Subclasses should start at 1st level

CreamCloud0

One day, I hope to actually play DnD.
Okay, so my ultimate solution to this issue that I’m certain absolutely no-one will have problems with is this: Everyone HAS to pick their subclass at 1st level, no backsies or changing, but you don’t actually receive ANY BENEFITS of picking your subclass until 3rd level.

Problem solved.

/j
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Which is only possible because they get their subclasses at 1st level. Having subclasses start at 3rd level, or even 2nd level, significantly curtails the subclasses’ ability to change how the base class plays, which is precisely why I’m advocating for all subclasses to start at 1st level. Doing otherwise is leaving valuable design space on the table
Nothing is stopping a 3rd level subclass from seriously altering a class.

The only reason why clerics and sorcerer need 1st level subclasses is because there aren't a bunch of different base classes so you have to section off the spells and features of vastly different archtypes that don't make sense together in the lore in a way to not overload fans at 1st level.

If there were a cleric class and invoker class, you could shift subclasses to 1st level.

It’s a noncaster thing in 5e. Every class that gets a 1st level subclass is a caster. Because only casters are allowed to do anything interesting.

No it's not. The result has nothing to do with the grouping.

Its because the nonspellcaster classes that would need 1st level subclasses doesn't exist in 5e edition because WOTC created no new classes.
 

As this is a thread about 1st level subclasses, I have just made a suggestion how a Scout subclass could work from 1st level and still not be too much features at 1st level.

Noone stops you from taking proficiency in nature and survival at level 1... Except for a badly written feature that does not explicitely allow taking different skills if you already had them... although dndbeyond allows you to chose other skills in that case...
 
Last edited:

Horwath

Hero
Noone stops you from taking proficiency in nature and survival at level 1... Excet for a badly written feature that does not explicitely allow taking different skills if you already had them... although dndbeyond allows you to chose other skills in that case...
proficiencies should come with 1st level package.

any "special" powers can wait level or two.
 

proficiencies should come with 1st level package.

any "special" powers can wait level or two.

Thank god that proficiency come with class and background... so I repeat: noone stops you from taking the proficiencies.

Edit: I think however going down to level 2 would probably OK. And would make the progression nicer...
 
Last edited:

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Okay, so my ultimate solution to this issue that I’m certain absolutely no-one will have problems with is this: Everyone HAS to pick their subclass at 1st level, no backsies or changing, but you don’t actually receive ANY BENEFITS of picking your subclass until 3rd level.

Problem solved.

/j

I know you're joking, but that is the solution. Even Warlocks/Clerics can subclass at 3rd level: you don't need mechanical features to roleplay.

(EDIT: and I’m not really all that opposed to subclasses at first level. I am just dismissing the argument that some classes “must” have it.)
 
Last edited:

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
As this is a thread about 1st level subclasses, I have just made a suggestion how a Scout subclass could work from 1st level and still not be too much features at 1st level.
Oh, I see. In that case, yes, I agree. I thought you were suggesting taking those proficiencies/expertise at levels 1 and 2 from rogue in order to make their sudden acquisition at 3rd less jarring.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
Okay, so my ultimate solution to this issue that I’m certain absolutely no-one will have problems with is this: Everyone HAS to pick their subclass at 1st level, no backsies or changing, but you don’t actually receive ANY BENEFITS of picking your subclass until 3rd level.

Problem solved.

/j
~throws hat on the ground and stomps it.~

That's it. Delete the class system.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Nothing is stopping a 3rd level subclass from seriously altering a class.
Except that it would be jarring as heck to be playing your class one way through the tutorial levels and then have it drastically change at 3rd. Also, you can’t have full casting or half-casting start at 3rd level.
The only reason why clerics and sorcerer need 1st level subclasses is because there aren't a bunch of different base classes so you have to section off the spells and features of vastly different archtypes that don't make sense together in the lore in a way to not overload fans at 1st level.

If there were a cleric class and invoker class, you could shift subclasses to 1st level.
Right, but having all subclasses start at 1st level would allow more of that sort of thing. Then you don’t need a bunch of new classes to have a bunch of characters that play differently than each other in a significant way.
No it's not. The result has nothing to do with the grouping.

Its because the nonspellcaster classes that would need 1st level subclasses doesn't exist in 5e edition because WOTC created no new classes.
There are absolutely non-caster subclasses that would benefit from starting at 1st level. The Scout, the Cavalier, the Samurai, heck even the beast master.
 


Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Except that it would be jarring as heck to be playing your class one way through the tutorial levels and then have it drastically change at 3rd. Also, you can’t have full casting or half-casting start at 3rd level.
My point is if specialty subclass alters your class that much, not only should it not be level 1 to overload the 1st level...

... it should be its own class.
 



Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Some of them. The Hexblade should be its own class. The Blasty clerics are too different from battle clerics that they could split as well.
Well, I agree about Hexblade, but that’s a problem caused by it being an attempt to fix the blade pact boon, rather than a fully-realized subclass of its own. And the only real difference between blasty clerics and battle clerics is heavy armor vs. a bonus cantrip. That’s definitely not a distinction worth an entirely separate class.
But WOTC is anti new classes.
So let’s do with subclass what WotC won’t with class.
 


Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Well, I agree about Hexblade, but that’s a problem caused by it being an attempt to fix the blade pact boon, rather than a fully-realized subclass of its own
Agreed.


And the only real difference between blasty clerics and battle clerics is heavy armor vs. a bonus cantrip. That’s definitely not a distinction worth an entirely separate class.
So let’s do with subclass what WotC won’t with class
There's no need to repeat WOTC's overreacting style. There is a lot of design "missed" because the cleric is both Blasty and Fighty. It is why Cleric Domains QUICKLY got broken once out the PHB.
 

Yaarel

Mind Mage
Like PF archetypes. Just straight overhaul the class by replacing class features.

Including subclasses that say to take them at level 1 instead after it's far too late to be reasonable.
Swapping features is fine. It is kinda what 1DD is doing − take this default or swap it for something else you want.

(I didnt understand how "level 1" is "far too late to be reasonable".)
 

The Myopic Sniper

Adventurer
I’d be fine with that even if the unique crunchy feature didn’t come until 3rd level, honestly.
The reason I like 1st level for proficiences/training/ribbons and the crunchy stuff at 2nd rather than 3rd is that all the full-casters get a decent power buff at level 3 with extra higher spell slots as well a huge assortment of new 2nd level spells. Full casters have plenty to do at level 3 without adding another boost there. If we moved to a 1/2/6/10/14 scheme for all subclasses, martial would obviously have to get a power spike at level 3 to compensate, but that could be done by rearranging the current features or adding a new feature since martials need a buff anyway. Half-casters probably don't need as much of a buff because they gain an extra spell-slot and spell, but the half-casters don't need as much as a buff as something like the Monk, 1D&D Playtest Rogue and even the Fighter and Barbarian, so half-casters could probably benefit from simply reshuffling where features are on the class list.
 


Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
The reason I like 1st level for proficiences/training/ribbons and the crunchy stuff at 2nd rather than 3rd is that all the full-casters get a decent power buff at level 3 with extra higher spell slots as well a huge assortment of new 2nd level spells. Full casters have plenty to do at level 3 without adding another boost there. If we moved to a 1/2/6/10/14 scheme for all subclasses, martial would obviously have to get a power spike at level 3 to compensate, but that could be done by rearranging the current features or adding a new feature since martials need a buff anyway. Half-casters probably don't need as much of a buff because they gain an extra spell-slot and spell, but the half-casters don't need as much as a buff as something like the Monk, 1D&D Playtest Rogue and even the Fighter and Barbarian, so half-casters could probably benefit from simply reshuffling where features are on the class list.
Ah, I see. When you explain it like that, yeah, that makes total sense.
 

Epic Threats

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top