OneDnD Subclasses should start at 1st level

Clint_L

Hero
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.
But what if the key feature that lets you live out your particular character fantasy doesn't kick in until level 14? Couldn't that player claim that the game is really only a level 14-20 game? Should we just give all features at first level to accommodate those players?

What is best for the game overall? Obviously, for the game to work there has to be an approachable entry point for new players. There has to be class balance. Those things are going to demand some standardization. Although there has to be flexibility so that players can develop a character that feels good to them, you can't publish a game that will be a perfect fit, all the time, for every player. Fortunately, there is absolutely nothing preventing you from taking the RAW and tweaking them however you like for your own group, as long as everyone in your group agrees.

But I'm not seeing anything in this thread that is convincing me that adding subclasses at Level 1 would be an improvement to the base game. It would definitely make the game harder to play for a lot of new players.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
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?
Remember that a lot of us don't get access to an established long term group. Telling a player "just homebrew" is outright dismissive and out of touch. Like telling an orphan to just aske their parents to buy them a car. Some stuff just isn't realistic.
 


Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
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.

What, you were born with spellcasting? Or did you pick up spellcasting somewhere along the way? If so, decide when that point was, then back up two weeks. There. There’s your starting point for a level 1.

Sorry but I still don’t buy “need.” “Want” is totally valid, though.
 

Yaarel

Mind Mage
Cleric, Sorcerer, and Warlock choose the subclass at level 1.
Druid and Wizard choose the subclass at level 2.
Barbarian, Bard, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, and Rogue choose it 3.

It is better for the game to standardize the subclass at level 1, the way Cleric, Sorcerer, and Warlock do.

Subclass at level 1 makes more design space possible, both for the designers for future subclasses, including cross-class subclasses, and for the players for character concepts.

[Edited scribal error.]
 
Last edited:

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
But what if the key feature that lets you live out your particular character fantasy doesn't kick in until level 14? Couldn't that player claim that the game is really only a level 14-20 game? Should we just give all features at first level to accommodate those players?

My character concept requires an epic boon. So it’s really a one level game. Basically just World of Warcraft.
 




I leaped with enthusiasm for level 1.

Wizard should be level 1, because some Wizard subclasses like Bladesinger need to be structurally different from other subclasses.

The bladesinger should be no single classed wizard anyway ;)
I´d rather add an arcane half caster into the mix....
 


Yaarel

Mind Mage
It is worthwhile to standardize the amount of design for a subclass across all classes. Schedule the same levels for the subclass features in a character advancement table, so they can apply to all classes.



The UA Ranger gains spells at:
levels 1 (3), 5 (7), 9 (11), 13 (15), and 17 (19).

The 2014 Fighter and Rogue gain spells at:
levels 3 (4), 7 (10), 13 (16), 19.

A future UA Fighter and Rogue can easily gain spells from level 1:
levels 1 (4), 7 (10), 13 (16), and 19,
for a smooth spell progression every third level.



It is convenient to coordinate the levels for the subclasses with the same levels when Fighter and Rogue gain spells.

For example, going by the 2014 Fighter-Rogue, all classes can gain subclass features at levels 1, 7, 13, and 19.

Possibly schedule the subclass features to coordinate with levels 1-and-4, then 7, 13, and 19, to help flesh out the mechanics early on for the subclass concept.

Alternatively, coordinate subclass features for all classes with the spells at:
levels 1, 5, 9, 13, and 17.
 
Last edited:

Yaarel

Mind Mage
The Fighting Styles are said to cost a feat. But they are not worth a feat.

A Fighting Style should at least be worth half of a feat. (The Archery Fighting Style is an extra good half-feat.) When taking a Fighting Style as a feat, it should also grant an extra +1 ability score improvement as well.

Where the Fighting Style is a design space of a half-feat, a Fighting Style can easily grant spellcasting. For example: a hypothetical "Eldritch Fighting Style" can grant a 1st-slot spell and a cantrip, plus some minor feature. Then the rest of the spells can come later.

If the UA updates the Fighting Styles to be more powerful and worth a full feat, then the Eldritch Fighting Style can grant the full suite of two 1st-slot spells and two cantrips, plus something like the Arcane skill proficiency, at level 1.
 
Last edited:

cbwjm

Legend
The bladesinger should be no single classed wizard anyway ;)
I´d rather add an arcane half caster into the mix....
I would like a warrior-mage half-caster too, but people keep coming back with "but what story would that tell" or "what character is it trying to portray".
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
If so, decide when that point was, then back up two weeks. There. There’s your starting point for a level 1.
No. That's not the character I'm playing.

I'm not here to play the Zero. I'm not here to waste my time playing something that isn't the character I want just because some people want a zero level the designers don't actually want to give them or to 'earn' the right or something. They're going to be asking like $50 for this book, so let's not hedge people out of 10% of the game by making the first two levels unappealing and pretty much a bait and switch vis-a-vi the idea of 'play what you want'.
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
No. That's not the character I'm playing.

I'm not here to play the Zero. I'm not here to waste my time playing something that isn't the character I want just because some people want a zero level the designers don't actually want to give them or to 'earn' the right or something. They're going to be asking like $50 for this book, so let's not hedge people out of 10% of the game by making the first two levels unappealing and pretty much a bait and switch vis-a-vi the idea of 'play what you want'.

Well, you may not want this game, then.
 



Just making 10% of the game a disappointment for both the people who want a genuine zero level and people who want to play their characters for the entire game?
That is a valid point of view. Other people might love the Idea.
Is 10% of 60 bucks, around 2 cups of coffee worth arguing?

Then you already have 10 levels that you use so rarely, that those could be easily done away with and most people would not notice it in play.
So make those levels more accessible and then there is enough room for apprentice levels.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top