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

[clearstream]

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.

Multiclassing.

 

[clearstream]

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.

Why?

What's the problem with significant choices as you progress?

 

[Yaarel]

Why?

What's the problem with significant choices as you progress?

I think of the player characters as a person. There is an ongoing story, like a bio.

I want a sense of where the person is coming from, and what the person achieves.

I guess it is the "zero to hero" cliche. But it means something for me.

Every character I play starts at level 1.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think of the player characters as a person. There is an ongoing story, like a bio.

I want a sense of where the person is coming from, and what the person achieves.

I guess it is the "zero to hero" cliche. But it means something for me.

Every character I play starts at level 1.

Our characters also start at level 1. And then they evolve. Having a meaningful choice after level 1 is very welcome.
Of course there are multiclass options which we use, but even subclass choice, although planned, are not set in stone.

 

[clearstream]

I think of the player characters as a person. There is an ongoing story, like a bio.

I want a sense of where the person is coming from, and what the person achieves.

I guess it is the "zero to hero" cliche. But it means something for me.

Every character I play starts at level 1.

Absolutely appreciate the desire to play an imagined person. Remains unclear why significant career choices post chargen are in conflict with that?

 

[Charlaquin]

Multiclassing.

What’s the problem? If 1st level class features can be made safe for multiclassing, then 1st level subclass features can be too. In fact, they already exist for the classes that currently get their subclass at 1st level.

 

[Yaarel]

Absolutely appreciate the desire to play an imagined person. Remains unclear why significant career choices post chargen are in conflict with that?

To be clear, I want to be the one who decides my character concept, in the way that makes sense to me.

I dont want someone else to decide for me. It is my character. Not theirs.

When my Eldritch Knight masters wizardry and warfare, the concept is a cultural fusion that the character grows up with.



The "gish" Wizard/Fighter has been the core part of D&D since the origins of D&D around 50 years ago.

The High Elf was earlier a single class that is simultaneously a Wizard and Fighter.

In 5e, the Eldritch Knight inherits this elven gishy D&D tradition. It is quintessential D&D.

1e established the High Elf as a gish. 1e established the Githyanki as the namesake "gish".

Many D&D players have been calling for a well-designed Wizard-Fighter playable class.

The Eldritch Knight must work well from level 1 as the Wizard-Fighter tradition.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

To be clear, I want to be the one who decides my character concept, in the way that makes sense to me.

I dont want someone else to decide for me. It is my character. Not theirs.

When my Eldritch Knight masters wizardry and warfare, the concept is a cultural fusion that the character grows up with.



The "gish" Wizard/Fighter has been the core part of D&D since the origins of D&D around 50 years ago.

The High Elf was earlier a single class that is simultaneously a Wizard and Fighter.

In 5e, the Eldritch Knight inherits this elven gishy D&D tradition. It is quintessential D&D.

1e established the High Elf as a gish. 1e established the Githyanki as the namesake "gish".

Many D&D players have been calling for a well-designed Wizard-Fighter playable class.

The Eldritch Knight must work well from level 1 as the Wizard-Fighter tradition.

And with one D&D it does well enough.
Especially if you are a high elf.

High elf:
Str 16, dex 12, con 13, int 16 wis 10, cha 8
Magic initiate.
3 cantrips, 1 first level spell. A fighting style, second wind.
Sounds solid.

 

[Bill Zebub]

To be clear, I want to be the one who decides my character concept, in the way that makes sense to me.

I dont want someone else to decide for me. It is my character. Not theirs.

When my Eldritch Knight masters wizardry and warfare, the concept is a cultural fusion that the character grows up with.



The "gish" Wizard/Fighter has been the core part of D&D since the origins of D&D around 50 years ago.

The High Elf was earlier a single class that is simultaneously a Wizard and Fighter.

In 5e, the Eldritch Knight inherits this elven gishy D&D tradition. It is quintessential D&D.

1e established the High Elf as a gish. 1e established the Githyanki as the namesake "gish".

Many D&D players have been calling for a well-designed Wizard-Fighter playable class.

The Eldritch Knight must work well from level 1 as the Wizard-Fighter tradition.

Is it impossible for you to imagine an Eldritch knight who grew up in a cultural fusion of wizardry and warfare who does not yet cast spells while adventuring? You can't think of a narrative reason for that?

And, I'm sorry, but "I want to have exactly the level 1 mechanics I want for my concept" is not a valid rationale for needing/granting it. Maybe I'm imagining a dwarf who grew up in a culture where everybody learns to dual wield warhammers. Does that mean I should get it at level 1?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Upthread I described how a character concept of mine was best expressed as a kensei monk with a sword. (“What’s a monk? I’m just a swordswoman.”). Since I couldn’t actually use a sword until 3rd level, my interpretation was that my master would only allow me to use a wooden sword (i.e. staff) until I had proven my worth. It ended up being a fun trope, and I was almost sorry when I earned the sword at 3rd level.

Now, I don’t want to impose my RP preferences on others. I’m only making the point that somebody may want their subclass features at 1st level, but they don’t need them. You can always narrate around it. And if you embrace the storytelling challenge, rather than resent it, you may actually enjoy it.