OneDnD Subclasses should start at 1st level

Yaarel

Mind Mage
No they don't. You can "participate in magical culture" with a first level magical adept feat. Or the Eldritch Knight can learn as a result of defeat.
That might be your character concept.

My character concept for an Eldritch Fighter is an Elf who grew up in a High culture, where there is a military force that specializes in blending magic and soldiery. This military institution is where the tradition of some elves growing up proficient with sword, bow, and cantrip, comes from. The High elven culture strongly associates the Eldritch Fighter tradition and the Bladesinger Wizard tradition. These are patriotic institutions that the High culture values and makes prestigious.

What needs to be available at level 1 depends on the character concept.



magical adept feat
Which is why telepathy and telekinesis should be first level feats.
For me it is a nonstarter, to require a feat tax in order to make a Psi Knight a Psi Knight.

To require a feat tax to make an Eldritch Knight an Eldritch Knight, would make the game unfun for many fans.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

That might be your character concept.

My character concept for an Eldritch Fighter is an Elf who grew up in a High culture, where there is a military force that specializes in blending magic and soldiery. This is military institution is where the tradition of some elves growing up proficient with sword, bow, and cantrip, comes from. The High elven culture strongly associates the Eldritch Fighter tradition and the Bladesinger Wizard tradition. These are patriotic institutions that the High culture values and makes prestigious.

What needs to be available at level 1 depends on the character concept.
Your character concept is someone who grew up as a trained spellcaster as a part of their background. There is literally a feat to do that that is availabe as a part of your background. It is a feat that you have the full ability to take and that will cover what you say your character concept is.

Therefore with the D&Done rules your character concept and mine can both be covered if the Eldritch Knight starts at level 3.

Edit: And you don't need a feat to make a psi knight a psi knight. You don't need to unlock the psychic potential at level 1. It's there if "I could always do this" is part of your concept.
 

Yaarel

Mind Mage
Your character concept is someone who grew up as a trained spellcaster as a part of their background. There is literally a feat to do that that is availabe as a part of your background. It is a feat that you have the full ability to take and that will cover what you say your character concept is.

Therefore with the D&Done rules your character concept and mine can both be covered if the Eldritch Knight starts at level 3.

Edit: And you don't need a feat to make a psi knight a psi knight. You don't need to unlock the psychic potential at level 1. It's there if "I could always do this" is part of your concept.LO
I disagree with your character concept. I dont want to play it.
 

I disagree with your character concept. I dont want to play it.
And I don't give a monkeys whether you want to play it there are plenty of concepts I don't want to play that I'm glad other people can. The thing is you don't want me to play it.

I am fine with your character concept - but you can play it. You said that your background involved learning magic - so you learn magic in your background - which is what backgrounds are for. You are asking for the rules to be changed not because you want to play an already playable concept but because you want to make sure no one can play certain concepts. It's pure gatekeeping that makes the game smaller, weaker, and less flexible.
 

Yaarel

Mind Mage
Eldritch Knight is a specific approach to combat. It needs to happen at level 1 and to continue to develop further.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Funny thing is WotC agree, they even said so in I believe the previous playtest video.

The idea that people need to "learn their class" is obviously laughable. Most classes don't even get some of their core abilities until L3 anyway, and a lot of classes play virtually identically at L1.

As @Parmandur said, this seems to be a backwards-compatibility thing. If they did move it to L1, which I believe they agree makes sense, they'd invalidate all existing subclasses, which, honestly they're going to do anyway, eventually, but doing it instantly might cause er... some uproar?

As for multiclassing, pfft, who cares? If that really matters either:

A) Disallow or limit multiclassing (i.e. maybe you don't let people pick another class until they've done three levels in this one, for example).

or

B) Make it so that you only get the "subclass" for one class (I've seen games do things like this).

To be honest disallowing multiclassing in 5E/1D&D does basically no damage to the game. There are very few genuine RP concepts which benefit from multiclassing, and 95% of multiclassing is either:

A) System experts exploiting synergies to attempt to make an OP character.

or

B) System noobs/ninnies picking "kewl" classes because they're allowed to and usually creating barely-playable junk characters full of anti-synergy.

Neither of those is a good things and that's the overwhelming majority of 5E multiclassing.
As you have zero objective data for the claim that multiclassing is not used as a genuine RP concept, I disagree. I think a great deal of multiclassing is done for genuine RP concepts. And my evidence is exactly as varied and deep as yours for that contention. So all we have is WOTCs surveying and playtesting on the concept - and they clearly think it's valuable as they are not even including it directly in each class.

Which means we need to account for it. Whether you personally like and use multiclassing or not.
 

Eldritch Knight is a specific approach to combat. It needs to happen at level 1 and to continue to develop further.
This would appear to be something you have completely invented.

If you want it to start at level 1 you have the new Magic Initiate feat as part of your background to give you cantrips and a first level spell Meanwhile the Eldritch Knight at third level gains cantrips and two first level spell slots and the Weapon Bond ability.

Given that the Magic Initiate feat gives you a slightly lesser version of everything except Weapon Bond are you claiming that Weapon Bond is the core of Eldritch Knight? And there's nothing meaningful about Eldritch Knight without it?

And are you saying apprentices can never learn swordplay before magic?

Because if all that is not true then you are inventing things. And inventing them with the only effect of trying to prevent other people playing what they want while not actually enabling your concept.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
I am fine starting subclasses at level 1, provided again that if it's not your first class (you're multiclassing) then the first level subclass feature gets moved to level 3 of the 2nd and following classes for you.
 

Yaarel

Mind Mage
For the Fighter class, I want the heavy armor to instead be part of the Fighting Style section.

This increases the size of the Fighting Style design space. Thus the Fighting Style can become a more impactful and flavorful choice for the many different kinds of Fighter concepts.

Dex Fighters can thereby eschew the heavy armor proficiency, and instead pick a Fighting Style that expresses their agility combat better.

Many cultures wont even have heavy armor, and it makes less sense for their Fighters to have trained in it.

The Fighting Style with heavy armor (with ways to synergize even enhance heavy armor) should be the default Fighting Style, alongside the other Fighting Styles that players can choose instead.
 

Marandahir

Crown-Forester (he/him)
I know this was said in somewhat jest - however why is it a PC can change classes but not change sub-classes? There doesn't seem to be a narrative reason why that I can think of
They could in 4e Essentials - there were intra-class multiclassing feats that let you gain subclass features of another subclass of your class. So Protectors (summoner Druids) could take the feat for the Sentinel's animal companion or the 2008 Druid's Wild Shape, and vice versa versa.

I'd really like to see something like this come back.

That said, there ARE 5e suggestions for changing sub-classes wholecloth - it's in the 2014 DMG, and built into the example of a Paladin Oathbreaker subclass. You break your oath, and instead of losing all your abilities until you repent, your subclass is replaced with the Oathbreaker one.
 

They could in 4e Essentials - there were intra-class multiclassing feats that let you gain subclass features of another subclass of your class. So Protectors (summoner Druids) could take the feat for the Sentinel's animal companion or the 2008 Druid's Wild Shape, and vice versa versa.

I'd really like to see something like this come back.

That said, there ARE 5e suggestions for changing sub-classes wholecloth - it's in the 2014 DMG, and built into the example of a Paladin Oathbreaker subclass. You break your oath, and instead of losing all your abilities until you repent, your subclass is replaced with the Oathbreaker one.
For the record changing subclasses as a result of roleplaying and consequences is huge and minor at the same time.

And on thinking about it that's one thing that could be very interesting - multiclassing through subclasses. Each class offers one "multiclass version" that you take instead of an own-class subclass.
 

Yaarel

Mind Mage
It seems doable to take several subclasses within the same class.

Start off as a Swashbuckler Rogue, then switch back and forth between Swashbuckler and Trickster. Or any subclass combo.

It is doable because, the first level of a subclass is a surprisingly small amount of design space. It balances when taking the small design space of a Swashbuckler then the small design space of a Trickster. Of course, to do so, delays the higher level subclass features that come later. But that is how multiclassing works.



To take an other class as a subclass is a more challenging design.

The level 1 of a class is frontloaded, with a bunch of features going on at the same time.

In order to take an other class as a subclass, one would need to decide which small feature from that class is the most salient one.

For example, suppose a Rogue took Bard as a subclass. It is a dilemma to decide if such a Bardic Rogue would want some of the spellcasting or some of the Inspiration, for the small amount of subclass design space available.
 

As you have zero objective data for the claim that multiclassing is not used as a genuine RP concept, I disagree. I think a great deal of multiclassing is done for genuine RP concepts. And my evidence is exactly as varied and deep as yours for that contention. So all we have is WOTCs surveying and playtesting on the concept - and they clearly think it's valuable as they are not even including it directly in each class.

Which means we need to account for it. Whether you personally like and use multiclassing or not.
I'm afraid you've missed my point.

I'm not saying RPing is "never used for a genuine RP concept", as you can see from what you quoted. Obviously that would be impossible to prove "objectively" in either direction.

What I'm saying is MC'ing, as per 5E/1D&D is not particularly good for the game. Again, my position is that the vast majority of MC combinations in 5E (and presumably 1D&D) fall into two categories:

1) Simple powergaming - exploiting synergies to make more powerful/effective characters.

I don't think this is a major issue as 5E is relatively well-balanced against powergaming (interestingly), but it offers no benefit to the game.

2) Picking a classes that seem cool/make sense with no regard for synergy that often ends up with a significantly weakened character.

I think this is a real problem, and actively detracts from the game experience. Sometimes this is for a "genuine RP concept", but unless there's some real guidance/sense used it's very easy to end up with a character who is just not good at anything.

So I think it's very reasonable to suggest some limits to MC'ing. You apparently do as well given you're suggesting making it so classes after the first get subclasses delayed.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
I mentioned it in one of the other threads as I thought of it... but I'll mention it here too since it applies to the conversation:

I would not be surprised if only a few classes got changed such that Experts and Warriors get their subclasses at Level 3 (which all six classes already do)... while the Priests and Mages got theirs bumped up to Level 1. The Cleric, Sorcerer and Warlock are already at Level 1, the Druid and Wizard are only at Level 2 (so a 1 level bump up isn't a big deal), and it's the Paladin that is the only one that would make a grand jump from Level 3 to 1.

This solves a lot of issues (not all, just a lot), plus opens up the door to potential "Class group" subclasses in the future... ones that applies and can be taken by any member of a Class group now that they'd all have the same progression within each group.
 

Laurefindel

Legend
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.
Yes

Subclass doesn’t have to contribute much mechanically speaking (yet) but the concept should be more or less set at level 1. I’m fine with the subclass really kicking in at level 3 to offer a smooth(er) power progression.

My ideal would be something like the warlock; choose a subclass concept at level 1, further develop it at level 3, and gain another choice at level 5 (although the latter might conflict with extra attack, or if extra attack is one of the choices, make the level 5 choice a non-option)
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
I'm afraid you've missed my point.

I'm not saying RPing is "never used for a genuine RP concept", as you can see from what you quoted. Obviously that would be impossible to prove "objectively" in either direction.

What I'm saying is MC'ing, as per 5E/1D&D is not particularly good for the game. Again, my position is that the vast majority of MC combinations in 5E (and presumably 1D&D) fall into two categories:

1) Simple powergaming - exploiting synergies to make more powerful/effective characters.

I don't think this is a major issue as 5E is relatively well-balanced against powergaming (interestingly), but it offers no benefit to the game.

2) Picking a classes that seem cool/make sense with no regard for synergy that often ends up with a significantly weakened character.

I think this is a real problem, and actively detracts from the game experience. Sometimes this is for a "genuine RP concept", but unless there's some real guidance/sense used it's very easy to end up with a character who is just not good at anything.

So I think it's very reasonable to suggest some limits to MC'ing. You apparently do as well given you're suggesting making it so classes after the first get subclasses delayed.
WOTC is including multiclassing in the 2024 edition, and increasing it's prominence by putting the rules for it directly in each class. We're just discussing the new edition, right?

Right now subclasses don't start at level 1. You guys are suggesting they should. If that were to happen, I am saying they should make sure the subclass you multiclass into doesn't grant it's subclass powers until after level 1, to prevent the issue you mentioned as #1 above: cherry picking single levels of a class to get the subclass ability.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
WOTC is including multiclassing in the 2024 edition, and increasing it's prominence by putting the rules for it directly in each class. We're just discussing the new edition, right?

Right now subclasses don't start at level 1. You guys are suggesting they should. If that were to happen, I am saying they should make sure the subclass you multiclass into doesn't grant it's subclass powers until after level 1, to prevent the issue you mentioned as #1 above: cherry picking single levels of a class to get the subclass ability.
Some classes in the 2014 PHB have subclasses that start at 1st level. Do you see this problem happening with them?
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Some classes in the 2014 PHB have subclasses that start at 1st level. Do you see this problem happening with them?
Yes, I definitely do and have for a long time. It's why I think if they're going to make that mistake again, correct it for the problem that exist with the 2014 version.

It's most of the reason you see people cherry picking a single level of Cleric, or a single level of Hexblade Warlock.
 

Marandahir

Crown-Forester (he/him)
Some classes in the 2014 PHB have subclasses that start at 1st level. Do you see this problem happening with them?
I see the issue where Cleric, Warlock, and Sorcerer PCs have a lot of frontloaded choices which could lead to options paralysis.

But I still think it serves their narratives to have Lv1 Subclasses. The other classes, minus maybe Paladin, don’t really need subclass choice at 1st. But I’d rather it standardised one way or another, and it would be easier to give a ribbon to each subclass at 1st.

I still think if you want a true apprentice before specialising you could have 0th Level classes that reflect Warrior / Expert / Priest / Mage.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Yes, I definitely do and have for a long time. It's why I think if they're going to make that mistake again, correct it for the problem that exist with the 2014 version.

It's most of the reason you see people cherry picking a single level of Cleric, or a single level of Hexblade Warlock.
A single level of Cleric for… what, heavy armor? Hexblade for the Hexblade’s Curse? Easy features to just not grant at 1st level.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top