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

[Yaarel]

I just want D&D to decide whether I'm supposed to play the whole game or not. This fake zero level thing means 10% of the game is worthless to me.

To be fair, level 0 requires a paragraph or less to describe. The race and background feat are listed elsewhere.

 

[Vaalingrade]

To be fair, level 0 requires a paragraph or less to describe.

Right: Levels 1 and 2.

 

[Yaarel]

Right: Levels 1 and 2.

The Warlock must have a pact at level 1.

There are similar situations for other classes.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I gave a number examples for each class earlier in the thread.

But for example, a Warlock requires a pact at level 1. And so on.

If you know what your pact is going to be, just say that's your pact. No mechanics required. Solved.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The Warlock must have a pact at level 1.

There are similar situations for other classes.

Then let the other classes also shed their two 0 levels.

 

[Xamnam]

The Warlock must have a pact at level 1.

There are similar situations for other classes.

I'm not saying it's the right call for 5E's specific implementation of the class, but I honestly like the idea of the warlock who has found a power source, and has managed to draw from it to a degree, but still hasn't actually figured out what it is yet. Bit close to the Sorcerer though.

 

[payn]

Yes, of course it's anecdotal. I haven't done a blinded, peer-reviewed study. But as noted, I have a LOT of experience at it, so I think my anecdotal knowledge is pretty relevant here. Have you just run a camp for 20 new players, many on the spectrum, a number of whom were enrolled by their parents and didn't even know what D&D is? I did.

And it is not unrelated at all. The discussion is about adding subclasses at level 1, which would add significant complexity to the first game for new players. That's the whole point of the sub-classes: you have the basic class and then you get to specialize by adding complexity. Thus, one way to help D&D be easy to explain and learn is to hold off on adding that complexity until players have a little experience under their belts.

It's a moot discussion anyway, though, so probably not worth much more effort. They aren't going to make fundamental changes such as adding sub-classes at level 1. That's not what OneD&D is. But Pathfinder is a thing, for those who feel like they really need more complex character generation right out of the gate. It's a good game, too.

Ah, just go play something else now. I just about got my bingo card filled out.

 

[MGibster]

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.

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter or other publications. You are absolutely correct. I can't think of any good reason why you can't start with your subclass at level 1. A lot of my players want to skip straight to level 3 because they find it more interesting than starting at level 1. Let's just skip the baloney and get right into the meat of the class.
From a balance perspective, this might make multi-classing a problem. But I have a confession to make, I've never liked multi-classing. Ever. I don't think it'd be any great loss for multi-classing to go the way of always evil orcs or racial ASI.

 

[payn]

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter or other publications. You are absolutely correct. I can't think of any good reason why you can't start with your subclass at level 1. A lot of my players want to skip straight to level 3 because they find it more interesting than starting at level 1. Let's just skip the baloney and get right into the meat of the class.
From a balance perspective, this might make multi-classing a problem. But I have a confession to make, I've never liked multi-classing. Ever. I don't think it'd be any great loss for multi-classing to go the way of always evil orcs or racial ASI.

So close, you had me until get rid of multi-classing.

 

[MGibster]

So close, you had me until get rid of multi-classing.

I can live with it, I've just never cared for it. It was especially bad during 3rd edition with their prestige classes. I honestly thought prestige classes were great at first, but in the end I thought they were more trouble than they were worth.