D&D 5E Using Subclasses at Level 1?

[DND_Reborn]

What would be the alternative "award" for level 3? The few classes that get their subclass earlier are casters, who get new spell level, what would you give to martials? Or would that be a HP only level?

I guess I need to add something to the OP since I already answered this once.

No, I would not grant anything different. I was thinking instead of maybe a shift for the first few levels, so level 3 subclass would be level 1, level 1 features at level 2, and level 2 features at level 3.

 

[akr71]

Why not just start at level 3?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Personally, I think there are two easier ways to get a PC to have their representative "subclass" identity in place from the beginning of their adventuring career than trying to figure out how to balance and replace features to move the first subclass feature to level 1.

1) Start the game at Level 3. That way everybody has their subclass. Seeing as how levels 1 and 2 are meant to be like a single session each anyway... just skip them at start at 3.

2) Do not go to the Player's Handbook for all your leveling information. Instead, retype the specific class info plus subclass info into a Word doc, and replace sections that say things like "Martial Archetype" with the actual name of the subclass features. And when you type the feature listings, do not keep the subclasses features in a separate section at the end of the list, but insert them directly into listings themselves. Finally, make the heading of the entire document the name of the subclass as though that was the name of the class itself.

If you do that... completely remove the idea that the subclass itself exists and instead your class is 'Samurai' or 'Assassin' or 'Paladin of the Ancients' etc... the features you get at levels 1 and 2 become part of what being a samurai, assassin or paladin of the ancients are. Yes, they are the same features as what a Champion, Swashbuckler, or Paladin of Vengeance have... but that was going to happen anyway.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I guess I need to add something to the OP since I already answered this once.

No, I would not grant anything different. I was thinking instead of maybe a shift for the first few levels, so level 3 subclass would be level 1, level 1 features at level 2, and level 2 features at level 3.

Except that some subclass features key off of the ability you get at level 1-- like Frenzy keys off of Rage, and Cutting Words keys off of Bardic Inspiration. If you just move the 1st level abilities to level 2, then these subclass features become worthless at 1st level.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Why not just start at level 3?

And @DEFCON 1

Because not all groups follow the level rate suggested by WotC that the first couple levels should only take a session or two. Also, I don't want players beginning with over twice the hp they would otherwise have.

I would be more inclined to simple roll up levels 1-3 (sans HP) into a "level 1" I suppose, but then that would make multiclassing (which I am not going to "just don't use it") an issue.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Except that some subclass features key off of the ability you get at level 1-- like Frenzy keys off of Rage, and Cutting Words keys off of Bardic Inspiration. If you just move the 1st level abilities to level 2, then these subclass features become worthless at 1st level.

LOL well I woulnd't have to delay ALL of them and could tweak how others are done.

And Bards shouldn't be in the game anyway.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think it's clear that the vast majority of "delayed" subclass features are delayed to prevent easy multiclass dips.

As such, if you're not allowing multiclassing, or simply only give features at L1 for the first class someone takes, I don't think this is going to be an actual problem. It might make a couple of subclasses more powerful for levels 1 and 2 but um, that's not exactly a big problem, especially when power levels vary widely at those levels anyway due to a variety of factors.

Listen to DEFCON1's warning re: features though. You can't just casually rearrange them that way. You'll have to actually look at each subclass.

I mean the main point is, if you just move the L3 abilities to L1 and do nothing else, that'll be basically fine (it'll make L3 a bit of a dead level, but who cares?). And yes, you're right that most players have already made the decision at L1 particularly because in many cases you need to know for the race/stats etc. that you pick.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's not uncommon for players to decide on a subclass at character creation, but I see no particular reason to change the levels of class features to reflect that.

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

I think rearranging the progression of class features to ensure subclass choice at level 1 should be fine. You do just have to be careful to resolve dependencies as DEFCON1 has said, which means carefully rearranging on a case by case basis per class.

But there are some dependencies that you may not even really care about preserving. For example the paladin as a part of their subclass gets bonus spells, but they also get channel divinity. I don't think anyone would really mind if you kept getting spellcasting at level 2 for paladins since channel divinity is the real meat and potatoes of the subclass.

 

[akr71]

And @DEFCON 1

Because not all groups follow the level rate suggested by WotC that the first couple levels should only take a session or two. Also, I don't want players beginning with over twice the hp they would otherwise have.

I would be more inclined to simple roll up levels 1-3 (sans HP) into a "level 1" I suppose, but then that would make multiclassing (which I am not going to "just don't use it") an issue.

Ok, but Lvl 3 HP means you can throw tougher monsters at them.
However, if we are talking about new players, or new to 5e, then sure, I agree - level 1 start point makes sense.

You could make level 3 characters with level 1 hp and give them more hd at an appropriate spot.

LOL well I woulnd't have to delay ALL of them and could tweak how others are done.

And Bards shouldn't be in the game anyway.

Well, that I certainly agree with!