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

[Yaarel]

With the current rate of levelling, they might well still be 20 years old when they hit level 20...

Yeah.

That is why I think of classes as combat experience. They are fighting styles whether fighting with weapons or spells.

A person − if they are fortunate − can go thru an entire lifetime without ever seeing combat.

But others − who are less fortunate − can go thru periods of intense combat.

In D&D, the leveling advancement happens during the combat-heavy adventures. But the times between adventures might stretch out across decades before reaching level 20.

To get to level 20 is something like 200 encounters.

 

[Charlaquin]

That is also the fault of the player. If you don't want to be jarred by your rogue going from 0 to expert at scouting at 3rd level, pick those two proficiencies at first level and then has a smooth progression from good to expert.

Except the subclass actively discourages that, as doing so leaves you with two fewer proficiencies than if you hadn’t done so. Moreover, this is not just a scout rogue thing. The scout would be easy to fix just brut saying you get proficiency in two other skills if you were already proficient in nature and survival. The broader point is, subclasses that make significant changes to the base class create a jarring play experience when you go through the tutorial levels playing one way, and suddenly the class changes significantly when you hit 3rd (making those tutorial levels not actually all that useful for learning to play the character the way they’ll work for the rest of the campaign). Such subclasses should start at 1st level, so you can begin learning to play the actual character you’re going to be playing from the start.

Not if you follow my suggestion.
It's EXACTLY how 5e works. 5e is an exceptions based system and specific beats general. Those specific subclasses beat out the general rules on spell progression.

Spell progression follows a very specific pattern in 5e, and does so in part to enable multiclassing.

 

[Maxperson]

Except the subclass actively discourages that, as doing so leaves you with two fewer proficiencies than if you hadn’t done so.

That's certainly an issue that other subclasses solve by allowing different skills to be taken. I don't see why you couldn't talk to your DM about it and point that out. It's pretty clearly a sloppy oversight on the part of WotC.

The broader point is, subclasses that make significant changes to the base class create a jarring play experience when you go through the tutorial levels playing one way, and suddenly the class changes significantly when you hit 3rd (making those tutorial levels not actually all that useful for learning to play the character the way they’ll work for the rest of the campaign).

But again, this isn't really jarring if you don't set it up to be. Are the changes significant? Sure. Do they make sense? Most of the time yes, and the rest of the time you should be able to set it up to make sense.

Can you give me an example of a subclass that can't be set up in such a way that the changes make sense at 3rd level?

Such subclasses should start at 1st level, so you can begin learning to play the actual character you’re going to be playing from the start.

At the loss of base class abilities, sure. The classes that currently have subclasses that start at level 1 account for it already. Are you willing to push Fighting Style and Action Surge to 3rd level, and Second Wind to 2nd level so that you can get Superiority Dice, Maneuvers and Student of War at 1st level?

Spell progression follows a very specific pattern in 5e, and does so in part to enable multiclassing.

Specific beats general. That's all that needs to be said. The rule even quotes class features as being something specific that does beat general. No amount of stating that the general spell rules follow a set progression is going to turn it in to anything other than a general rule about spell progression. A rule that specifically overrides that will always be more specific than such general rules.

 

[Maxperson]

Heh. 20. Its more like just got your AA degree. And they will hire you!

But can you make a living wage? I don't think so!

Yeah, I said "NPC", but I really meant noncombatant "commoner", in contrast to PCs who have levels in a class.

That makes more sense.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Except the subclass actively discourages that, as doing so leaves you with two fewer proficiencies than if you hadn’t done so. Moreover, this is not just a scout rogue thing. The scout would be easy to fix just brut saying you get proficiency in two other skills if you were already proficient in nature and survival. The broader point is, subclasses that make significant changes to the base class create a jarring play experience when you go through the tutorial levels playing one way, and suddenly the class changes significantly when you hit 3rd (making those tutorial levels not actually all that useful for learning to play the character the way they’ll work for the rest of the campaign). Such subclasses should start at 1st level, so you can begin learning to play the actual character you’re going to be playing from the start.

Spell progression follows a very specific pattern in 5e, and does so in part to enable multiclassing.

Just one bad subclass is no reason to change to level 1 subclass. You could easily say: to qualify for the subclass you need proficiency in nature and survival.
I don't know if we really want this, but this would be as good of a fix as yours.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's certainly an issue that other subclasses solve by allowing different skills to be taken. I don't see why you couldn't talk to your DM about it and point that out. It's pretty clearly a sloppy oversight on the part of WotC.

Of course I could. I’m also the DM most of the time and would happily allow a player to do so. Again, I’m not really talking about the Scout specifically, it’s just an easy example of the general phenomenon of subclasses that ought to start at 1st level and don’t.

But again, this isn't really jarring if you don't set it up to be. Are the changes significant? Sure. Do they make sense? Most of the time yes, and the rest of the time you should be able to set it up to make sense.

Can any individual case be fixed by DM fiat? Of course. Does that mean it shouldn’t be fixed at the design level? Absolutely not.

Can you give me an example of a subclass that can't be set up in such a way that the changes make sense at 3rd level?

Again, a subclass that grants half-casting or full-casting.

At the loss of base class abilities, sure. The classes that currently have subclasses that start at level 1 account for it already. Are you willing to push Fighting Style and Action Surge to 3rd level, and Second Wind to 2nd level so that you can get Superiority Dice, Maneuvers and Student of War at 1st level?

That’s the idea, yeah.

Specific beats general. That's all that needs to be said. The rule even quotes class features as being something specific that does beat general. No amount of stating that the general spell rules follow a set progression is going to turn it in to anything other than a general rule about spell progression. A rule that specifically overrides that will always be more specific than such general rules.

Yes, but the fact of the matter is there are structures that WotC does not and will not break with subclasses. Probably in large part because of multiclassing.

 

[Charlaquin]

Just one bad subclass is no reason to change to level 1 subclass. You could easily say: to qualify for the subclass you need proficiency in nature and survival.
I don't know if we really want this, but this would be as good of a fix as yours.

Again, scout is just one example. The Scout itself is easy enough to fix, but it’s illustrative of the kind of problems caused by starting subclasses at levels later than 1st.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Again, scout is just one example. The Scout itself is easy enough to fix, but it’s illustrative of the kind of problems caused by starting subclasses at levels later than 1st.

I don't think there is a single subclass out there that would not work at level 3 instead of level 1. But I really think the warlock has it subclass tied to the wrong ability (patron instead of pact).
The cleric should also have two decision points: diety and domain.
And the wizard should also just chose its school at level 1 and then get a real subclass at level 3.
Fighter also choses dex based or str based at level 1 and then subclass at level 3.

Then I think that probably level 2 instead of level 3 might be a smoother start for subclass abilities, as you don't also get 2nd level spells as full caster.
If you add good rules for level 0 and some more hp at level 1 (2hd instead of max hitpoints) I'd really like subclass at level 2.

 

[Yaarel]

But can you make a living wage? I don't think so!

Heh, only affluent people who dont need to make a living wage can make a living wage.

 

[Yaarel]

Looking closely at the 1DD classes: Bard, Ranger and Rogue.

Level 1 is very frontloaded with lots of things going on at the same time to set up the class concept.

Altogether level 1 is worth about 5 feats.

(The Bard is about 4 feats but seems underpowered at level 1 compared to Ranger and Rogue.)



Where level 1 is worth about 5 feats, it is easy to organize the class features in a way that dedicates an entire feat for the subclass at level 1.