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

[Benjamin Olson]

I like not having every decision about my character be set in stone at level 1. And I love new players not having to make one more major and consequential decision about their character at level 1.

 

[Storyteller Hero]

Not everyone starts their campaigns at 1st level though nor is it required to start a campaign at 1st level so it begs the question of whether it really matters if subclasses are started sooner or later; personally, I think it should really depend on the class on a case-by-case basis if the mechanics of classes are not going to be as homogenous as in 4e.

 

[Lojaan]

No thank you. The first two levels are learning how to play the class. Once they get the hang of it, they can specialize. I don't even think clerics should get their subclass at lvl 1. Make them prove themselves to their deity a bit first.

Plus you want players to look forward to the good stuff. Not start with it.

Plus that means EVERYONE would be doing gross one level multiclassing dips. Yuck.

 

[Charlaquin]

How? How do you extend that to subclass if it's not your first class, if you intend to continue in that second class and gain abilities which modify that first level subclass ability? It would wreck the entire design scheme of subclasses and force them to modify the first level subclass ability to be something that isn't modified by a later one.

Just limit what you get from the subclass at 1st level.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I don't even think clerics should get their subclass at lvl 1. Make them prove themselves to their deity a bit first.

I definitely don't think clerics have any particular reason to get level 1 subclasses. 5e is so loose about the link of cleric domain to deity, that there's just no reason they can't pick it later.

The ones that most beg to get level 1 subclasses, under current lore of what subclasses are for each class, are Warlocks, whose subclass is their patron, Sorcerers, who need to pick their birthright (really you shouldn't even be able to multiclass into one later without some sort of story event), and, actually, Paladins, who aren't really Paladins until they swear their oath. Of course that lore could be changed.

I would also argue that it would perhaps make more sense for Wizards to start with a subclass because it's presumably whatever they studied at Wizard school, but then again it would make more sense for Wizards to remain at Wizard school rather than trying to expand their bookish learning through a life of adventuring. Similar things are true to varying degrees of several classes.

 

[Parmandur]

Ideally, probably, but I think backwards compatibility won out here.

 

[Krachek]

We need to galaxy brained on this.

You choose your subclass at first level.

But you don’t choose your class until third level.

The Group is chosen at level 1, the subclas At level 3, and the class at level 5!

 

[aco175]

I could see getting rid of subclasses altogether. Give enough meaningful choices along the class levels to make different PCs. Have enough feats to tailor the PC to fit in the party. I get that subclasses allow for newer players to make the concept work better without picking the powers to make it themselves.

 

[cbwjm]

I agree, level 1 should have been the first subclass level for every class, class abilities could be shuffled around so that less is gained at level 1 from the base class. Do that and multiclassing wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

So much yes. Let me be the thing I picked out of the gates.