Subclasses should start at 1st level

[payn]

I can live with it, I've just never cared for it. It was especially bad during 3rd edition with their prestige classes. I honestly thought prestige classes were great at first, but in the end I thought they were more trouble than they were worth.

I loved 3E/PF1 multi and prestige classing, but am well aware of the pitfalls and issues. 5E has cleared much of that up.

 

[billd91]

Honestly, given what we've got now and the importance of compatibility, there's more reason to NOT start specialties at 1st level than to do so. Besides, anyone who feels they want to start their games with specialties can start their game at 3rd level with little fuss.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think there is a major difference between D&D being easy to explain and learn and having subclasses at level one. This sounds like cramming a preference into an argument about something unrelated. Also, it's totally anecdotal.

Yeah, this. I’m sympathetic to the idea of keeping the early levels simple and accessible, but if it’s possible to have 1st level class features that are simple enough for new players to handle, then it’s possible to have 1st level subclass features that are simple enough for new players to handle. It doesn’t have to be a choice between a simple start and 1st level subclasses. We can have both.

 

[Charlaquin]

I’d like to see a demonstration of “necessary” as opposed to somebody’s preference.

It would be necessary if key features of the character were tied to subclass. For example, if subclasses came at first level, that could be where your saving throw proficiencies came from, so that different fighters were proficient in different saves depending on subclass. In that case, subclass would be necessary at 1st level because without one, you wouldn’t have a complete character, as you would be lacking save proficiencies.

 

[cbwjm]

Honestly, given what we've got now and the importance of compatibility, there's more reason to NOT start specialties at 1st level than to do so. Besides, anyone who feels they want to start their games with specialties can start their game at 3rd level with little fuss.

People who say " just start at 3rd level" are part of the problem, we all want to start at 1st level, we don't want to ignore it we want to start there and have our subclass shaping our character from the start.

 

[Charlaquin]

So close, you had me until get rid of multi-classing.

I don’t think it has to be either-or. If it’s possible to have 1st level class features that are safe for multiclassing, then it’s possible to have 1st level subclass features that are safe for multiclassing.

 

[cbwjm]

I don’t think it has to be either-or. If it’s possible to have 1st level class features that are safe for multiclassing, then it’s possible to have 1st level subclass features that are safe for multiclassing.

And we know it's possible since we have classes that already start at 1st level. While some might complain about some of the options, it otherwise works fine to multiclass clerics, warlocks, or sorcerers.

 

[Charlaquin]

People who say " just start at 3rd level" are part of the problem, we all want to start at 1st level, we don't want to ignore it we want to start there and have our subclass shaping our character from the start.

It also doesn’t actually address the reasons for wanting subclasses at 1st level. It’s not just that we want to start play at a point where our characters are somewhat specialized - if that was the only reason, “just start at third level” would be a perfectly valid solution. But it’s about more than that. Again, the earlier subclasses start, the greater their ability to transform the base class. 1st level subclasses would allow for the greatest flexibility in subclass design.

 

[billd91]

People who say " just start at 3rd level" are part of the problem, we all want to start at 1st level, we don't want to ignore it we want to start there and have our subclass shaping our character from the start.

Yeah, well, maybe the people saying start at 3rd level don't necessarily want to change the game so classes start with specialties. The difference here is there already is a situation in which you can start with specialties, and that's starting at 3rd level.
In other words, there already is a compromise solution out there - redesign of classes with specialties at 1st level removes it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

And also, you are selling a game with levels 1-20, so actually make a 1-20 game, not a game where you're actually the character you intended to make 3-20 and according to some design attempts just stop at 9, 10, or 12.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, well, maybe the people saying start at 3rd level don't necessarily want to change the game so classes start with specialties. The difference here is there already is a situation in which you can start with specialties, and that's starting at 3rd level.
In other words, there already is a compromise solution out there - redesign of classes with specialties at 1st level removes it.

But it isn’t a compromise solution because again, it doesn’t actually address the reason people who want subclasses at 1st level want it. It isn’t about wanting to start play with a specialization, if it was, starting at 3rd level would be a valid compromise. But it’s not about that, it’s about wanting to open up more design space for classes and subclasses.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I gave a number examples for each class earlier in the thread.

But for example, a Warlock requires a pact at level 1. And so on.

I'd swap patron and pact boon in importance. So you chose a patron with a minkr benefit and then the pact will determine most of your abilities. Pact of the blade gets everything from hexblade.
Invocations can give extra abilities related to your patron.

I find it funny that you wrote, warlock needs a pact at level 1, while you actually meant patron. So maybe swapping the roles would be a good Idea.
I would do the same for clerics. You chose a diety at level 1. On level 3 you make the choice of how you spread the word.
The sorcerer is the most tricky. But I guess in the first 3 levels you might just not have discovered where your magic comes from. The revelation comes at level 3.

 

[Mephista]

I have gamer friend with anxiety issues that panics if they feel like peer pressure is forcing them to start making lots of choices all at once. I would like them to be comfy with the game.

Moving subclasses to 3 makes multiclass considerations easier from a design point.

I know lots of new players that like having "apprentice" levels.

 

[Yaarel]

And also, you are selling a game with levels 1-20, so actually make a 1-20 game, not a game where you're actually the character you intended to make 3-20 and according to some design attempts just stop at 9, 10, or 12.

Judging by the Bardic Inspiration advancement, the tiers might be five levels each:
0-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, then 20 up is epic.

 

[cbwjm]

Yeah, well, maybe the people saying start at 3rd level don't necessarily want to change the game so classes start with specialties. The difference here is there already is a situation in which you can start with specialties, and that's starting at 3rd level.
In other words, there already is a compromise solution out there - redesign of classes with specialties at 1st level removes it.

And there looks to be a compromise with oneDnD that could incorporate 1st level subclasses, that is, take the suggested features which includes subclasses. There easy, you can start at 1st level with a subclass and not trouble yourself with any hard decision at level 1.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Are they honestly ready for the brutal beating they're going to get from their unpleasable fanbase trying to do epic levels again?

 

[Maxperson]

And as others have pointed out, it’s weird for a rogue to retroactively become a wilderness expert when they pick up the Scout subclass at 3rd level and suddenly go from untrained to expert in Nature and Survival.

First, pick nature and survival as skills up front and when you become a scout you get expertise in them for free. The PC is going from good to an expert, which makes perfect sense.

Second, if the player does choose not to get those proficiencies early, the choice for it not to make sense was his right out of the gate, so he has no right to complain.

 

[Maxperson]

And also, you are selling a game with levels 1-20, so actually make a 1-20 game, not a game where you're actually the character you intended to make 3-20 and according to some design attempts just stop at 9, 10, or 12.

The game is really 3-8. Above 8 and the monster selection plummets

 

[Bill Zebub]

It would be necessary if key features of the character were tied to subclass. For example, if subclasses came at first level, that could be where your saving throw proficiencies came from, so that different fighters were proficient in different saves depending on subclass. In that case, subclass would be necessary at 1st level because without one, you wouldn’t have a complete character, as you would be lacking save proficiencies.

To play devil's advocate, why would a 1st level character with 1 or 0 saving throw proficiencies be "incomplete"? Just because we have learned to expect that 1st level characters have proficiency in two saving throws does not mean it's necessary.

I sort of have a preference to delay subclasses by a couple of levels, and one reason is to make it easier for beginners although that's minor. Really it's just a preference. It seems like others have a preference for 1st level, and I respect that. I don't think anybody has a truly compelling reason why it objectively should be one or the other. It's just...preference.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Are they honestly ready for the brutal beating they're going to get from their unpleasable fanbase trying to do epic levels again?

I really think some people are overestimating the extent to which they care one way or another what a tiny handful of outraged people are saying on the Internet. If I were in their shoes, running a franchise making as much money as this one is, and surveys showed that I was keeping a majority of the customer base happy, I really wouldn't be bothered at all by a fraction of a percent of self-styled superfans kicking and screaming and complaining. I mean, I'd rather keep them happy customers than angry ex-customers, but at the end of the day it says more about them than about me or my product.