OneDnD Subclasses should start at 1st level

[clearstream]

I love that they seem to be standardizing subclass progression, but why start them at 3rd level instead of 1st? Even for the 2014 classes that get their subclasses after 1st level I have never actually seen a player wait until then to choose their subclass anyway. They always pick at character creation. Plus, having all subclasses start at 1st level would allow subclass to transform the base class more. Sorcerers could get access to different spell lists depending on subclass. Bards could get different options for their set of always-prepared spells depending on subclass. Rangers could have some subclasses that cast spells and some that don’t. Waiting until 3rd level makes it so that if your subclass is a significant part of the character concept, you have to spend two levels not playing that concept, at least not to its fullest extent.

Multiclassing.

 

[clearstream]

I am a veteran D&D player.

I have never played a character except starting at level 1.

For me it is an important concept to start my character at the beginning.

This especially makes choosing the subclass character concept at level 1 vital.

Why?

What's the problem with significant choices as you progress?

 

[Yaarel]

Why?

What's the problem with significant choices as you progress?

I think of the player characters as a person. There is an ongoing story, like a bio.

I want a sense of where the person is coming from, and what the person achieves.

I guess it is the "zero to hero" cliche. But it means something for me.

Every character I play starts at level 1.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think of the player characters as a person. There is an ongoing story, like a bio.

I want a sense of where the person is coming from, and what the person achieves.

I guess it is the "zero to hero" cliche. But it means something for me.

Every character I play starts at level 1.

Our characters also start at level 1. And then they evolve. Having a meaningful choice after level 1 is very welcome.
Of course there are multiclass options which we use, but even subclass choice, although planned, are not set in stone.

 

[clearstream]

I think of the player characters as a person. There is an ongoing story, like a bio.

I want a sense of where the person is coming from, and what the person achieves.

I guess it is the "zero to hero" cliche. But it means something for me.

Every character I play starts at level 1.

Absolutely appreciate the desire to play an imagined person. Remains unclear why significant career choices post chargen are in conflict with that?

 

[Charlaquin]

Multiclassing.

What’s the problem? If 1st level class features can be made safe for multiclassing, then 1st level subclass features can be too. In fact, they already exist for the classes that currently get their subclass at 1st level.

 

[Yaarel]

Absolutely appreciate the desire to play an imagined person. Remains unclear why significant career choices post chargen are in conflict with that?

To be clear, I want to be the one who decides my character concept, in the way that makes sense to me.

I dont want someone else to decide for me. It is my character. Not theirs.

When my Eldritch Knight masters wizardry and warfare, the concept is a cultural fusion that the character grows up with.



The "gish" Wizard/Fighter has been the core part of D&D since the origins of D&D around 50 years ago.

The High Elf was earlier a single class that is simultaneously a Wizard and Fighter.

In 5e, the Eldritch Knight inherits this elven gishy D&D tradition. It is quintessential D&D.

1e established the High Elf as a gish. 1e established the Githyanki as the namesake "gish".

Many D&D players have been calling for a well-designed Wizard-Fighter playable class.

The Eldritch Knight must work well from level 1 as the Wizard-Fighter tradition.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

To be clear, I want to be the one who decides my character concept, in the way that makes sense to me.

I dont want someone else to decide for me. It is my character. Not theirs.

When my Eldritch Knight masters wizardry and warfare, the concept is a cultural fusion that the character grows up with.



The "gish" Wizard/Fighter has been the core part of D&D since the origins of D&D around 50 years ago.

The High Elf was earlier a single class that is simultaneously a Wizard and Fighter.

In 5e, the Eldritch Knight inherits this elven gishy D&D tradition. It is quintessential D&D.

1e established the High Elf as a gish. 1e established the Githyanki as the namesake "gish".

Many D&D players have been calling for a well-designed Wizard-Fighter playable class.

The Eldritch Knight must work well from level 1 as the Wizard-Fighter tradition.

And with one D&D it does well enough.
Especially if you are a high elf.

High elf:
Str 16, dex 12, con 13, int 16 wis 10, cha 8
Magic initiate.
3 cantrips, 1 first level spell. A fighting style, second wind.
Sounds solid.

 

[Bill Zebub]

To be clear, I want to be the one who decides my character concept, in the way that makes sense to me.

I dont want someone else to decide for me. It is my character. Not theirs.

When my Eldritch Knight masters wizardry and warfare, the concept is a cultural fusion that the character grows up with.



The "gish" Wizard/Fighter has been the core part of D&D since the origins of D&D around 50 years ago.

The High Elf was earlier a single class that is simultaneously a Wizard and Fighter.

In 5e, the Eldritch Knight inherits this elven gishy D&D tradition. It is quintessential D&D.

1e established the High Elf as a gish. 1e established the Githyanki as the namesake "gish".

Many D&D players have been calling for a well-designed Wizard-Fighter playable class.

The Eldritch Knight must work well from level 1 as the Wizard-Fighter tradition.

Is it impossible for you to imagine an Eldritch knight who grew up in a cultural fusion of wizardry and warfare who does not yet cast spells while adventuring? You can't think of a narrative reason for that?

And, I'm sorry, but "I want to have exactly the level 1 mechanics I want for my concept" is not a valid rationale for needing/granting it. Maybe I'm imagining a dwarf who grew up in a culture where everybody learns to dual wield warhammers. Does that mean I should get it at level 1?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Upthread I described how a character concept of mine was best expressed as a kensei monk with a sword. (“What’s a monk? I’m just a swordswoman.”). Since I couldn’t actually use a sword until 3rd level, my interpretation was that my master would only allow me to use a wooden sword (i.e. staff) until I had proven my worth. It ended up being a fun trope, and I was almost sorry when I earned the sword at 3rd level.

Now, I don’t want to impose my RP preferences on others. I’m only making the point that somebody may want their subclass features at 1st level, but they don’t need them. You can always narrate around it. And if you embrace the storytelling challenge, rather than resent it, you may actually enjoy it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Is it impossible for you to imagine an Eldritch knight who grew up in a cultural fusion of wizardry and warfare who does not yet cast spells while adventuring? You can't think of a narrative reason for that?

It's not impossible, but that doesn't mean that's what I want to do.

I want to play my character concept without wasting levels not being that character, plain and simple.

 

[Yaarel]

Is it impossible for you to imagine an Eldritch knight who grew up in a cultural fusion of wizardry and warfare who does not yet cast spells while adventuring? You can't think of a narrative reason for that?

And, I'm sorry, but "I want to have exactly the level 1 mechanics I want for my concept" is not a valid rationale for needing/granting it. Maybe I'm imagining a dwarf who grew up in a culture where everybody learns to dual wield warhammers. Does that mean I should get it at level 1?

I said I dont want it. I did not say I can not imagine it.

I dont want an Eldritch Knight that is nonmagical at any level.

 

[Yaarel]

And with one D&D it does well enough.
Especially if you are a high elf.

High elf:
Str 16, dex 12, con 13, int 16 wis 10, cha 8
Magic initiate.
3 cantrips, 1 first level spell. A fighting style, second wind.
Sounds solid.

Wait you just told someone to pay a feat tax.

No thank you.

Feats Should Be Nice, Not Required.

The Eldritch Knight "gish" concept must be a magical warrior at level 1.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Wait you just told someone to pay a feat tax.

No thank you.

Feats Should Be Nice, Not Required.

The Eldritch Knight "gish" concept must be a magical warrior at level 1.

You just got a free feat. So if you want to start woth your concept from level 1, just use the free feat.
So you just got a freebie. The most free, classless extra. And then you complain about a tax...

So you want me to pay a subclass tax to be able to cast a spell as a fighter at level 1?
What if I want to be a battlemaster with a bit of magical ability?

 

[cbwjm]

You just got a free feat. So if you want to start woth your concept from level 1, just use the free feat.
So you just got a freebie. The most free, classless extra. And then you complain about a tax...

So you want me to pay a subclass tax to be able to cast a spell as a fighter at level 1?
What if I want to be a battlemaster with a bit of magical ability?

That's fine, then you can pick up the feat and for others who want to start off at level 1 as an eldritch knight, with a completely different feat, can do that. Maybe I want to be an eldritch knight who is a trained healer, your way means I can't do that because I have to spend the feat on picking up spells to feel like I'm an eldritch knight from the start. With a subclass at level 1, you can be a battlemaster and have a little bit of magic without needing the eldritch knight subclass.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It's not impossible, but that doesn't mean that's what I want to do.

That’s fine. As long as everybody agrees there’s no “need” on either side of this debate, only “want”.

I want to play my character concept without wasting levels not being that character, plain and simple.

Oops. Except this, again, suggests it’s not possible to “be” the subclass without mechanics.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I said I dont want it. I did not say I can not imagine it.

I dont want an Eldritch Knight that is nonmagical at any level.

And I want a pony.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

That's fine, then you can pick up the feat and for others who want to start off at level 1 as an eldritch knight, with a completely different feat, can do that. Maybe I want to be an eldritch knight who is a trained healer, your way means I can't do that because I have to spend the feat on picking up spells to feel like I'm an eldritch knight from the start. With a subclass at level 1, you can be a battlemaster and have a little bit of magic without needing the eldritch knight subclass.

It is not my way. It is the 5e way. And 1D&D makes it easier to have your concept from level 1.
I am still not convinced that level 1 subclasses are necessary. And I think the disadvantages to having a subclass at level 1 outweighs the advantages and I also mean classes like sorcerers and warlocks.

I still think giving those classes two decision points would help, and put subclass into the second.

Actually fighters already have a decision point at level 1. We could easily invent a fighting style that allows the taking of magic initiate. Then you are the eldritch knight from the get go, without wasting your level 1 feat.
Right now, fighting style look very much like level 1 feats... so the power level are about equal.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Oops. Except this, again, suggests it’s not possible to “be” the subclass without mechanics.

Yes. You cannot 'be a skilled warrior that blends bladecraft with spellcraft with absolutely no spells.

I can't get spells by just pretending to have them. That's where the NEED that you keep belittling, minimizing and insulting comes in.

 

[Clint_L]

I'm not seeing a lot of discussion of what is good for the game in general, here.

I suggest that if you have very particular needs for how you envisage your character, that is an excellent opportunity to work with your DM to home brew something, rather than aspiring to change the entire game for everyone, at a pretty fundamental level. Which is not going to happen with OneD&D, so what's even the point of arguing about it?