to go from 3-20. Do you know what 3-20 is? It's 1-18. Proficiency is also designed completely differently than level and serves a totally different function. Unlike level, it could not start at 1 and meet the function it is designed to meet. The entire game would have to be modified to account for the lower start.

Dice start counting from 4.

Dice start counting from 1. 1-2. 1-3, 1-4, 1-6, 1-8, and so on.

So no, start at 1 argument is long gone.

False Equivalences are false. Nothing you said is equivalent to level.

 

[Maxperson]

then 1st level characters need more stuff so they aren't boring to play.

For some people, yes. That's why there should be options in the DMG for starting with subclass at level 1.

in last 8 years we only started one campaign from 1st level. The very 1st campaign of 5E.
Everything else started from 3rd to 6th level.

95% of the games I've played in the last 20 years have started at 3+. A lot of people like to start at 1, though.

DMG should have option of level zero for few features to start with.

That, too.

 

[mellored]

Ability scores start counting from 3, because 3 to 18 when rolling stats. Levels start at 1 since 1-20.

That too starts at 3, not 1.
Point buy starts at 8.

Those also start at 3, because 3-18 when rolling stats.

No,
3 is -4 modifier
10 is supposed to be average, which starts at 0.
12 = 1.

It would make no sense for level to go from 3-20.

Again, most people don't make it to 20.

You can still start at level 1 if you want. No one is suggested you would not be allowed.

What was suggested was that more levels = more options. And level 1 should have minimum options.

 

[Lojaan]

then 1st level characters need more stuff so they aren't boring to play.

in last 8 years we only started one campaign from 1st level. The very 1st campaign of 5E.
Everything else started from 3rd to 6th level.

DMG should have option of level zero for few features to start with.

If you don't enjoy playing at first level - that's totally fine! You don't need to! You can start at any level you like.

You find level 1 characters boring to play. That's totally fine. Perhaps the best solution is for you not to play level 1 characters, rather than try to make level 1 characters more complicated and powerful for everyone else.

I do think that having very clear tiers of play would help with this. Establish that T1 is "introductory adventure" and make it clear that it is expected groups will skip this and jump right into the "real" adventure at a higher character level if the group is happy to do so.

 

[Maxperson]

That too starts at 3, not 1.
Point buy starts at 8.

Stats are a False Equivalence to level.

No,
3 is -4 modifier
10 is supposed to be average, which starts at 0.
12 = 1.

Yes. I am correct here. A negative modifier is a modifier. You incorrectly claimed that modifiers start at 12. Then I incorrectly stated that they start at 3. They actually start at 1 and go to 30. Hmm. 1-30 and 1-20. Maybe stats aren't a False Equivalence after all.

Again, most people don't make it to 20.

And a whole lot of us do.

You can still start at level 1 if you want. No one is suggested you would not be allowed.

1 is the baseline. The option should be 3. It's silly in the extreme to count levels from 1-20 and then make the default 3. The default should absolutely be 1, with the option to start at 3. That option already exists in the DMG by the way. It's on page 38.

What was suggested was that more levels = more options. And level 1 should have minimum options.

The dispute is in how many options should be minimum. Currently the game is good as is for new players. So the minimum that it currently has is fine. There should be options for experienced players to start at level 3 and bring subclass down to level 1.

 

[mellored]

1 is the baseline. The option should be 3.

Why not roll 3d6 as your starting level be the baseline?
Or start at 0?
Or start at -4?

You just picked a number. It's not better or worse than any other number.

 

[Maxperson]

Why not roll 3d6 as your starting level be the baseline?
Or start at 0?
Or start at -4?

Because it's intuitive to start at level 1 and go to 20(or higher). It would be silly and unintuitive to start at 3d6 or -4 or 3!. Talk about power disparity among PCs! 0 is a possibility. People are trained to include 0 as a starting point. Better to start at one and leave 0 as one of the optional rules, though.

 

[mellored]

Because it's intuitive to start at level 1 and go to 20(or higher). It would be silly and unintuitive to start at 3d6 or -4 or 3!.

Ability scores and modifiers are very unintuitive and silly. I agree.
Never thought about factorials...

Talk about power disparity among PCs!

Rolling stats does do that.

0 is a possibility. People are trained to include 0 as a starting point. Better to start at one and leave 0 as one of the optional rules, though.

D&D trained me to start at any number. 1, 3, -4, 8, 0. All starting places.

But again. No one is taking level 1 away from you. You can still start there.

 

[Maxperson]

Rolling stats does do that.

It used to. In 5e the modifiers don't mean nearly as much as they did in prior editions.

D&D trained me to start at any number. 1, 3, -4, 8, 0. All starting places.

And for the beginners, it should start at 1. They haven't been trained that way.

But again. No one is taking level 1 away from you. You can still start there.

As the default, yes.

So I'm not sure why this is even a discussion. Level 1 isn't going away as the default in our lifetimes, unless D&D itself goes away. You should be pushing to get the things you want to be included as optional rules. At least you have a chance of accomplishing that.

 

[mellored]

And for the beginners, it should start at 1. They haven't been trained that way

Agreed.

Which is why we should not have subclasses at level 1. So beginners don't have to wade though too many options at once.

More experience players can start higher level with more options.

You should be pushing to get the things you want to be included as optional rules

Trust me, I like options. I make about 5x as many characters and builds than I get to play.

But I'm also aware that too many at once can turn a beginner away.

Level 1 lets you choose a feat, skills, race, stats, weapon, armor, equipment, and a class.

That's enough. Probably too many choices especially for someone who has no idea how important stealth is vs nature. Or what the difference between Wisdom or Intelligence works out to in play (i.e. there are a lot more Wis saves). Or who wants to use a blow gun instead of a crossbow and finds out how much less damage their fighter is dealing.

Experience players can start at higher levels.

 

[Blue]

Excuse me, but if you read my post before, I said that lots of people underestimate new players intelligence and willingness to learn, but not me.

And with most of new players that was my experience, with few only not wanting to put time into learning the game and being there just "for the lulz" and because their friends are playing it.

my good friend was that in one campaign, he is very intelligent guy, but he simply didn't put much effort in playing the game or learning it.
From 3rd to 6th level(9 or 10 sessions) he was "just there".

Lowest common denominator are people not willing to learn the game for real. Met few of them, luckily in minority.

All the new players that like the game will learn it. Yes, first session or two they will suck at it, but that is the process of learning, you need to suck at something first before you can be good at it.
Give them option to swap spells/feats/skills/subclasses after every session if needed, it's even better way to learn.
Even if they want to make completely new character after two sessions, it's ok to let them.

Or maybe not gatekeep and put a barrier to entry in front of players where they will suck when it is entirely possible to give them a smoother on-ramp.

When there are two options: throw everyone in the deep end and only keep the people who enjoy that, or keep everyone who enjoys the game and make it so they can all pay, one of those is wrong.

You can't both say don't underestimate them and that they will suck for a while. Well, you can obviously because you did, but it brings you to an incorrect conclusion.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Lots of people are talking about subclasses at 1st or at 1st & 2nd. No one is talking about the other half I laid out needed for that - a different multiclassing schema that doens't allow cherry picking. What would you suggest for that which would feel like a good 5e-esqe style fit?

If you want to multiclass then that takes your subclass.

 

[Neonchameleon]

then 1st level characters need more stuff so they aren't boring to play.

in last 8 years we only started one campaign from 1st level. The very 1st campaign of 5E.
Everything else started from 3rd to 6th level.

DMG should have option of level zero for few features to start with.

Boring is situational. I'd not want to be stuck at level 1 - but I normally start the party at level 0 and reach third level by the end of session 4 at the latest. And from what I can tell my players are more than fine with that; the level 0 experience sets the tone for the campaign and gives them backstory, and a single session at level 1 and one to two at level 2 are a decent enough on-ramp for the character.

 

[Blue]

I commented this in the other multiclass thread but on the off chance that different people are looking at this thread I’ll post it here too.

IMO I’d make a character require a prerequisite feat in order to multiclass to any given class, it would provide all the proficiencies granted by multiclassing regularly (I think multiclassing in general/this feat should also provide one additional skill proficiency from the chosen class) as a ‘level 0’ bonus.

This level of investment would cut down on dipping or at least make a player consider the decision a bit more ahead of time, weighing it against another feat or ASI and with level 1 feats your ability to multiclass wouldn’t even be restricted to after 4th level.

One of the problems with 5e multiclassing is shooting yourself in the foot by delaying or missing ASI/feats. It seems particularly doubling down on this to require a feat to multiclass. Feats seem particularly ill suited for this just because of the already imposed balance of feats coming on class levels instead of character levels.

 

[Blue]

If you want to multiclass then that takes your subclass.

That will:
a) require rebalancing the classes to get the same from their subclasses - some have a lot in base class, others get a lot from subclass.
b) leave dead levels, which has long been established as a poor design pattern.
c) not address the issue at hand, which is cherry-dipping if we increase the features given at first level by moving subclasses up.
d) remove a lot of flavor, like priest domains

This really doesn't fire on any cylinders for this particular discussion.

 

[Blue]

That seems like a pretty hypothetical discussion to have in the OneD&D sub-forum, because granting a sub-class at 1st level has not been proposed for OneD&D, and does not seem to be in the cards. In the test materials released, sub-classing was still at 3rd level, and WotC has emphasized that they aren't making substantial changes to the 5e chassis.

Yes, yes it is.

People were discussing it in various threads, figured I'd start an actual post on it. Looking at the expert classes you are right that this is pretty hypothetical. But I think I address in the original post so I don't see how that's a problem.

 

[tetrasodium]

Or maybe not gatekeep and put a barrier to entry in front of players where they will suck when it is entirely possible to give them a smoother on-ramp.

When there are two options: throw everyone in the deep end and only keep the people who enjoy that, or keep everyone who enjoys the game and make it so they can all pay, one of those is wrong.

You can't both say don't underestimate them and that they will suck for a while. Well, you can obviously because you did, but it brings you to an incorrect conclusion.

There is the third option too

 

[mellored]

That will:
a) require rebalancing the classes to get the same from their subclasses - some have a lot in base class, others get a lot from subclass.
b) leave dead levels, which has long been established as a poor design pattern.
c) not address the issue at hand, which is cherry-dipping if we increase the features given at first level by moving subclasses up.
d) remove a lot of flavor, like priest domains

This really doesn't fire on any cylinders for this particular discussion.

A: seems like they are trying this.
B: there are no dead levels if it is rebalanced.
C: I don't see it as an issue, and again, it should be balanced.
D: Your making your own flavor.