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

[aco175]

I think it should actually be level 2 and have it established that you start the game at level 2.

So, wouldn't 2nd level just be called 1st level?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

View attachment 262799

So, wouldn't 2nd level just be called 1st level?

No. Because of multiclass. You also have twice as many hit dice...

 

[squibbles]

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'm a big fan of the standardization too (though as @TwoSix mentions, it might not be consistent across class groups or the classes we haven't seen yet). I also like the idea of starting all subclasses at 1st and allowing them to make large changes to class features. I'm generally in the camp that adventurers should be competent and able to do their job from the start of play.

I can think of a couple minor issues in addition to the larger ones others have mentioned about multiclassing and frontloading character creation decisions:

Too much complexity at 1st level--in a lot of cases, you can't give a PC its subclass features without giving it its class features first, i.e. totem barbarians need to be able to rage before they can get their totem spirit feature. This will naturally make 1st level PCs stronger, but also more complex at 1st level, especially for subclasses that a lot of features to start with. Not a huge deal, and maybe avoidable, but worth considering.

Cludgy information design--the current class descriptions, which shunt all subclass descriptions to the end of a class's section, would be quite awkward if subclasses started at 1st and changed large parts of the core class, such as ranger spellcasting. I can't off the cuff think of a way it could be organized which wouldn't--on first reading--force you to comb through a boatload of rules before deciding what to play. Again, not a huge issue, but it'd need to be addressed somehow.

Because of multiclassing cherry picking subclass abilities.

In principle, this is an issue with the multiclassing rules and not the subclass rules. Considering that they just moved the multiclassing rules directly into the class descriptions of the expert classes packet, this is something the designers could address directly. I'm not sure that any solution to the issue is a home run, but there are lots of ways it could be worked around.

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.

If subclasses were picked at 1st level, it would probably be a good idea to have an option to change subclasses at some point, like the Tasha's options for changing fighting styles and pact boons at ASI levels--maybe just an option to change subclass at level 3 if you have buyers remorse.

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

Well that comes with some fun metaphysical implications, eh.

Just imagine... undifferentiated wielders of divine power getting to pick which god's VIP club to join after they've killed and taken the stuff of enough goblins (at least that's what the mechanics would say, prove-yourself lore notwithstanding).

 

[Mistwell]

In principle, this is an issue with the multiclassing rules and not the subclass rules. Considering that they just moved the multiclassing rules directly into the class descriptions of the expert classes packet, this is something the designers could address directly. I'm not sure that any solution to the issue is a home run, but there are lots of ways it could be worked around.

The only thing I can think of is something like, "If this is not your first class, your first subclass ability from this class will instead be available to you at third level rather than first level." That would do it, but I suspect mutliclassers wouldn't be happy with it.

 

[Weiley31]

This is pretty much the approach that Ruins of Symbaroum 5E does when it comes to the subclasses in it.

 

[Ath-kethin]

I am a veteran D&D player.

I have never played a character except starting at level 1.

For me it is an important concept to start my character at the beginning.

This especially makes choosing the subclass character concept at level 1 vital.

This bit is pretty much what I came here to say, and it's put better than I could have.

Sure, you can just start at 3rd level (or whatever), but that approach seems to only confirm the idea that you should get the subclass you want from the start. So why not have it at 1st?

Folks bring up multiclassing as a reason, but others have pointed out how that's a non-reason at best. The multiclassing trait table already limits the abilities you get when multiclassing; there's absolutely no reason the benefits of multiclassing can't be limited to the very basic features of the class.

 

[Yaarel]

Sure, you can just start at 3rd level (or whatever), but that approach seems to only confirm the idea that you should get the subclass you want from the start. So why not have it at 1st?

Well said!

To even want to start at level 3 to get the subclass, means, the subclass should happen at level 1 at character creation.

Folks bring up multiclassing as a reason, but others have pointed out how that's a non-reason at best. The multiclassing trait table already limits the abilities you get when multiclassing; there's absolutely no reason the benefits of multiclassing can't be limited to the very basic features of the class.

Good point. Multiclassing has its own rules.

The subclass should start at level 1.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

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.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The subclass should start at level 1.

Sure.

But the fact that:

A) WotC said they wanted to do that, and then didn't do it.

And

B) The fact that this would obviously invalidate ALL existing subclasses (um I guess except Clerics?)

Mean that WotC are not going to do it so it's about as productive in a 1D&D discussion as suggesting WotC move to having four classes or some other old-favourite axe grind.

 

[payn]

simple solution.

You cannot multiclass before level 5. When you take a level in new class, you need to take 4 levels of that class before you can gain levels in another class.

Oh, hell no.