-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E Subclasses/choice points at 3rd level
- Thread starter Li Shenron
- Start date
Warbringer
Explorer
Isn't 3rd level the new first level?
howandwhy99
Adventurer
Edit: Screw it, I don't think their subclasses are sensible according to the design of D&D, but they'll work well enough for what they are.
Last edited:
babomb
First Post
All else being equal, symmetry is desirable.
However, I think the needs of the particular class can theoretically justify symmetry breaking.
On the other hand, I don't think avoiding a "dead level" is a strong enough reason in itself to justify symmetry breaking.
I see no reason the ranger shouldn't have the subclass choice at level 3 and get spellcasting at 2 rather than vice versa. This has the added benefit of making his spellcasting table the same as the paladin's, which is nice all else being equal. I don't believe that the ranger is so delicately balanced that this rearrangement will be problematic.
The mage is interesting, in that they hint in future versions you'll pick one sub-class (e.g., wizard) at level 1 and a sub-sub-class at level 2. Moving the latter to 3 would create a "dead level", and since rearranging the spellcasting table WOULD cause balance issues, the only options I see for filling it are adding a new feature or moving esoteric knowledge from level 1. (In the latter case, I think the level is still "mostly dead" or "slightly alive".)
The problem with the cleric is that while you can be a generalist wizard, you have to be a cleric of something. Unless maybe your campaign setting has an unusual arrangement between the various religions, you presumably have to pick a deity at level 1. Domains and deities may have a many-to-many relationship in the setting, but the choice of deity would still affect which domains you can pick at 3. Effectively, you'd be having players pick domains at level 1 and work backwards to select a deity that offers it, then wait 2 levels for that to matter. If that choice at first level makes no mechanical difference except to narrow your later domain choice, I think splitting the decision makes it unnecessarily complicated, symmetry or no. That choice could be made more meaningful, as presumably, wizard and sorcerer and warlock will be, but I think in the case of the cleric, that would be adding a lot of complication mainly for the sake of not breaking symmetry.
The paladin may have a similar problem, depending on what form the other oaths take. If, as in the previous packet, one of them is blackguard, presumably that choice is made at level 1 but doesn't take effect until level 3. I don't think that's as bad as the cleric's issue, but I'd still prefer to break symmetry in that case and put the oath at level 1.
However, I think the needs of the particular class can theoretically justify symmetry breaking.
On the other hand, I don't think avoiding a "dead level" is a strong enough reason in itself to justify symmetry breaking.
I see no reason the ranger shouldn't have the subclass choice at level 3 and get spellcasting at 2 rather than vice versa. This has the added benefit of making his spellcasting table the same as the paladin's, which is nice all else being equal. I don't believe that the ranger is so delicately balanced that this rearrangement will be problematic.
The mage is interesting, in that they hint in future versions you'll pick one sub-class (e.g., wizard) at level 1 and a sub-sub-class at level 2. Moving the latter to 3 would create a "dead level", and since rearranging the spellcasting table WOULD cause balance issues, the only options I see for filling it are adding a new feature or moving esoteric knowledge from level 1. (In the latter case, I think the level is still "mostly dead" or "slightly alive".)
The problem with the cleric is that while you can be a generalist wizard, you have to be a cleric of something. Unless maybe your campaign setting has an unusual arrangement between the various religions, you presumably have to pick a deity at level 1. Domains and deities may have a many-to-many relationship in the setting, but the choice of deity would still affect which domains you can pick at 3. Effectively, you'd be having players pick domains at level 1 and work backwards to select a deity that offers it, then wait 2 levels for that to matter. If that choice at first level makes no mechanical difference except to narrow your later domain choice, I think splitting the decision makes it unnecessarily complicated, symmetry or no. That choice could be made more meaningful, as presumably, wizard and sorcerer and warlock will be, but I think in the case of the cleric, that would be adding a lot of complication mainly for the sake of not breaking symmetry.
The paladin may have a similar problem, depending on what form the other oaths take. If, as in the previous packet, one of them is blackguard, presumably that choice is made at level 1 but doesn't take effect until level 3. I don't think that's as bad as the cleric's issue, but I'd still prefer to break symmetry in that case and put the oath at level 1.
Symmetry, for the sake of symmetry, is a great way to complicate game design. On the other hand, there is something rather nice about making level 3 the capstone level for the basic game (so the really cool goodies being there isn't bad design at all). Making a war cleric wait til level 3 before joining the fighters in swinging greatswords helps differentiate the classes.
But if they are going to reject symmetry for the sake of making the classes interesting then the burden becomes making the classes really flavorful and fun. Because if you are going to sacrifice clean design for "stuff that looks fun" then it really should be fun.
But if they are going to reject symmetry for the sake of making the classes interesting then the burden becomes making the classes really flavorful and fun. Because if you are going to sacrifice clean design for "stuff that looks fun" then it really should be fun.
Ratskinner
Adventurer
This
Ratskinner
Adventurer
I'm not sure that "unified mechanics" is equivalent to "symmetry". From my understanding of them, I would say that 4e's Essentials classes would still be "unified" with the base game, even if they aren't "symmetrical". Nor to I consider "symmetry" equivalent to or required for "balance".
I'm coming to be of the opinion that viewing rpg design as an engineering project is not the best approach. (Not that you have to approach it from a position of mathematical ignorance, either.)
I'm not generally opposed to symmetry, but I don't think that's been working out so fantastically for D&D. I think it works great in games like FATE. However, D&D can rely on its class structure to package fundamentally assymmetric features. Removing that freedom in favor of symmetry garners accusations of being "a thinly-disguised point-buy system" or classes being "very samey". Which, I think, to some extent are legitimate criticisms of the WotC editions.
Similar Threads
