D&D (2024) Subclasses should start at 1st level

[Charlaquin]

No. Cleric is one class. Domain doesn't split it up in the same way that Bladesinger is very different from Conjurer which are both very different from Order of the Scribes. The fighter subclasses are similarly very different from one another.

Cleric on the other hand is all the same with the exception of a domain that gives a few domain related things. They don't have the same differentiation.

Again in 3e terms, Clerics had their two domains and domain abilities and spell list, but was one class. Bladesinger, Wizard and other wizard type classes were separate classes. Battle Master would have been a separate class in 3e, as would Champion and Eldritch Knight. Or else they would have been prestige classes at levels higher than 1.

I don’t see the differences 5e subclasses make as nearly that significant, but I guess that’s your opinion.

 

[Xamnam]

So do the whole “you gain the Thief subclass or another subclass of your choice” thing they’ve been fond of using for evert other decision point in 1D&D.

Huh. Interesting. I can see the logic, especially given that most classes have an archetypal trope subclass. I don't know why, but this doesn't sit well with me. Maybe because it's a much larger fracture point than recommended skills/spells. If they're going to have something on this front, a variant/optional rule that spells out starting at level 3 for experienced players just makes a lot more sense to me than granting subclasses this early.

 

[cbwjm]

One of the things for rogue is that if they intend to start subclasses at 3rd level, they should make thieves cant something which can be selected rather than required. It's one of the things I hate about the rogue scout, a character at home in the wilderness who understands thieves cant just seems to fight against the archetype a little. I'd much rather be able to choose so that they can have sylvan or druidic instead. This isn't an issue when using pen and paper, but since WotC is going all into the online space, it needs to be optional in DnDbeyond.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I see both sides here, but I think overall I'm for delaying until 3rd level simply because I often (or at least sometimes) find myself unsure of where I'm going with a character, or I think I know but I change my mind by 3rd level. I like having a couple of levels to figure out who this person is. My current Rogue Scout was not intended to be a Scout, but that's where the campaign went.

And when I do know where the character is going, I don't mind waiting for 3rd level. Sometimes I have to figure out a story, like with my swordswoman: I went with Kensei monk to play an unarmored longsword fighter, and I reflavored my quarterstaff as a wooden practice sword. I had to "earn" a real sword, which conveniently my master acknowledged had happened right as I turned 3rd level. (Actually acquiring a real sword took a little bit longer.)

 

[Mistwell]

So don’t grant those benefits at 1st level. Have those subclasses grant something smaller at 1st level and delay those bigger features to 3rd or whatever.

Ok but it's kinda hard for most of those subclasses to give something at first level which fits the theme of the subclass and which also isn't so consequential.

 

[Leatherhead]

Multiclassing is overrated. Given the improved focus on feats (which are still tied to class level, not character level), and the strong possibilities of reworking the problem child subclasses ( hi to you Hexblade). Front loading classes isn't going to be that much of a concern.

 

[Charlaquin]

Ok but it's kinda hard for most of those subclasses to give something at first level which fits the theme of the subclass and which also isn't so consequential.

I dunno, I feel like if they can come up with MC-friendly 1st level class features, they can come up with MC-friendly 1st-level subclass features.

 

[Marandahir]

I see both sides here, but I think overall I'm for delaying until 3rd level simply because I often (or at least sometimes) find myself unsure of where I'm going with a character, or I think I know but I change my mind by 3rd level. I like having a couple of levels to figure out who this person is. My current Rogue Scout was not intended to be a Scout, but that's where the campaign went.

And when I do know where the character is going, I don't mind waiting for 3rd level. Sometimes I have to figure out a story, like with my swordswoman: I went with Kensei monk to play an unarmored longsword fighter, and I reflavored my quarterstaff as a wooden practice sword. I had to "earn" a real sword, which conveniently my master acknowledged had happened right as I turned 3rd level. (Actually acquiring a real sword took a little bit longer.)

So allow swapping, and the features at 1st level aren't that major. That is to say, you're not locked in yet.

 

[Bill Zebub]

So allow swapping, and the features at 1st level aren't that major. That is to say, you're not locked in yet.

That feels...cheesy...to me. Like the DAL rules for changing my character. Or respeccing my MMO toon.

 

[MoonSong]

Clerics and warlocks don't truly have subclasses. They have domains/pacts which while they use the rules for subclasses, don't break those classes up into different kinds of clerics and warlocks. Take wizards. You can have a wizard of a school(all of the schools are one class, similar to clerics and warlocks), bladesinger, order of scribes, etc. Those are all clearly very different in a way that clerics just are not.

Were this 3e, the school wizards would be the wizards. The bladesinger would be either a new class by itself or if it wasn't a full class, a prestige class. Prestige classes didn't start at 1st level. Only full classes did. If you move subclass to 1st level, you are in effect splitting one class into many(except cleric and warlock).

What 5e did was basically hard code prestige classes into the class system at 2nd or 3rd level.

It seems you haven't told us about the sorcerer. Where does it fit to you?