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

[Charlaquin]

First, pick nature and survival as skills up front and when you become a scout you get expertise in them for free. The PC is going from good to an expert, which makes perfect sense.

Second, if the player does choose not to get those proficiencies early, the choice for it not to make sense was his right out of the gate, so he has no right to complain.

Scout is just an example, one that illustrates the problem particularly well. If it’s supposed to be the non-magical ranger, it should be that from 1st level instead of spending 2 levels as a thief and then retroactively becoming a non-magical ranger. But you can see the same effect with like the Cavalier Fighter.

 

[Charlaquin]

To play devil's advocate, why would a 1st level character with 1 or 0 saving throw proficiencies be "incomplete"? Just because we have learned to expect that 1st level characters have proficiency in two saving throws does not mean it's necessary.

I sort of have a preference to delay subclasses by a couple of levels, and one reason is to make it easier for beginners although that's minor. Really it's just a preference. It seems like others have a preference for 1st level, and I respect that. I don't think anybody has a truly compelling reason why it objectively should be one or the other. It's just...preference.

It’s definitely preference. But personally I think there’s good reason to favor the more flexible design. And I don’t think doing so has to make the game more complex at 1st level.

 

[Dausuul]

It’s definitely preference. But personally I think there’s good reason to favor the more flexible design. And I don’t think doing so has to make the game more complex at 1st level.

If you want subclasses chosen at 1st level, that makes the game more complex by definition unless something else is removed. What should be taken out, or pushed back to 3rd, to make room?

 

[Vaalingrade]

I really think some people are overestimating the extent to which they care one way or another what a tiny handful of outraged people are saying on the Internet.

A decade of sabotage. Even once they got what they wanted.

 

[Charlaquin]

If you want subclasses chosen at 1st level, that makes the game more complex by definition unless something else is removed.

How so?

What should be taken out, or pushed back to 3rd, to make room?

I mean, I guess re-arrange the class features slightly?

 

[Bill Zebub]

A decade of sabotage. Even once they got what they wanted.

I have no idea what you mean here.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I’ll add that I’m voicing an opinion because, well, it’s teh Interwebz. But if I had to prioritize my hopes and concerns for 5.5, this one would be down in the triple digits.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

At this point, I would prefer a subclass scheme that goes 1st level, 2nd level, 6th level, 10th level, 14th level. 1st level would offer more basic benefits that you would expect the subclass to have such as additional relevant skills, bonus spells, weapon proficiencies, armor training and possibly a ribbon feature, while 2nd level would get the real crunchy unique feature that the rest of the subclass will build on.

I imagine if they keep the 3rd, 6th, 10th and 14th level subclass scheme we are going to see some pretty big changes to some of the priest and mage subclasses. I imagine that Cleric might get a domain choice at 2nd level. Domains would no longer be subclasses but instead might just be a list of bonus spells at 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th and 10th level like the Song of Restoration on the Bard as well as an alternative use of Channel Divinitiy. Subclasses would be a lot broader with an option for a Warpriest, a Cloistered Cleric and an Evangelist to cover some of the basic archetypes and possibly something one oddball subclass for flavor.

I could probably live with either. If they start cramming a bunch of bonus spells and expected proficiencies and training at 3rd level, I would prefer they go to a 1st level/2nd level type plan instead. I will definitely wait to see what they do before I judge though.

 

[Maxperson]

Scout is just an example, one that illustrates the problem particularly well. If it’s supposed to be the non-magical ranger, it should be that from 1st level instead of spending 2 levels as a thief and then retroactively becoming a non-magical ranger. But you can see the same effect with like the Cavalier Fighter.

I see it as a problem that is self created. Were I playing the future scout, I would have the scouting skills already and be using them from level 1 to scout for the group. By level 3 nothing retroactive is happening. It's just the natural progression what I started at level 1 and my skills are improving. Same with the cavalier.

 

[Charlaquin]

I see it as a problem that is self created. Were I playing the future scout, I would have the scouting skills already and be using them from level 1 to scout for the group. By level 3 nothing retroactive is happening. It's just the natural progression what I started at level 1 and my skills are improving. Same with the cavalier.

But the magical ranger gets to be a ranger from 1st level, whereas the scout has to wait until 3rd level. Until then they’re just the same as anyone else who happened to train in Nature and Survival (which by the way Scout actively disincentivizes).

If a subclass has a meaningful character and story element to it (which in my opinion, it should), you should get to play that character’s story immediately.