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

[CreamCloud0]

Okay, so my ultimate solution to this issue that I’m certain absolutely no-one will have problems with is this: Everyone HAS to pick their subclass at 1st level, no backsies or changing, but you don’t actually receive ANY BENEFITS of picking your subclass until 3rd level.

Problem solved.

/j

 

[Minigiant]

Which is only possible because they get their subclasses at 1st level. Having subclasses start at 3rd level, or even 2nd level, significantly curtails the subclasses’ ability to change how the base class plays, which is precisely why I’m advocating for all subclasses to start at 1st level. Doing otherwise is leaving valuable design space on the table

Nothing is stopping a 3rd level subclass from seriously altering a class.

The only reason why clerics and sorcerer need 1st level subclasses is because there aren't a bunch of different base classes so you have to section off the spells and features of vastly different archtypes that don't make sense together in the lore in a way to not overload fans at 1st level.

If there were a cleric class and invoker class, you could shift subclasses to 1st level.

It’s a noncaster thing in 5e. Every class that gets a 1st level subclass is a caster. Because only casters are allowed to do anything interesting.

No it's not. The result has nothing to do with the grouping.

Its because the nonspellcaster classes that would need 1st level subclasses doesn't exist in 5e edition because WOTC created no new classes.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

As this is a thread about 1st level subclasses, I have just made a suggestion how a Scout subclass could work from 1st level and still not be too much features at 1st level.

Noone stops you from taking proficiency in nature and survival at level 1... Except for a badly written feature that does not explicitely allow taking different skills if you already had them... although dndbeyond allows you to chose other skills in that case...

 

[Horwath]

Noone stops you from taking proficiency in nature and survival at level 1... Excet for a badly written feature that does not explicitely allow taking different skills if you already had them... although dndbeyond allows you to chose other skills in that case...

proficiencies should come with 1st level package.

any "special" powers can wait level or two.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

proficiencies should come with 1st level package.

any "special" powers can wait level or two.

Thank god that proficiency come with class and background... so I repeat: noone stops you from taking the proficiencies.

Edit: I think however going down to level 2 would probably OK. And would make the progression nicer...

 

[Bill Zebub]

Okay, so my ultimate solution to this issue that I’m certain absolutely no-one will have problems with is this: Everyone HAS to pick their subclass at 1st level, no backsies or changing, but you don’t actually receive ANY BENEFITS of picking your subclass until 3rd level.

Problem solved.

/j

I know you're joking, but that is the solution. Even Warlocks/Clerics can subclass at 3rd level: you don't need mechanical features to roleplay.

(EDIT: and I’m not really all that opposed to subclasses at first level. I am just dismissing the argument that some classes “must” have it.)

 

[Charlaquin]

As this is a thread about 1st level subclasses, I have just made a suggestion how a Scout subclass could work from 1st level and still not be too much features at 1st level.

Oh, I see. In that case, yes, I agree. I thought you were suggesting taking those proficiencies/expertise at levels 1 and 2 from rogue in order to make their sudden acquisition at 3rd less jarring.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Okay, so my ultimate solution to this issue that I’m certain absolutely no-one will have problems with is this: Everyone HAS to pick their subclass at 1st level, no backsies or changing, but you don’t actually receive ANY BENEFITS of picking your subclass until 3rd level.

Problem solved.

/j

~throws hat on the ground and stomps it.~

That's it. Delete the class system.

 

[Charlaquin]

Nothing is stopping a 3rd level subclass from seriously altering a class.

Except that it would be jarring as heck to be playing your class one way through the tutorial levels and then have it drastically change at 3rd. Also, you can’t have full casting or half-casting start at 3rd level.

The only reason why clerics and sorcerer need 1st level subclasses is because there aren't a bunch of different base classes so you have to section off the spells and features of vastly different archtypes that don't make sense together in the lore in a way to not overload fans at 1st level.

If there were a cleric class and invoker class, you could shift subclasses to 1st level.

Right, but having all subclasses start at 1st level would allow more of that sort of thing. Then you don’t need a bunch of new classes to have a bunch of characters that play differently than each other in a significant way.

No it's not. The result has nothing to do with the grouping.

Its because the nonspellcaster classes that would need 1st level subclasses doesn't exist in 5e edition because WOTC created no new classes.

There are absolutely non-caster subclasses that would benefit from starting at 1st level. The Scout, the Cavalier, the Samurai, heck even the beast master.

 

[akr71]

We need to galaxy brained on this.

You choose your subclass at first level.

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

How about you pick your Class Group at level 1, your Class at level 3 & your subclass at level 5.