D&D 5E (2024) Subclasses should start at 1st level

[Li Shenron]

Why do people think beginning players will struggle with selecting a subclass at 1st level? It's weird to me to think that, since they already do with some classes; or do people not allow a new player to run a cleric, sorcerer, or warlock? New players are fine with 1st level subclasses and you hardly need the 1st 1 or 2 levels to "learn your class". It honestly sounds a little insulting to me.

I play mostly with beginners and casual players, and I've seen many of them getting pissed off if there's too many things to be chosen before starting the game. WotC understands that, and in fact they are actually proposing more pre-defined suggestions in this UA than those in the original PHB. And the subclass choice is a big deal, asking someone who just went through 12 classes and was maybe already undecided, to now also make a choice between 3-4 narrower concept, can be too much.

It is nothing about "learning your class", subclass feature or class feature at 1st level doesn't change the level of complexity, it's about giving some time before narrowing down a concept that you then carry on until the end, a bit like choosing your university specialization after a couple of years of broader studies. Besides, Cleric and Sorcerer and Warlock got their subclass at 1st level ONLY because the story behind their subclasses was that they define their source of spellcasting powers and so they wanted them fixed since the start (for the Cleric the story is a bit more complicated, conceptually a domain could easily be granted later, but the original Cleric subclass during 5e playtest had the DEITY as subclass rather than the domain, that's why it was set at 1st and it remained so).

 

[Xamnam]

Right, I think the best approach for learning is through pregens and intro products. Just play the game first, that's what you need to learn. Then, start building your own characters. My preferred approach instead of making everyone, every time, go through the newb tube when they play.

100% agreed about the value of those products, I ran my first group through LMoP and was grateful for the structure it provided both me and the players. I just wouldn't want their assumed presence to affect the quality of introduction and teaching in the PHB, especially if they're separate paid products like LMoP or DoSI.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

In my experience, there are three kinds of multiclassing. Dips, hybrids, and mid-life crisis.

Spoken like someone who never played 2nd edition or earlier! Good lord! Kids today! (I realize you're probably in your 30s lol)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Right, I think the best approach for learning is through pregens and intro products.

I dunno about intro products, my experience with them has been mixed at best, but pregen characters is almost always the best way to introduce anyone but the most veteran/picky RPGers to a game. Sometimes they're all you need, like in the Darkstryder campaign for Star Wars D6.

 

[Horwath]

This is a nice idea. Probably, 13/13 seems still a bit too low, tells my gut feeling. But i guess you have more experience woth it tham I have.

we didn't try it at super high levels, but you get double class features at levels 5,11,17 and 20 where single class gets it's power spikes and levels 8 and 14 fall nicely between 5 and 11, and between 11 and 17.

at 13th level, you are 8/8 split.
you have 4 ASI's, vs single class 3.
and 3 extra levels should balance out missing on those 9-13 features.

in the end, you trade last 7 levels of a class for first 13 levels in another class.

 

[Clint_L]

So do you just ban classes that gain their subs at 1st and 2nd?

Should clarify, that's grades 9/10, 11/12. So there's always a few semi-experienced kids worked in, and those are the ones I direct to more complicated classes. For real newbies I suggest classes like rogue, fighter/barbarian/paladin, ranger.

 

[Clint_L]

There's a lot of suggestions about radical changes to multi-classing coming from the suggestion to add sub-classes at level 1. A much easier solution would be to keep things more or less as they are; OneD&D is supposed to be backwards compatible and more about tinkering than making radical changes.

If it ain't broke...

 

[Marandahir]

I did see that, but it still irks me that when selecting rogue I'm locked into Thieves cant. It's fine if I'm able to adjust things on dndbeyond, I'm fine with making manual adjustments, but annoying if I can't. It should instead be a suggested language.

In the old D&D Next Playtest I recall them trying to rename it to Rogue's Cant, but that getting shot down for nostalgia purposes.

Honestly, I'd move Thieves' Cant into the Thief subclass… though I'd want to give the other subclasses something similar and I do like the idea that the Rogue gets bonus languages unlike other classes given that it's the most experty of Experts. Languages, Tools, Vehicles, Skills, and Stealthy Fighting should all be things its good at.

 

[Charlaquin]

In the old D&D Next Playtest I recall them trying to rename it to Rogue's Cant, but that getting shot down for nostalgia purposes.

Honestly, I'd move Thieves' Cant into the Thief subclass… though I'd want to give the other subclasses something similar and I do like the idea that the Rogue gets bonus languages unlike other classes given that it's the most experty of Experts. Languages, Tools, Vehicles, Skills, and Stealthy Fighting should all be things its good at.

Just go for “you learn thieves’ cant or another language of your choice.”

 

[Marandahir]

Just go for “you learn thieves’ cant or another language of your choice.”

That works too. I do like the 2 languages bit here though; makes the Rogue feel like a true expert of tongues. So I'd argue - "you learn two basic languages of your choice, one of which can be substituted with Thieves' Cant, if you don't already know it."