D&D 5E Using Subclasses at Level 1?

[Sacrosanct]

Why not just start at level 3?

I know this doesn't help the OP since he/she already addressed this, but that's actually what starting at level 3 was designed for.

When the game came out, the design team mentioned several times how the first 2 levels were to allow players who liked the zero to hero style to be able to do that, and for those who wanted their PCs to start as more heroic, could start right at level 3.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If that was true, no one would EVER house-rule a thing. 5E plays perfectly well strictly RAW.

I disagree. Because the way people play varies significantly, so what plays perfectly well at some tables may cause problems at others. Which is why house rules are core rules.

If, at your table, choosing a subclass later than 1st level caused a problem, then I would say that house-ruling a change is a good idea.

But you said there was not a problem. Ergo I would suggest changing it would be pointless tinkering at best, and cause an unforeseen problem at worst.

 

[PrimevalSeeker]

In the dnd next playtest all subclasses started from level one at some point, but then the designers decided that they wanted 1-2 levels to be introductory or tutorial levels where the character is not fully defined or has a specialization yet so they bumped them to level 3.

Following that there were complaints it didn't make sense flavor-wise for some classes like sorcerer, warlock or cleric to gain specialization at level 3 and we ended up with what we have.

if you moved subclass to level 1 it would probably unbalance the class, but hopefully in 5.5e or something all subclasses start from level 1 or at least gained at the same levels across classes.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I dislike that subclasses come so "late" for some classes as well, but It's never bothered me enough to try something like this. It'd probably be fine shrug, especially if multiclassing variant option isn't allowed, or if allowed it was limited to "no more than one" or something so you limit the # of dips.

I would definitely limit multiclassing to one additional class.

I know this doesn't help the OP since he/she already addressed this, but that's actually what starting at level 3 was designed for.

When the game came out, the design team mentioned several times how the first 2 levels were to allow players who liked the zero to hero style to be able to do that, and for those who wanted their PCs to start as more heroic, could start right at level 3.

Maybe I could start the characters at level 3, but with level 1 HP? When they hit the xp to "level" I can just give additional hp as normal, until they reach level 3 and then will get their first ASI at level 4 as normal. But then of course I am more worried about having all the power so early on... I don't know but its a thought.

I disagree. Because the way people play varies significantly, so what plays perfectly well at some tables may cause problems at others. Which is why house rules are core rules.

If, at your table, choosing a subclass later than 1st level caused a problem, then I would say that house-ruling a change is a good idea.

But you said there was not a problem. Ergo I would suggest changing it would be pointless tinkering at best, and cause an unforeseen problem at worst.

Well, obviously I disagree with your disagree.

People house-rule things often just because they want a change in a mechanic or rule, it doesn't mean it is broken or doesn't work RAW. If that was they case, no one would ever play it that way, but people do.

 

[Yaarel]

I am just curious if anyone plays with choosing subclasses at level 1 instead of waiting until level 3 (in most cases)?

I was thinking about it for our next game and wanted feedback from people who have tired it.

EDIT: (just to address the questions so far)

No, I am not thinking of adding anything at level 3 to replace the subclass choice/features.
I am thinking I might delay level 1 and 2 features to level 2 and 3, respectively.

Ex. Fighter:
1 - subclass choice and features
2 - fighting style, second wind
3- action surge

I might or might not do this.

Thanks!

Yes, absolutely. I allow swaps for appropriate level-1 abilities that give a nod toward the intended archetype.

For example, at Level 1, an Eldritch Knight can swap out proficiencies with shield and heavy armor, plus then spend the Fighting Style, to get always-on Mage Armor, plus a cantrip of choice.

So far, every class with the issue has found some way to actualize the archetype at level 1.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Just go ahead and do it. Even if it does unbalance some classes, the easier fights will just increase the speed of XP gain and everyone will blow straight through to level 3 and balance everything back.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

People house-rule things often just because they want a change in a mechanic or rule

Only if they think the change will have an effect.

it doesn't mean it is broken or doesn't work RAW. If that was they case, no one would ever play it that way, but people do.

You haven't accepted different playstyles. This is a game that can be played VERY differently between different groups, even when each of those groups consider themselves playing RAW. What works fine in one game might cause problems in another.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Maybe I could start the characters at level 3, but with level 1 HP? When they hit the xp to "level" I can just give additional hp as normal, until they reach level 3 and then will get their first ASI at level 4 as normal. But then of course I am more worried about having all the power so early on... I don't know but its a thought.

What's your goal with the HP? I ask because, having played an awful lot of D&D, including 5E, my experience is that L1 and L2 having low HP just makes the game very wonky in combat for L1 and L2. You hit 3 and suddenly the game feels like it's playing like it should play. Likewise spell slots (presumably you'd give them L1 and L2 spell slots?). It's L3 when it finally feels like you have enough to making real choices.

What is it you find attractive about having this brief period of different gameplay?

With less abilities it makes sense as a "get used to your character" period with the HP as a side-effect. But with the abilities, it seems like it's just a very brief "survival mode" before the game proper starts.

 

[Ashrym]

I would say "just start at 3rd level". Multiclassing is the only real issue I see (I haven't tried this) unless your games linger at 1st level.

Also, bards need to be in every game.

 

[DND_Reborn]

What's your goal with the HP? I ask because, having played an awful lot of D&D, including 5E, my experience is that L1 and L2 having low HP just makes the game very wonky in combat for L1 and L2. You hit 3 and suddenly the game feels like it's playing like it should play. Likewise spell slots (presumably you'd give them L1 and L2 spell slots?). It's L3 when it finally feels like you have enough to making real choices.

What is it you find attractive about having this brief period of different gameplay?

With less abilities it makes sense as a "get used to your character" period with the HP as a side-effect. But with the abilities, it seems like it's just a very brief "survival mode" before the game proper starts.

Actually, I feel the opposite, personally. I find as character acquire more HP the game becomes too easy, especially in 5E. Then it no longer feels like it is playing like is should play. To me, the entire game should feel like survival mode.

I'll talk to our group Saturday and see what they think.