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

[Clint_L]

And also, you are selling a game with levels 1-20, so actually make a 1-20 game, not a game where you're actually the character you intended to make 3-20 and according to some design attempts just stop at 9, 10, or 12.

But what if the key feature that lets you live out your particular character fantasy doesn't kick in until level 14? Couldn't that player claim that the game is really only a level 14-20 game? Should we just give all features at first level to accommodate those players?

What is best for the game overall? Obviously, for the game to work there has to be an approachable entry point for new players. There has to be class balance. Those things are going to demand some standardization. Although there has to be flexibility so that players can develop a character that feels good to them, you can't publish a game that will be a perfect fit, all the time, for every player. Fortunately, there is absolutely nothing preventing you from taking the RAW and tweaking them however you like for your own group, as long as everyone in your group agrees.

But I'm not seeing anything in this thread that is convincing me that adding subclasses at Level 1 would be an improvement to the base game. It would definitely make the game harder to play for a lot of new players.

 

[Yaarel]

And I want a pony.

I want a gish − that works well.

 

[MoonSong]

I suggest that if you have very particular needs for how you envisage your character, that is an excellent opportunity to work with your DM to home brew something, rather than aspiring to change the entire game for everyone, at a pretty fundamental level. Which is not going to happen with OneD&D, so what's even the point of arguing about it?

Remember that a lot of us don't get access to an established long term group. Telling a player "just homebrew" is outright dismissive and out of touch. Like telling an orphan to just aske their parents to buy them a car. Some stuff just isn't realistic.

 

[Yaarel]

This is the playtest.

If there are aspects in the playtest that we find missing, or like less,

this is the time for us to voice our desires and concerns

when the survey comes out.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yes. You cannot 'be a skilled warrior that blends bladecraft with spellcraft with absolutely no spells.

I can't get spells by just pretending to have them. That's where the NEED that you keep belittling, minimizing and insulting comes in.

What, you were born with spellcasting? Or did you pick up spellcasting somewhere along the way? If so, decide when that point was, then back up two weeks. There. There’s your starting point for a level 1.

Sorry but I still don’t buy “need.” “Want” is totally valid, though.

 

[Yaarel]

Cleric, Sorcerer, and Warlock choose the subclass at level 1.
Druid and Wizard choose the subclass at level 2.
Barbarian, Bard, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, and Rogue choose it 3.

It is better for the game to standardize the subclass at level 1, the way Cleric, Sorcerer, and Warlock do.

Subclass at level 1 makes more design space possible, both for the designers for future subclasses, including cross-class subclasses, and for the players for character concepts.

[Edited scribal error.]

 

[Bill Zebub]

But what if the key feature that lets you live out your particular character fantasy doesn't kick in until level 14? Couldn't that player claim that the game is really only a level 14-20 game? Should we just give all features at first level to accommodate those players?

My character concept requires an epic boon. So it’s really a one level game. Basically just World of Warcraft.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Wizard, Cleric, Sorcerer, and Warlock choose the subclass at level 1.

Oh really?

 

[Yaarel]

Oh really?

I leaped with enthusiasm for level 1.

Wizard should be level 1, because some Wizard subclasses like Bladesinger need to be structurally different from other subclasses.

 

[DarkCrisis]

And we can call them “Kits”