# Subclasses should start at 1st level



## Charlaquin

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.


----------



## Horwath

Yes!


----------



## Mistwell

Because of multiclassing cherry picking subclass abilities.


----------



## Charlaquin

Mistwell said:


> Because of multiclassing cherry picking subclass abilities.



There are already rules for not getting all the same features if a class isn’t your first. Easy enough to extend that to subclass abilities if they anticipate that being a problem. Moreover, multiclassing is still an optional rule.


----------



## Horwath

Mistwell said:


> Because of multiclassing cherry picking subclass abilities.



simple solution.

You cannot multiclass before level 5. When you take a level in new class, you need to take 4 levels of that class before you can gain levels in another class.


----------



## Mistwell

Charlaquin said:


> There are already rules for not getting all the same features if a class isn’t your first. Easy enough to extend that to subclass abilities if they anticipate that being a problem. Moreover, multiclassing is still an optional rule.



How? How do you extend that to subclass if it's not your first class, if you intend to continue in that second class and gain abilities which modify that first level subclass ability? It would wreck the entire design scheme of subclasses and force them to modify the first level subclass ability to be something that isn't modified by a later one.


----------



## MockingBird

I never had a problem with subclasses starting at 3rd level. It's pretty quick to get to 3rd level and it doesn't just throw a bunch of front loaded options at new players.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

We need to galaxy brained on this. 

You choose your subclass at first level. 

But you don’t choose your class until third level.


----------



## TwoSix

Right now, I'm guessing that subclasses will be standardized across classes within a role, but not completely harmonized across all classes.   

I thought they might be harmonizing to the point of being swappable between classes, but Thief breaks that idea.


----------



## darjr

I like subclasses coming later. I agree that the cherry picking thing could be solved in other ways but not the simplicity thing. 

It does bring to mind an idea, what if you just jumped to third level when multi classing as an option? Already I’ve seen campaigns auto start at higher levels, why not multiclassing.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

I like not having every decision about my character be set in stone at level 1. And I love new players not having to make one more major and consequential decision about their character at level 1.


----------



## Storyteller Hero

Not everyone starts their campaigns at 1st level though nor is it required to start a campaign at 1st level so it begs the question of whether it really matters if subclasses are started sooner or later; personally, I think it should really depend on the class on a case-by-case basis if the mechanics of classes are not going to be as homogenous as in 4e.


----------



## Lojaan

No thank you. The first two levels are learning how to play the class. Once they get the hang of it, they can specialize. I don't even think clerics should get their subclass at lvl 1. Make them prove themselves to their deity a bit first.

Plus you want players to look forward to the good stuff. Not start with it.

Plus that means EVERYONE would be doing gross one level multiclassing dips. Yuck.


----------



## Charlaquin

Mistwell said:


> How? How do you extend that to subclass if it's not your first class, if you intend to continue in that second class and gain abilities which modify that first level subclass ability? It would wreck the entire design scheme of subclasses and force them to modify the first level subclass ability to be something that isn't modified by a later one.



Just limit what you get from the subclass at 1st level.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

Lojaan said:


> I don't even think clerics should get their subclass at lvl 1. Make them prove themselves to their deity a bit first.



I definitely don't think clerics have any particular reason to get level 1 subclasses. 5e is so loose about the link of cleric domain to deity, that there's just no reason they can't pick it later.

The ones that most beg to get level 1 subclasses, under current lore of what subclasses are for each class, are Warlocks, whose subclass is their patron, Sorcerers, who need to pick their birthright (really you shouldn't even be able to multiclass into one later without some sort of story event), and, actually, Paladins, who aren't really Paladins until they swear their oath. Of course that lore could be changed.

I would also argue that it would perhaps make more sense for Wizards to start with a subclass because it's presumably whatever they studied at Wizard school, but then again it would make more sense for Wizards to remain at Wizard school rather than trying to expand their bookish learning through a life of adventuring. Similar things are true to varying degrees of several classes.


----------



## Parmandur

Ideally, probably, but I think backwards compatibility won out here.


----------



## Krachek

Snarf Zagyg said:


> We need to galaxy brained on this.
> 
> You choose your subclass at first level.
> 
> But you don’t choose your class until third level.



The Group is chosen at level 1, the subclas At level 3, and the class at level 5!


----------



## aco175

I could see getting rid of subclasses altogether.  Give enough meaningful choices along the class levels to make different PCs.  Have enough feats to tailor the PC to fit in the party.  I get that subclasses allow for newer players to make the concept work better without picking the powers to make it themselves.


----------



## cbwjm

I agree, level 1 should have been the first subclass level for every class, class abilities could be shuffled around so that less is gained at level 1 from the base class. Do that and multiclassing wouldn't be an issue.


----------



## ehren37

So much yes. Let me be the thing I picked out of the gates.


----------



## Mistwell

Charlaquin said:


> Just limit what you get from the subclass at 1st level.



You're just repeating what I already replied to? If you do that, then the subclass often no longer functions if you take more levels of it because you will be lacking a core element which increases in power at a later level.
Example: Earliest subclass ability grants +1d6 damage once per proficiency bonus a day. Middle subclass ability changes die to d8. Later subclass ability changes to recharge on short rest. If you limited what you could get at earliest point, none of the rest of the subclass functions. And if you have to tinker with how it functions to make this work, then you have to do that for every subclass in the game and now you have a chapters worth on multiclassing. This is not a workable core system element.


----------



## Yaarel

A way to think about the subclass is, the character actually choose it at "level 0", because of a knack or talent for something specific. The base class then rounds out this personal affinity.


----------



## Yaarel

Storyteller Hero said:


> Not everyone starts their campaigns at 1st level though nor is it required to start a campaign at 1st level so it begs the question of whether it really matters if subclasses are started sooner or later; personally, I think it should really depend on the class on a case-by-case basis if the mechanics of classes are not going to be as homogenous as in 4e.



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.


----------



## Yaarel

For the Fighter class, a subclass at level 1 can be as simple as an appropriate Fighting Style. An Eldritch Knight needs a Fighting Style at level 1 that includes magical combat, such as Mage Armor and cantrip.


----------



## Smackpixi

ehren37 said:


> So much yes. Let me be the thing I picked out of the gates.



Yes, it’s not more complicated because pretty much everyone has already decided what subclass they’re eventually gonna pick anyway.  I’d solve the one level dip multi-class issue by simply denying subclasses to whatever your secondary class is.


----------



## Neonchameleon

I couldn't disagree more. Subclasses should IMO all be third level where possible to enable character growth rather than characters that just increase in power predictably.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

I think it should actually be level 2 and have it established that you start the game at level 2.

Then it would be subclass abilities at:

2,6,10,14.

I'd even add 18, but it seems that this will be class capstone ability.

Then feats are 4, 8, 12, 16 (and 19)

Prof bonus goes up at 5,9,13,17.

Now we just need something at 3, 7, 11, 15. Probably class abilities (including spell levels).


Edit: I think, mages and priests should get something extra at level 1 akin to fighting style that immediately makes sure where the get their spells from.
Subclass should be dissociated from that choice.
So a warloch choses fey. Gets their enhanced spell list. But the big thing should be their implement.

So blade eats the hexblade. Tome eats the great old one. Chain eats the fiend. And talisman eats the fey.


----------



## DEFCON 1

For my money, everyone could always just consider things like this-- a PC can choose and has a subclass at Level 1 even if they do not get a game mechanic for it to use until Level 3.  You can just roleplay it.

You can be a Drunken Master even if the Monk abilities you are using at levels 1 and 2 are not specific to the Drunken Master and are just part of the standard Monk.  It's absolutely fine.  Especially when you consider the fact that the game mechanics you do get at Level 3 only look like Drunken Master abilities because of the fluff that those abilities are written down to have and surrounded by.

What are the game mechanics you get at Level 3?

Proficiency in Performance
Proficiency in Brewer's Tools
Use Disengage as a bonus action
Gain 10 feet in walking speed for a round

If anyone was to look at these abilities in and of themselves and were asked "What class would these subclass abilities apply to, and what do you think the fluff of that subclass would be?" I think few people would have any real idea.  They'd certainly try and guess something... but no one would actually be able to ping it first try.  Because these game mechanics are all pretty generic all things considered.  And as a result, there's no reason why anyone should think "Oh, I HAVE to be able to do these four things at Level 1 in order for my Drunken Master Monk to FEEL like a Drunken Master Monk."   Especially considering the fact that a Rogue character with the right Background can pretty much have or duplicate all four of these features at character creation.  Are they thus Drunken Masters by default?  Of course not!  Because the mechanics do not denote what the subclass is... it's how you characterize your PC and roleplay it that gets its subclass across.

Here are another set of Level 3 subclass game mechanics:

10' aura that causes 2 fire damage to all enemies within aura
10' aura that causes one enemy to take 1d6 lightning on failed saving throw
10' aura that gives all allies 2 Temp Hit Points

Do any of these abilities scream out "Oh, these have to be for X class obviously!"  I would say no.  None of these three features tell us what class they should be, they are again three relatively generic game mechanics that do not in any way give any indication what class they should be for, or the fluff or narrative of the potential subclass concept for that class.  Which means it isn't important that these be given out at 1st level because they do not do anything to denote your subclass.

What actually gives a player the indication of what the subclass would be is the fluff that surrounds those game mechanics.  It is the fluff that we read that tells us that these three abilities are all for the Storm Herald Barbarian.  But the thing is... we can just apply that fluff to our characters at 1st level by how we roleplay them.  We can roleplay our barbarian as being a herald to oncoming storms, even if we won't receive an individual game mechanic for it until Level 3.  And that's perfectly fine, especially considering that the game mechanic we get gives no real indication of what it's meant to symbolize anyway.

If you are a fey-themed Glamour Bard... you can be a fey-themed glamour bard even if you don't get your first unique game mechanic until level 3.  You can be a paladin who has taken an oath of conquest at 1st level even though you won't get a mechanic for it until 3rd.  If you feel like an assassin then you can play as an assassin right from the start.  It's all about how you see your character and play your character, and not what goofy-ass mechanics you have written down on your character sheet.

Of course, that's just my opinion... I could be wrong.


----------



## Eyes of Nine

Snarf Zagyg said:


> We need to galaxy brained on this.
> 
> You choose your subclass at first level.
> 
> But you don’t choose your class until third level.



I know this was said in somewhat jest - however why is it a PC can change classes but not change sub-classes? There doesn't seem to be a narrative reason why that I can think of


----------



## BlackSeed_Vash

While I would prefer to have the subclasses available sooner than later, what I really want is the level you acquire a subclass  and it features to be the same across all the classes (or at least within the class group).

I really wanna see a subclass  be tied to a class group instead of an individual class.


----------



## aco175

UngeheuerLich said:


> I think it should actually be level 2 and have it established that you start the game at level 2.









So, wouldn't 2nd level just be called 1st level?


----------



## UngeheuerLich

aco175 said:


> View attachment 262799
> 
> So, wouldn't 2nd level just be called 1st level?




No. Because of multiclass. You also have twice as many hit dice...


----------



## squibbles

Charlaquin said:


> 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.



I'm a big fan of the standardization too (though as @TwoSix mentions, it might not be consistent across class groups or the classes we haven't seen yet). I also like the idea of starting all subclasses at 1st and allowing them to make large changes to class features. I'm generally in the camp that adventurers should be competent and able to do their job from the start of play.

I can think of a couple minor issues in addition to the larger ones others have mentioned about multiclassing and frontloading character creation decisions:

Too much complexity at 1st level--in a lot of cases, you can't give a PC its subclass features without giving it its class features first, i.e. totem barbarians need to be able to rage before they can get their totem spirit feature. This will naturally make 1st level PCs stronger, but also more complex at 1st level, especially for subclasses that a lot of features to start with. Not a huge deal, and maybe avoidable, but worth considering.

Cludgy information design--the current class descriptions, which shunt all subclass descriptions to the end of a class's section, would be quite awkward if subclasses started at 1st and changed large parts of the core class, such as ranger spellcasting. I can't off the cuff think of a way it could be organized which wouldn't--on first reading--force you to comb through a boatload of rules before deciding what to play. Again, not a huge issue, but it'd need to be addressed somehow.



Mistwell said:


> Because of multiclassing cherry picking subclass abilities.



In principle, this is an issue with the multiclassing rules and not the subclass rules. Considering that they just moved the multiclassing rules directly into the class descriptions of the expert classes packet, this is something the designers could address directly. I'm not sure that any solution to the issue is a home run, but there are lots of ways it could be worked around.



Benjamin Olson said:


> I like not having every decision about my character be set in stone at level 1. And I love new players not having to make one more major and consequential decision about their character at level 1.



If subclasses were picked at 1st level, it would probably be a good idea to have an option to change subclasses at some point, like the Tasha's options for changing fighting styles and pact boons at ASI levels--maybe just an option to change subclass at level 3 if you have buyers remorse.



Lojaan said:


> I don't even think clerics should get their subclass at lvl 1. Make them prove themselves to their deity a bit first.



Well that comes with some fun metaphysical implications, eh.

Just imagine... undifferentiated wielders of divine power getting to pick which god's VIP club to join after they've killed and taken the stuff of enough goblins (at least that's what the mechanics would say, prove-yourself lore notwithstanding).


----------



## Mistwell

squibbles said:


> In principle, this is an issue with the multiclassing rules and not the subclass rules. Considering that they just moved the multiclassing rules directly into the class descriptions of the expert classes packet, this is something the designers could address directly. I'm not sure that any solution to the issue is a home run, but there are lots of ways it could be worked around.



The only thing I can think of is something like, "If this is not your first class, your first subclass ability from this class will instead be available to you at third level rather than first level." That would do it, but I suspect mutliclassers wouldn't be happy with it.


----------



## Weiley31

This is pretty much the approach that Ruins of Symbaroum 5E does when it comes to the subclasses in it.


----------



## Ath-kethin

Yaarel said:


> 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.



This bit is pretty much what I came here to say, and it's put better than I could have.

Sure, you can just start at 3rd level (or whatever), but that approach seems to only confirm the idea that you should get the subclass you want from the start. So why not have it at 1st?

Folks bring up multiclassing as a reason, but others have pointed out how that's a non-reason at best. The multiclassing trait table already limits the abilities you get when multiclassing; there's absolutely no reason the benefits of multiclassing can't be limited to the very basic features of the class.


----------



## Yaarel

Ath-kethin said:


> Sure, you can just start at 3rd level (or whatever), but that approach seems to only confirm the idea that you should get the subclass you want from the start. So why not have it at 1st?



Well said!

To even want to start at level 3 to get the subclass, means, the subclass should happen at level 1 at character creation.



Ath-kethin said:


> Folks bring up multiclassing as a reason, but others have pointed out how that's a non-reason at best. The multiclassing trait table already limits the abilities you get when multiclassing; there's absolutely no reason the benefits of multiclassing can't be limited to the very basic features of the class.



Good point. Multiclassing has its own rules.

The subclass should start at level 1.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Charlaquin said:


> 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.



Funny thing is WotC agree, they even said so in I believe the previous playtest video.

The idea that people need to "learn their class" is obviously laughable. Most classes don't even get some of their core abilities until L3 anyway, and a lot of classes play virtually identically at L1.

As @Parmandur said, this seems to be a backwards-compatibility thing. If they did move it to L1, which I believe they agree makes sense, they'd invalidate all existing subclasses, which, honestly they're going to do anyway, eventually, but doing it instantly might cause er... some uproar?

As for multiclassing, pfft, who cares? If that really matters either:

A) Disallow or limit multiclassing (i.e. maybe you don't let people pick another class until they've done three levels in this one, for example).

or

B) Make it so that you only get the "subclass" for one class (I've seen games do things like this).

To be honest disallowing multiclassing in 5E/1D&D does basically no damage to the game. There are very few genuine RP concepts which benefit from multiclassing, and 95% of multiclassing is either:

A) System experts exploiting synergies to attempt to make an OP character.

or 

B) System noobs/ninnies picking "kewl" classes because they're allowed to and usually creating barely-playable junk characters full of anti-synergy.

Neither of those is a good things and that's the overwhelming majority of 5E multiclassing.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Yaarel said:


> The subclass should start at level 1.



Sure.

But the fact that:

A) WotC said they wanted to do that, and then didn't do it.

And

B) The fact that this would obviously invalidate ALL existing subclasses (um I guess except Clerics?)

Mean that WotC are not going to do it so it's about as productive in a 1D&D discussion as suggesting WotC move to having four classes or some other old-favourite axe grind.


----------



## payn

Horwath said:


> simple solution.
> 
> You cannot multiclass before level 5. When you take a level in new class, you need to take 4 levels of that class before you can gain levels in another class.



Oh, hell no.


----------



## payn

Ruin Explorer said:


> To be honest disallowing multiclassing in 5E/1D&D does basically no damage to the game. There are very few genuine RP concepts which benefit from multiclassing, and 95% of multiclassing is either:
> 
> A) System experts exploiting synergies to attempt to make an OP character.
> 
> or
> 
> B) System noobs/ninnies picking "kewl" classes because they're allowed to and usually creating barely-playable junk characters full of anti-synergy.
> 
> Neither of those is a good things and that's the overwhelming majority of 5E multiclassing.



BA makes these trivial.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

payn said:


> BA makes these trivial.



BA? Badass? British Airways?


----------



## payn

Ruin Explorer said:


> BA? Badass? British Airways?



Bounded accuracy.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

payn said:


> Bounded accuracy.



Oh I somewhat disagree then.

A better-designed version of 5E could have that be fully true.

But unfortunately 5E and 1D&D aren't designed that way, and you have a lot of abilities based on specific class levels (like getting multiple attacks, and how spell progression works), such that if you MC a lot, you can easily end up drastically less powerful than other PCs, and if you multiclass extremely carefully and only with specific, compatible classes, you can be somewhat more powerful than other PCs. The former is a bigger mechanical issue than the latter, for sure.

Either way, there's virtually nothing genuine to be gained from MC'ing in 5E/1D&D, imho, for the game/group holistically, anyway.


----------



## payn

Ruin Explorer said:


> Oh I somewhat disagree then.
> 
> A better-designed version of 5E could have that be fully true.
> 
> But unfortunately 5E and 1D&D aren't designed that way, and you have a lot of abilities based on specific class levels (like getting multiple attacks, and how spell progression works), such that if you MC a lot, you can easily end up drastically less powerful than other PCs, and if you multiclass extremely carefully and only with specific, compatible classes, you can be somewhat more powerful than other PCs. The former is a bigger mechanical issue than the latter, for sure.
> 
> Either way, there's virtually nothing genuine to be gained from MC'ing in 5E/1D&D, imho, for the game/group holistically, anyway.



Then, make it optional? The gulf is much smaller than editions past and I'm willing to live with it if I can have a non-silo'd hybrid MC approach of games like 4E and PF2.


----------



## Yaarel

Ruin Explorer said:


> Sure.
> 
> But the fact that:
> 
> A) WotC said they wanted to do that, and then didn't do it.
> 
> And
> 
> B) The fact that this would obviously invalidate ALL existing subclasses (um I guess except Clerics?)
> 
> Mean that WotC are not going to do it so it's about as productive in a 1D&D discussion as suggesting WotC move to having four classes or some other old-favourite axe grind.



WotC should do it because it should be done.

The subclass is an essential component of any character concept.

The subclass needs to find a meaningful mechanical expression at level 1.


----------



## Yaarel

Ruin Explorer said:


> B) The fact that this would obviously invalidate ALL existing subclasses (um I guess except Clerics?)



Besides.

2024 will be rewriting new versions of every subclass anyway. So it doesnt matter if one cant use old 2014 subclasses for the new 2024 classes.

Players who want old subclasses can use the old classes for them, as they are accustomed to do.



The new classes can feature subclass choice at level 1. No problem.


----------



## cbwjm

With the newly aligned subclass structure, subclasses from previous 5e books will be incompatible with oneDnD classes anyway, might as well re-design them so that level one can have a subclass, you wouldn't even need them to have much mechanical weight so that people that multiclass aren't getting loaded up with abilities. As is though, the more I think about it, the more I think that the background skills and feat are going to be your level 1 "subclass" features. 

Side note, I hope that the new subclass structure exists across all classes and isn't just the Expert subclass structure, I want my mates, priests, and warriors to have the same structure. That means the if they don't receive level 1 subclasses then the sorcerer, warlock, and cleric shouldn't either because they are so close to making subclasses being able to be used across multiple classes, I'd want to grab the strixhaven UA and rebuild them so that they actually work, which will only really happen if every class has the same structure.


----------



## Yaarel

If the subclass starts at level 1, what would that look like?

The current UA Bard class design space is as follows.

BARD

Level 1
• Spellcasting (cantrip and slot 1)
• Inspiration

Level 2
• Skill Expertise (two)
• Restoration (extra spell known)

Level 3
• Spellcasting (slot 2)
• [Bard Subclass: Lore]

LORE

Level 3
• Cutting Words (extra Inspiration known)
• Extra Skill Proficiencies



At a glance. Level 1 is a bit frontloaded as one would expect.

Level 2 focuses on skills, which is ok. Restoration uses up spell slots, so there is a boost in versatility but not really a boost in power.

Level 3 is ok. A next-higher spell slot is nice. And the subclass adds to it.

But the subclass features themselves are surprisingly weak. Cutting Words uses up an Inspiration slot, so there is a boost in versatility, but not really a boost in power.



LORE SUBCLASS AT LEVEL 1

A simple way to do the Bard subclass at level 1, is to swap the Inspiration. Have the Test Boost for every Bard, plus one more Inspiration that relates to the subclass.

In this case the Lore Bard at level 1 has, both Test Boost and Cutting Words for the Inspirations.

Then at level 3, every Bard gets the Heal Inspiration.



There are also other ways to move features around. The point is, it is easy to choose a subclass at level 1.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Yaarel said:


> If the subclass starts at level 1, what would that look like?
> 
> The current UA Bard class design space is as follows.
> 
> BARD
> 
> Level 1
> • Spellcasting (cantrip and slot 1)
> • Inspiration
> 
> Level 2
> • Skill Expertise (two)
> • Restoration (extra spell known)
> 
> Level 3
> • Spellcasting (slot 2)
> • [Bard Subclass: Lore]
> 
> LORE
> 
> Level 3
> • Cutting Words (extra Inspiration known)
> • Extra Skill Proficiencies
> 
> 
> 
> At a glance. Level 1 is a bit frontloaded as one would expect.
> 
> Level 2 focuses on skills, which is ok. Restoration uses up spell slots, so there is a boost in versatility but not really a boost in power.
> 
> Level 3 is ok. A next-higher spell slot is nice. And the subclass adds to it.
> 
> But the subclass features themselves are surprisingly weak. Cutting Words uses up an Inspiration slot, so there is a boost in versatility, but not really a boost in power.
> 
> 
> 
> LORE SUBCLASS AT LEVEL 1
> 
> A simple way to do the Bard subclass at level 1, is to swap the Inspiration. Have the Test Boost for every Bard, plus one more Inspiration that relates to the subclass.
> 
> In this case the Lore Bard at level 1 has, both Test Boost and Cutting Words for the Inspirations.
> 
> Then at level 3, every Bard gets the Heal Inspiration.
> 
> 
> 
> There are also other ways to move features around. The point is, it is easy to choose a subclass at level 1.




I already miss the extra magical secret at leve 6. Was exactly the right feature at the right time.

That said, I still think level 2 should be subclass. When making characters with new players, learning how the class works is enough.
A cool Idea could be that in the first 3 levels you can chose when to take the subclass feature, pushing your other features one level back. 

If you multiclass, the order is fixed. You may not multiclass if you took subclass until level 3.

A bit more complicated, but it would be having your cake and eat it.


----------



## Yaarel

UngeheuerLich said:


> I already miss the extra magical secret at leve 6. Was exactly the right feature at the right time.
> 
> That said, I still think level 2 should be subclass. When making characters with new players, learning how the class works is enough.
> A cool Idea could be that in the first 3 levels you can chose when to take the subclass feature, pushing your other features one level back.
> 
> If you multiclass, the order is fixed. You may not multiclass if you took subclass until level 3.
> 
> A bit more complicated, but it would be having your cake and eat it.



I understand what you are saying.

But for me, there must be a subclass choice at level 1.

A classic example, is a High Elf who is an Eldritch Knight.

It seems unlikely that this Elf culture would institute a Fighter tradition that was UNABLE to use magic until level 3.

It doesnt need to be much at level 1. But it has to be something.

The Bard at level 1 can pick an Inspiration that is appropriate to the subclass.

The Fighter at level 1 can pick a Fighting Style that is appropriate to the subclass.

Something.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Yaarel said:


> I understand what you are saying.
> 
> But for me, there must be a subclass choice at level 1.
> 
> A classic example, is a High Elf who is an Eldritch Knight.
> 
> It seems unlikely that this Elf culture would institute a Fighter tradition that was UNABLE to use magic until level 3.
> 
> It doesnt need to be much at level 1. But it has to be something.
> 
> The Bard at level 1 can pick an Inspiration that is appropriate to the subclass.
> 
> The Fighter at level 1 can pick a Fighting Style that is appropriate to the subclass.
> 
> Something.




So, my idea would be that the elf just picks eldritch knight at level 1.

This pushes fighting style, second wind and action surge one level up.


----------



## Yaarel

UngeheuerLich said:


> So, my idea would be that the elf just picks eldritch knight at level 1.
> 
> This pushes fighting style, second wind and action surge one level up.



For the UA Bard, that would be a problem. The Lore subclass assumes the Bard already knows the Inspiration feature. So it couldnt precede it.

Level 1 itself needs a way to pick a subclass.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Yaarel said:


> For the UA Bard, that would be a problem. The Lore subclass assumes the Bard already knows the Inspiration feature. So it couldnt precede it.
> 
> Level 1 itself needs a way to pick a subclass.




I am really torn. One one hand, I would like subclass at level 1.
But besides new player concerns, my 100% ritual caster arcane trickster, should 100% a become a lore bard, and ended up college of swords, because of how the adventure went so far...

I think, If you are set on a character concept, you can now pick an appropriate feat (I took ritual caster as my v-human feat back then) and already play the character you wanted.

The eldritch knight can just start woth magic initiate now.
The valour bard can start with medium armor by taking the lightly armored feat... 

Actually, probably if a subclass gives you medium armor, it should tell you to take the lightly armored feat, or any other first level feat, if you already have it.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Charlaquin said:


> 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.



_You _might not have - but I have. I've also seen subclasses change as a consequence of play and the player pick a different subclass at level 3 than they'd intended at level 1.

I'm going to say straight out that the subclass should not start at level 1 _unless it is essential for the character concept that it does._ You should instead have breathing room to develop your character, and specialisation is something that should develop rather than be locked in. To use some examples:

The Warlock needs to start at level 1. You made a pact and what that pact is with is _vastly_ influential
There is absolutely no need to start the fighter or rogue at level 1. A level 1 champion, battlemaster, and rune knight are going to look basically the same anyway
Setting your subclass in stone at level 1 is the same mindset that required setting your feats in stone at level 1 in 3.X. _Play to see what happens_.

Of course I start at level 0 - but the characters should be level 3 by the end of session 4 if not 3.


----------



## Yaarel

Neonchameleon said:


> There is absolutely no need to start the fighter or rogue at level 1. A level 1 champion, battlemaster, and rune knight are going to look basically the same anyway



The Eldritch Knight Fighter needs to start at level 1, participating in magical culture.

The Psi Warrior Fighter needs to start at level 1, developing innate talent.

The Trickster Rogue often needs to start at level 1, either innate talent or magical culture.

Soulknife Rogue needs to start at level 1, developing innate talent.

Phantom Rogue needs to start at level 1, exhibiting affinity with the dead.

Paladin needs to start at level 1, typically a member of a specific order and sometimes a champion of a personal cause. The class is the result of a personal oath or commitment.

Cleric needs to start at level 1, typically a member of a specific spiritual community or personal calling.

Warlock needs to start at level 1, gaining magic as the result of a pact.

Bard often needs to start at level 1, developing magic as part of a college or family of Bards.

Druid needs to start at level 1, being an elementalist/weatherwitch or an animal/plant shapeshifter is quite different in concept.

Monk needs to start at level 1, typically a member of a monastic spiritual community, where the way of elements, or open hand, or shadow, are quite different traditions.

Sorcerer needs to start at level 1, developing a specific innate talent.

Wizards were everything magic in the earliest editions, but the Wizard today needs much more focus alongside other full caster classes. Focus requites level 1 character concept.

Most (all?) classes include concepts that require starting at level 1.



Ultimately, it is the players who have a specific character concept that they want to play, who decide it has to be level 1.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Horwath said:


> simple solution.
> 
> You cannot multiclass before level 5. When you take a level in new class, you need to take 4 levels of that class before you can gain levels in another class.




My preferred version of this is that if you have multiple classes and they are not equal, you must level the lowest one.


----------



## Storyteller Hero

Here's another possibility:

Make subclasses at higher than 1 BUT make them all have requirements that one could take at level 1.

As many subclass possibilities may overlap in their initial features, this opens up a bit of breathing room, lets people embark on a subclass "path" at level 1, and maintains the image of level 1 being the basics of a class before specialization is fully applied.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Yaarel said:


> The Eldritch Knight Fighter needs to start at level 1, participating in magical culture.



No they don't. You can "participate in magical culture" with a first level magical adept feat. Or the Eldritch Knight can learn as a result of defeat.


Yaarel said:


> The Psi Warrior Fighter needs to start at level 1, developing innate talent.



Which is why telepathy and telekinesis should be first level feats.


Yaarel said:


> The Trickster Rogue often needs to start at level 1, either innate talent or magical culture.
> 
> Soulknife Rogue needs to start at level 1, developing innate talent.



See the Eldritch Knight and Psi Warrior respectively.


Yaarel said:


> Phantom Rogue needs to start at level 1, exhibiting affinity with the dead.



No it doesn't. The Phantom only needs to start exhibiting affinity with the dead _after_ they start killing them. It's not why they became a rogue.


Yaarel said:


> Paladin needs to start at level 1, typically a member of a specific order and sometimes a champion of a personal cause.



_Paladin_ does start at level 1. It's their subclass that doesn't as they learn what sort of paladin they are.


Yaarel said:


> Cleric needs to start at level 1, typically a member of a specific spiritual community or personal calling.



Absolutely. And they then find which aspect of their faith they reflect as they spend time as a cleric.


Yaarel said:


> Warlock needs to start at level 1, gaining magic as the result of a pact.



Yes. Warlock is a specific one where your pact needs to happen as part of your class. You got one. Congratulations. Never mind that _I explicitly mentioned the Warlock as one that needs a level 1 subclass_


Yaarel said:


> Bard often needs to start at level 1, developing magic as part of a college or family of Bards.



That's called "Being a bard"


Yaarel said:


> Druid needs to start at level 1, being an elementalist/weatherwitch or an animal/plant shapeshifter is quite different in concept.



This is a problem with the Druid class. The Shapeshifter IMO should be its own subclass - or several subclasses (I wouldn't say no to a wildshaping Ranger)


Yaarel said:


> Monk needs to start at level 1, typically a member of a monastic spiritual community, where the way of elements, or open hand, or shadow, are quite different traditions.



That's called Being A Monk. Or, more accurately Monks learn techniques through study. But they also learn through the school of hard knocks.


Yaarel said:


> Sorcerer needs to start at level 1, developing a specific innate talent.



Here's a second. Congratulations.


Yaarel said:


> Wizards were everything magic in the earliest editions, but the Wizard today needs much more focus alongside other full caster classes. Focus requites level 1 character concept.



And they specialise as they study. The wizard still _can_ focus at level 1 - it's called "spell selection". Level 3 on the other hand is when you start to _benefit_ from focus in a way no one else can.


Yaarel said:


> Most (all?) classes include concepts that require starting at level 1.



Indeed. *All classes start at level 1.* I'm not suggesting bringing back Prestige Classes. _Subclasses_ on the other hand other than in rare cases don't have to start at level 1.


Yaarel said:


> Ultimately, it is the players who have a specific character concept that they want to play, who decide it has to be level 1.



And if you want to do that you can go point buy. Meanwhile classes are broader than subclasses.


----------



## Yaarel

UngeheuerLich said:


> I am really torn. One one hand, I would like subclass at level 1.
> But besides new player concerns, my 100% ritual caster arcane trickster, should 100% a become a lore bard, and ended up college of swords, because of how the adventure went so far...
> 
> I think, If you are set on a character concept, you can now pick an appropriate feat (I took ritual caster as my v-human feat back then) and already play the character you wanted.
> 
> The eldritch knight can just start woth magic initiate now.
> The valour bard can start with medium armor by taking the lightly armored feat...
> 
> Actually, probably if a subclass gives you medium armor, it should tell you to take the lightly armored feat, or any other first level feat, if you already have it.




I like how the UA consistently goes with a "do this thing or choose an other thing" approach.

Perhaps it is easy for every base class to have its main feature be "take this thing, or choose something relating to your subclass".

For the Bard, the main feature (besides spellcasting) is Inspiration. It is easy for Bardic Inspiration to say, you gain Boost Test. You also gain Heal or else an other Inspiration of your choice relating to your subclass.

For the Fighter, a main feature is Fighting Style. It is easy for the Style to say, you gain the sword-and-shield Fighting Style, or else choose an other Style relating to your Fighter subclass.



In this case, the player who is playing a Lore Bard, will get the Boost Test, but also still has a choice whether to take the Heal Inspiration or else the Cutting Words Dis-Inspiration at level 1.

Likewise, the Eldritch Knight player, still has a choice about whether to take a magical Fighting Style, or else one of the other Fighting Styles at level 1.



For the Fighter, it might also be possible to choose between Heavy Armor, or else some other feature, depending on the character concept. The Dex Fighter wont need the Heavy Armor and might need something else. The Eldritch Fighter might want the Heavy Armor or else gain the Mage Armor spell instead.



The point is. Level 1 can make sure a main feature is optional to allow for significant subclass concepts to find expression.


----------



## Yaarel

Neonchameleon said:


> No they don't. You can "participate in magical culture" with a first level magical adept feat. Or the Eldritch Knight can learn as a result of defeat.



That might be your character concept.

My character concept for an Eldritch Fighter is an Elf who grew up in a High culture, where there is a military force that specializes in blending magic and soldiery. This military institution is where the tradition of some elves growing up proficient with sword, bow, and cantrip, comes from. The High elven culture strongly associates the Eldritch Fighter tradition and the Bladesinger Wizard tradition. These are patriotic institutions that the High culture values and makes prestigious.

What needs to be available at level 1 depends on the character concept.





Neonchameleon said:


> magical adept feat
> Which is why telepathy and telekinesis should be first level feats.



For me it is a nonstarter, to require a feat tax in order to make a Psi Knight a Psi Knight.

To require a feat tax to make an Eldritch Knight an Eldritch Knight, would make the game unfun for many fans.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Yaarel said:


> That might be your character concept.
> 
> My character concept for an Eldritch Fighter is an Elf who grew up in a High culture, where there is a military force that specializes in blending magic and soldiery. This is military institution is where the tradition of some elves growing up proficient with sword, bow, and cantrip, comes from. The High elven culture strongly associates the Eldritch Fighter tradition and the Bladesinger Wizard tradition. These are patriotic institutions that the High culture values and makes prestigious.
> 
> What needs to be available at level 1 depends on the character concept.



Your character concept is someone who grew up as a trained spellcaster _as a part of their background._ There is _literally_ a feat to do that that is availabe _as a part of your background_. It is a feat that you have the full ability to take and that will cover what you say your character concept is.

Therefore with the D&Done rules your character concept _and_ mine can both be covered if the Eldritch Knight starts at level 3.

Edit: And you don't _need _a feat to make a psi knight a psi knight. You don't _need_ to unlock the psychic potential at level 1. It's there if "I could always do this" is part of your concept.


----------



## Yaarel

Neonchameleon said:


> Your character concept is someone who grew up as a trained spellcaster _as a part of their background._ There is _literally_ a feat to do that that is availabe _as a part of your background_. It is a feat that you have the full ability to take and that will cover what you say your character concept is.
> 
> Therefore with the D&Done rules your character concept _and_ mine can both be covered if the Eldritch Knight starts at level 3.
> 
> Edit: And you don't _need _a feat to make a psi knight a psi knight. You don't _need_ to unlock the psychic potential at level 1. It's there if "I could always do this" is part of your concept.LO



I disagree with your character concept. I dont want to play it.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Yaarel said:


> I disagree with your character concept. I dont want to play it.



And I don't give a monkeys whether you want to play it there are plenty of concepts I don't want to play that I'm glad other people can. The thing is _you_ don't want _me _ to play it.

I am fine with your character concept - but _you can play it._ You said that your background involved learning magic - so you learn magic in your background - which is what backgrounds are for. You are asking for the rules to be changed not because you want to play an already playable concept but because you want to make sure no one can play certain concepts. It's pure gatekeeping that makes the game smaller, weaker, and less flexible.


----------



## Yaarel

Eldritch Knight is a specific approach to combat. It needs to happen at level 1 and to continue to develop further.


----------



## Mistwell

Ruin Explorer said:


> Funny thing is WotC agree, they even said so in I believe the previous playtest video.
> 
> The idea that people need to "learn their class" is obviously laughable. Most classes don't even get some of their core abilities until L3 anyway, and a lot of classes play virtually identically at L1.
> 
> As @Parmandur said, this seems to be a backwards-compatibility thing. If they did move it to L1, which I believe they agree makes sense, they'd invalidate all existing subclasses, which, honestly they're going to do anyway, eventually, but doing it instantly might cause er... some uproar?
> 
> As for multiclassing, pfft, who cares? If that really matters either:
> 
> A) Disallow or limit multiclassing (i.e. maybe you don't let people pick another class until they've done three levels in this one, for example).
> 
> or
> 
> B) Make it so that you only get the "subclass" for one class (I've seen games do things like this).
> 
> To be honest disallowing multiclassing in 5E/1D&D does basically no damage to the game. There are very few genuine RP concepts which benefit from multiclassing, and 95% of multiclassing is either:
> 
> A) System experts exploiting synergies to attempt to make an OP character.
> 
> or
> 
> B) System noobs/ninnies picking "kewl" classes because they're allowed to and usually creating barely-playable junk characters full of anti-synergy.
> 
> Neither of those is a good things and that's the overwhelming majority of 5E multiclassing.



As you have zero objective data for the claim that multiclassing is not used as a genuine RP concept, I disagree. I think a great deal of multiclassing is done for genuine RP concepts. And my evidence is exactly as varied and deep as yours for that contention. So all we have is WOTCs surveying and playtesting on the concept - and they clearly think it's valuable as they are not even including it directly in each class.

Which means we need to account for it. Whether you personally like and use multiclassing or not.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Yaarel said:


> Eldritch Knight is a specific approach to combat. It needs to happen at level 1 and to continue to develop further.



This would appear to be something you have _completely_ invented.

If you want it to start at level 1 you have the new Magic Initiate feat as part of your background to give you cantrips and a first level spell Meanwhile the Eldritch Knight at third level gains cantrips and two first level spell slots and the Weapon Bond ability.

Given that the Magic Initiate feat gives you a slightly lesser version of everything except Weapon Bond are you claiming that Weapon Bond is the core of Eldritch Knight? And there's nothing meaningful about Eldritch Knight without it?

And are you saying apprentices can never learn swordplay before magic?

Because if all that is not true then you are inventing things. And inventing them with the only effect of trying to prevent other people playing what they want while not actually enabling your concept.


----------



## Mistwell

I am fine starting subclasses at level 1, provided again that if it's not your first class (you're multiclassing) then the first level subclass feature gets moved to level 3 of the 2nd and following classes for you.


----------



## Yaarel

For the Fighter class, I want the heavy armor to instead be part of the Fighting Style section.

This increases the size of the Fighting Style design space. Thus the Fighting Style can become a more impactful and flavorful choice for the many different kinds of Fighter concepts.

Dex Fighters can thereby eschew the heavy armor proficiency, and instead pick a Fighting Style that expresses their agility combat better.

Many cultures wont even have heavy armor, and it makes less sense for their Fighters to have trained in it.

The Fighting Style with heavy armor (with ways to synergize even enhance heavy armor) should be the default Fighting Style, alongside the other Fighting Styles that players can choose instead.


----------



## Marandahir

Eyes of Nine said:


> I know this was said in somewhat jest - however why is it a PC can change classes but not change sub-classes? There doesn't seem to be a narrative reason why that I can think of



They could in 4e Essentials - there were intra-class multiclassing feats that let you gain subclass features of another subclass of your class. So Protectors (summoner Druids) could take the feat for the Sentinel's animal companion or the 2008 Druid's Wild Shape, and vice versa versa.

I'd really like to see something like this come back.

That said, there ARE 5e suggestions for changing sub-classes wholecloth - it's in the 2014 DMG, and built into the example of a Paladin Oathbreaker subclass. You break your oath, and instead of losing all your abilities until you repent, your subclass is replaced with the Oathbreaker one.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Marandahir said:


> They could in 4e Essentials - there were intra-class multiclassing feats that let you gain subclass features of another subclass of your class. So Protectors (summoner Druids) could take the feat for the Sentinel's animal companion or the 2008 Druid's Wild Shape, and vice versa versa.
> 
> I'd really like to see something like this come back.
> 
> That said, there ARE 5e suggestions for changing sub-classes wholecloth - it's in the 2014 DMG, and built into the example of a Paladin Oathbreaker subclass. You break your oath, and instead of losing all your abilities until you repent, your subclass is replaced with the Oathbreaker one.



For the record changing subclasses as a result of roleplaying and consequences is huge and minor at the same time.

And on thinking about it that's one thing that could be very interesting - multiclassing through subclasses. Each class offers one "multiclass version" that you take instead of an own-class subclass.


----------



## Yaarel

It seems doable to take several subclasses within the same class.

Start off as a Swashbuckler Rogue, then switch back and forth between Swashbuckler and Trickster. Or any subclass combo.

It is doable because, the first level of a subclass is a surprisingly small amount of design space. It balances when taking the small design space of a Swashbuckler then the small design space of a Trickster. Of course, to do so, delays the higher level subclass features that come later. But that is how multiclassing works.



To take an other class as a subclass is a more challenging design.

The level 1 of a class is frontloaded, with a bunch of features going on at the same time.

In order to take an other class as a subclass, one would need to decide which small feature from that class is the most salient one.

For example, suppose a Rogue took Bard as a subclass. It is a dilemma to decide if such a Bardic Rogue would want some of the spellcasting or some of the Inspiration, for the small amount of subclass design space available.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Mistwell said:


> As you have zero objective data for the claim that multiclassing is not used as a genuine RP concept, I disagree. I think a great deal of multiclassing is done for genuine RP concepts. And my evidence is exactly as varied and deep as yours for that contention. So all we have is WOTCs surveying and playtesting on the concept - and they clearly think it's valuable as they are not even including it directly in each class.
> 
> Which means we need to account for it. Whether you personally like and use multiclassing or not.



I'm afraid you've missed my point.

I'm not saying RPing is "never used for a genuine RP concept", as you can see from what you quoted. Obviously that would be impossible to prove "objectively" in either direction.

What I'm saying is MC'ing, as per 5E/1D&D is _not particularly good for the game_. Again, my position is that the vast majority of MC combinations in 5E (and presumably 1D&D) fall into two categories:

1) Simple powergaming - exploiting synergies to make more powerful/effective characters.

I don't think this is a major issue as 5E is relatively well-balanced against powergaming (interestingly), but it offers no benefit to the game.

2) Picking a classes that seem cool/make sense with no regard for synergy that often ends up with a significantly weakened character.

I think this is a real problem, and actively detracts from the game experience. Sometimes this is for a "genuine RP concept", but unless there's some real guidance/sense used it's very easy to end up with a character who is just not good at anything.

So I think it's very reasonable to suggest some limits to MC'ing. You apparently do as well given you're suggesting making it so classes after the first get subclasses delayed.


----------



## DEFCON 1

I mentioned it in one of the other threads as I thought of it... but I'll mention it here too since it applies to the conversation:

I would not be surprised if only a few classes got changed such that Experts and Warriors get their subclasses at Level 3 (which all six classes already do)... while the Priests and Mages got theirs bumped up to Level 1.  The Cleric, Sorcerer and Warlock are already at Level 1, the Druid and Wizard are only at Level 2 (so a 1 level bump up isn't a big deal), and it's the Paladin that is the only one that would make a grand jump from Level 3 to 1.

This solves a lot of issues (not all, just a lot), plus opens up the door to potential "Class group" subclasses in the future... ones that applies and can be taken by any member of a Class group now that they'd all have the same progression within each group.


----------



## Laurefindel

Charlaquin said:


> 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.



Yes

Subclass doesn’t have to contribute _much_ mechanically speaking (yet) but the concept should be more or less set at level 1. I’m fine with the subclass really kicking in at level 3 to offer a smooth(er) power progression.

My ideal would be something like the warlock; choose a subclass concept at level 1, further develop it  at level 3, and gain another choice at level 5 (although the latter might conflict with extra attack, or if extra attack is one of the choices, make the level 5 choice a non-option)


----------



## Mistwell

Ruin Explorer said:


> I'm afraid you've missed my point.
> 
> I'm not saying RPing is "never used for a genuine RP concept", as you can see from what you quoted. Obviously that would be impossible to prove "objectively" in either direction.
> 
> What I'm saying is MC'ing, as per 5E/1D&D is _not particularly good for the game_. Again, my position is that the vast majority of MC combinations in 5E (and presumably 1D&D) fall into two categories:
> 
> 1) Simple powergaming - exploiting synergies to make more powerful/effective characters.
> 
> I don't think this is a major issue as 5E is relatively well-balanced against powergaming (interestingly), but it offers no benefit to the game.
> 
> 2) Picking a classes that seem cool/make sense with no regard for synergy that often ends up with a significantly weakened character.
> 
> I think this is a real problem, and actively detracts from the game experience. Sometimes this is for a "genuine RP concept", but unless there's some real guidance/sense used it's very easy to end up with a character who is just not good at anything.
> 
> So I think it's very reasonable to suggest some limits to MC'ing. You apparently do as well given you're suggesting making it so classes after the first get subclasses delayed.



WOTC is including multiclassing in the 2024 edition, and increasing it's prominence by putting the rules for it directly in each class. We're just discussing the new edition, right? 

Right now subclasses don't start at level 1. You guys are suggesting they should. If that were to happen, I am saying they should make sure the subclass you multiclass into doesn't grant it's subclass powers until after level 1, to prevent the issue you mentioned as #1 above: cherry picking single levels of a class to get the subclass ability.


----------



## Charlaquin

Mistwell said:


> WOTC is including multiclassing in the 2024 edition, and increasing it's prominence by putting the rules for it directly in each class. We're just discussing the new edition, right?
> 
> Right now subclasses don't start at level 1. You guys are suggesting they should. If that were to happen, I am saying they should make sure the subclass you multiclass into doesn't grant it's subclass powers until after level 1, to prevent the issue you mentioned as #1 above: cherry picking single levels of a class to get the subclass ability.



Some classes in the 2014 PHB have subclasses that start at 1st level. Do you see this problem happening with them?


----------



## Mistwell

Charlaquin said:


> Some classes in the 2014 PHB have subclasses that start at 1st level. Do you see this problem happening with them?



Yes, I definitely do and have for a long time. It's why I think if they're going to make that mistake again, correct it for the problem that exist with the 2014 version.

It's most of the reason you see people cherry picking a single level of Cleric, or a single level of Hexblade Warlock.


----------



## Marandahir

Charlaquin said:


> Some classes in the 2014 PHB have subclasses that start at 1st level. Do you see this problem happening with them?



I see the issue where Cleric, Warlock, and Sorcerer PCs have a lot of frontloaded choices which could lead to options paralysis. 

But I still think it serves their narratives to have Lv1 Subclasses. The other classes, minus maybe Paladin, don’t really need subclass choice at 1st. But I’d rather it standardised one way or another, and it would be easier to give a ribbon to each subclass at 1st. 

I still think if you want a true apprentice before specialising you could have 0th Level classes that reflect Warrior / Expert / Priest / Mage.


----------



## Charlaquin

Mistwell said:


> Yes, I definitely do and have for a long time. It's why I think if they're going to make that mistake again, correct it for the problem that exist with the 2014 version.
> 
> It's most of the reason you see people cherry picking a single level of Cleric, or a single level of Hexblade Warlock.



A single level of Cleric for… what, heavy armor? Hexblade for the Hexblade’s Curse? Easy features to just not grant at 1st level.


----------



## Charlaquin

Marandahir said:


> I see the issue where Cleric, Warlock, and Sorcerer PCs have a lot of frontloaded choices which could lead to options paralysis.



I’m not worried about this, especially now that they seem to be offering default options as often as possible for folks who don’t want to make a decision.


Marandahir said:


> But I still think it serves their narratives to have Lv1 Subclasses. The other classes, minus maybe Paladin, don’t really need subclass choice at 1st. But I’d rather it standardised one way or another, and it would be easier to give a ribbon to each subclass at 1st.
> 
> I still think if you want a true apprentice before specialising you could have 0th Level classes that reflect Warrior / Expert / Priest / Mage.



Agreed.


----------



## Laurefindel

Marandahir said:


> But I still think it serves their narratives to have Lv1 Subclasses. The other classes, minus maybe Paladin, don’t really need subclass choice at 1st. But I’d rather it standardised one way or another, and it would be easier to give a ribbon to each subclass at 1st.



The problem with other classes is that some of their subclasses would benefit from early narrative input while others don't. Eldritch Knight Fighter and Scout Rogue come to mind, making you go "where did you pick up wizard magic overnight?" or "one day you have no knowledge of nature and the next you compete with the ranger?"

Others like Swashbuckler Rogue or Blades Bard do to a certain degree, and there are more that beg to orient roleplay from level 1.


----------



## Charlaquin

Laurefindel said:


> The problem with other classes is that some of their subclasses would benefit from early narrative input while others don't. Eldritch Knight Fighter and Scout Rogue come to mind, making you go "where did you pick up wizard magic overnight?" or "one day you have no knowledge of nature and the next you compete with the ranger?"
> 
> Others like Swashbuckler Rogue or Blades Bard do to a certain degree, and there are more that beg to orient roleplay from level 1.



Yep. And I don’t think there’s any subclass that _suffers_ narratively for starting at 1st level. So it seems all-upside to me. The multiclassing problem I think is easily solved by just not giving any 1st level subclass features that you wouldn’t give as 1st level class features.


----------



## Laurefindel

Charlaquin said:


> A single level of Cleric for… what, heavy armor? Hexblade for the Hexblade’s Curse? Easy features to just not grant at 1st level.



Hexblade (and it's Cha to attack and damage) is the greater offender but as you said, it'd be easy to postpone it (or in parts) to further level. As it should have been from the get go actually; the whole subclass feels like a fix of the pack of blade warlock with a so-so implementation.


----------



## Charlaquin

Laurefindel said:


> Hexblade (and it's Cha to attack and damage) is the greater offender but as you said, it'd be easy to postpone it (or in parts) to further level. As it should have been from the get go actually; the whole subclass feels like a fix of the pack of blade warlock with a so-so implementation.



Yeah, it’s definitely just a clumsy fix to the blade pact boon. Now they have the opportunity to fix the pact boon itself (which comes at 3rd level) and ditch Hexblade as a patron. As for clerics granting heavy armor, just say they only grant medium armor if it’s not your first class, just like every class with heavy armor proficiency does. Boom, problem solved.


----------



## Leatherhead

I never understood the "lower levels are for learning the game" argument.

Given that subclasses can radically change how a character is played by giving the character new roles and mechanics (and often unique mechanics) you can't use levels 1 and 2 to learn how to play your character, because at level 3 you would be playing something totally different.


----------



## Xamnam

In my experience, people who come into 5E with solid mechanical board game / video game knowledge can jump in with a level three character no problem. The folks that I've seen who are brand new to the hobby at large, and don't have those parallel understanding baselines, have more often than not been overwhelmed by the mechanics at play with just a level one character, and the delaying of subclasses features helped them to get a handle on the basic levers of their characters before introducing different ones. 

That mechanical perspective is the reason I stand against introducing subclasses at an earlier point. I absolutely agree that narratively delaying it can range from perfectly fine to very confusing, especially in the cases of the Sorcerer and Warlock.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Laurefindel said:


> The problem with other classes is that some of their subclasses would benefit from early narrative input while others don't. Eldritch Knight Fighter and Scout Rogue come to mind, making you go "where did you pick up wizard magic overnight?" or "one day you have no knowledge of nature and the next you compete with the ranger?"
> 
> Others like Swashbuckler Rogue or Blades Bard do to a certain degree, and there are more that beg to orient roleplay from level 1.




I did not like the rogue scout subclass because of this.
Especially because you jumped from no proficiency to expertise. It did not even let you chose different skills if you already had them... which is exactly how ot should NOT work.
If you already chose survival and nature, and maybe even had expertise, you should just get two new skills. So you can chose to start with proficiency at least by chosing the outlander background or something like that and already behave lile a ranger. At level 3 you then just get some appropriate abilities.

Maybe some subclasses should just have prerequisites... want to be a scout? Chose appropriate skills... same for multiclassing: want to multiclass to fighter? Get medium armor proficiency first...
took the idea from warhammer fantasy. 

Maybe this would need some rebalancing...


----------



## Mistwell

Charlaquin said:


> A single level of Cleric for… what, heavy armor? Hexblade for the Hexblade’s Curse? Easy features to just not grant at 1st level.



Cleric comes with a ton of good subclass perks at first level. Too many to list. Off the top of my head Forge get's you a +1 weapon or +1 armor at level 1, Knowledge gets you Expertise in two skills, Life gets you what can be a HUGE bonus to your healing spells, Order grants a reaction attack to your ally who you cast a spell on, Twilight gives 300' darkvision to up to 5 people and bonus to initiative you can give others, War gives a bonus action attack, etc.. There are many others too. 

Hexblade is pretty obviously for Charisma to weapon attack and damage.


----------



## Maxperson

Charlaquin said:


> 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.



If they started at 1st, they would be classes and not subclasses.  I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but you'd be breaking fighters up and giving us the Champion class, Battle Master class and Eldritch Knight class.


----------



## CreamCloud0

Neonchameleon said:


> Yes. Warlock is a specific one where your pact needs to happen as part of your class. You got one. Congratulations. Never mind that _I explicitly mentioned the Warlock as one that needs a level 1 subclass_



I might argue that warlock _doesn’t _actually need a level 1 subclass, you know you made a pact with _something_, you don’t actually forge a strong enough connection with it to find out _what they actually were_ until 3rd level.

Edit: i would prefer all the subclasses beginnings were standardised but personally I’ve no idea why people are so insistent on that being level 1, the core class abilities _are the core of your class _so of course you learn those first before you then _specialise_, the narrative is just that you were always training to do those things but 3rd level is just the point where you actually manage to make things click and your efforts stat showing results, it’s when the eldritch Knight figures out how to actually cast something that’s recognisable as a spell and has memorised more than the most basic arcane terminology, 3rd is when your cleric or paladin’s divine magic actually starts solidifying enough to manifest specific effects based on their god/oath rather than just the basic abilities all cleric/paladins get, it’s when the ranger has trained enough that their specialisation starts showing enough to make a noticeable difference.


----------



## Laurefindel

Maxperson said:


> If they started at 1st, they would be classes and not subclasses.  I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but you'd be breaking fighters up and giving us the Champion class, Battle Master class and Eldritch Knight class.



By curiosity, is this how you feel about clerics and warlocks too?


----------



## Maxperson

Laurefindel said:


> By curiosity, is this how you feel about clerics and warlocks too?



Clerics and warlocks don't truly have subclasses.  They have domains/pacts which while they use the rules for subclasses, don't break those classes up into different kinds of clerics and warlocks.  Take wizards.  You can have a wizard of a school(all of the schools are one class, similar to clerics and warlocks), bladesinger, order of scribes, etc.  Those are all clearly very different in a way that clerics just are not.

Were this 3e, the school wizards would be the wizards.  The bladesinger would be either a new class by itself or if it wasn't a full class, a prestige class.  Prestige classes didn't start at 1st level.  Only full classes did.  If you move subclass to 1st level, you are in effect splitting one class into many(except cleric and warlock).

What 5e did was basically hard code prestige classes into the class system at 2nd or 3rd level.


----------



## Maxperson

Ruin Explorer said:


> BA? Badass? British Airways?


----------



## Charlaquin

Xamnam said:


> In my experience, people who come into 5E with solid mechanical board game / video game knowledge can jump in with a level three character no problem. The folks that I've seen who are brand new to the hobby at large, and don't have those parallel understanding baselines, have more often than not been overwhelmed by the mechanics at play with just a level one character, and the delaying of subclasses features helped them to get a handle on the basic levers of their characters before introducing different ones.
> 
> That mechanical perspective is the reason I stand against introducing subclasses at an earlier point. I absolutely agree that narratively delaying it can range from perfectly fine to very confusing, especially in the cases of the Sorcerer and Warlock.



Ok… So why not delay complex features to third level without delaying _subclasses_ to third level?


----------



## Xamnam

Because choosing subclasses, even if they're mechanically delayed, is another decision point that new players might not feel equipped to fully understand at the point of character creation. Or, as others have mentioned, their play during levels one and two might point them in a different direction.


----------



## Charlaquin

Mistwell said:


> Cleric comes with a ton of good subclass perks at first level. Too many to list. Off the top of my head Forge get's you a +1 weapon or +1 armor at level 1, Knowledge gets you Expertise in two skills, Life gets you what can be a HUGE bonus to your healing spells, Order grants a reaction attack to your ally who you cast a spell on, Twilight gives 300' darkvision to up to 5 people and bonus to initiative you can give others, War gives a bonus action attack, etc.. There are many others too.



So don’t grant those benefits at 1st level. Have those subclasses grant something smaller at 1st level and delay those bigger features to 3rd or whatever.


----------



## Charlaquin

Maxperson said:


> If they started at 1st, they would be classes and not subclasses.  I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but you'd be breaking fighters up and giving us the Champion class, Battle Master class and Eldritch Knight class.



Are you saying cleric is 14 classes?


----------



## Charlaquin

Xamnam said:


> Because choosing subclasses, even if they're mechanically delayed, is another decision point that new players might not feel equipped to fully understand at the point of character creation. Or, as others have mentioned, their play during levels one and two might point them in a different direction.



So do the whole “you gain the Thief subclass or another subclass of your choice” thing they’ve been fond of using for evert other decision point in 1D&D.


----------



## Maxperson

Charlaquin said:


> Are you saying cleric is 14 classes?



No. Cleric is one class.  Domain doesn't split it up in the same way that Bladesinger is very different from Conjurer which are both very different from Order of the Scribes.  The fighter subclasses are similarly very different from one another.

Cleric on the other hand is all the same with the exception of a domain that gives a few domain related things. They don't have the same differentiation.  

Again in 3e terms, Clerics had their two domains and domain abilities and spell list, but was one class.  Bladesinger, Wizard and other wizard type classes were separate classes.  Battle Master would have been a separate class in 3e, as would Champion and Eldritch Knight. Or else they would have been prestige classes at levels higher than 1.


----------



## Charlaquin

Maxperson said:


> No. Cleric is one class.  Domain doesn't split it up in the same way that Bladesinger is very different from Conjurer which are both very different from Order of the Scribes.  The fighter subclasses are similarly very different from one another.
> 
> Cleric on the other hand is all the same with the exception of a domain that gives a few domain related things. They don't have the same differentiation.
> 
> Again in 3e terms, Clerics had their two domains and domain abilities and spell list, but was one class.  Bladesinger, Wizard and other wizard type classes were separate classes.  Battle Master would have been a separate class in 3e, as would Champion and Eldritch Knight. Or else they would have been prestige classes at levels higher than 1.



I don’t see the differences 5e subclasses make as nearly that significant, but I guess that’s your opinion.


----------



## Xamnam

Charlaquin said:


> So do the whole “you gain the Thief subclass or another subclass of your choice” thing they’ve been fond of using for evert other decision point in 1D&D.



Huh. Interesting. I can see the logic, especially given that most classes have an archetypal trope subclass. I don't know why, but this doesn't sit well with me. Maybe because it's a much larger fracture point than recommended skills/spells. If they're going to have something on this front, a variant/optional rule that spells out starting at level 3 for experienced players just makes a lot more sense to me than granting subclasses this early.


----------



## cbwjm

One of the things for rogue is that if they intend to start subclasses at 3rd level, they should make thieves cant something which can be selected rather than required. It's one of the things I hate about the rogue scout, a character at home in the wilderness who understands thieves cant just seems to fight against the archetype a little. I'd much rather be able to choose so that they can have sylvan or druidic instead. This isn't an issue when using pen and paper, but since WotC is going all into the online space, it needs to be optional in DnDbeyond.


----------



## Bill Zebub

I see both sides here, but I think overall I'm for delaying until 3rd level simply because I often (or at least sometimes) find myself unsure of where I'm going with a character, or I think I know but I change my mind by 3rd level.  I like having a couple of levels to figure out who this person is.  My current Rogue Scout was not intended to be a Scout, but that's where the campaign went.

And when I _do_ know where the character is going, I don't mind waiting for 3rd level.  Sometimes I have to figure out a story, like with my swordswoman: I went with Kensei monk to play an unarmored longsword fighter, and I reflavored my quarterstaff as a wooden practice sword.  I had to "earn" a real sword, which conveniently my master acknowledged had happened right as I turned 3rd level.  (Actually acquiring a real sword took a little bit longer.)


----------



## Mistwell

Charlaquin said:


> So don’t grant those benefits at 1st level. Have those subclasses grant something smaller at 1st level and delay those bigger features to 3rd or whatever.



Ok but it's kinda hard for most of those subclasses to give something at first level which fits the theme of the subclass and which also isn't so consequential.


----------



## Leatherhead

Multiclassing is overrated. Given the improved focus on feats (which are still tied to class level,  not character level), and the strong possibilities of reworking the problem child subclasses ( hi to you Hexblade). Front loading classes isn't going to be that much of a concern.


----------



## Charlaquin

Mistwell said:


> Ok but it's kinda hard for most of those subclasses to give something at first level which fits the theme of the subclass and which also isn't so consequential.



I dunno, I feel like if they can come up with MC-friendly 1st level class features, they can come up with MC-friendly 1st-level subclass features.


----------



## Marandahir

Bill Zebub said:


> I see both sides here, but I think overall I'm for delaying until 3rd level simply because I often (or at least sometimes) find myself unsure of where I'm going with a character, or I think I know but I change my mind by 3rd level.  I like having a couple of levels to figure out who this person is.  My current Rogue Scout was not intended to be a Scout, but that's where the campaign went.
> 
> And when I _do_ know where the character is going, I don't mind waiting for 3rd level.  Sometimes I have to figure out a story, like with my swordswoman: I went with Kensei monk to play an unarmored longsword fighter, and I reflavored my quarterstaff as a wooden practice sword.  I had to "earn" a real sword, which conveniently my master acknowledged had happened right as I turned 3rd level.  (Actually acquiring a real sword took a little bit longer.)



So allow swapping, and the features at 1st level aren't that major. That is to say, you're not locked in yet.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Marandahir said:


> So allow swapping, and the features at 1st level aren't that major. That is to say, you're not locked in yet.




That feels...cheesy...to me.  Like the DAL rules for changing my character.  Or respeccing my MMO toon.


----------



## MoonSong

Maxperson said:


> Clerics and warlocks don't truly have subclasses.  They have domains/pacts which while they use the rules for subclasses, don't break those classes up into different kinds of clerics and warlocks.  Take wizards.  You can have a wizard of a school(all of the schools are one class, similar to clerics and warlocks), bladesinger, order of scribes, etc.  Those are all clearly very different in a way that clerics just are not.
> 
> Were this 3e, the school wizards would be the wizards.  The bladesinger would be either a new class by itself or if it wasn't a full class, a prestige class.  Prestige classes didn't start at 1st level.  Only full classes did.  If you move subclass to 1st level, you are in effect splitting one class into many(except cleric and warlock).
> 
> What 5e did was basically hard code prestige classes into the class system at 2nd or 3rd level.



It seems you haven't told us about the sorcerer. Where does it fit to you?


----------



## Maxperson

MoonSong said:


> It seems you haven't told us about the sorcerer. Where does it fit to you?



Sorcerer, despite getting subclasses at level 1, is like wizard. Very diverse. Aberrant Mind is very different from Draconic Bloodline, which is very different from Wild magic, which is very different from Divine Soul.  

It's the cleric and warlock that have subclasses that are very samey.  Who you make a pact with is much like having a domain.


----------



## Marandahir

Maxperson said:


> Sorcerer, despite getting subclasses at level 1, is like wizard. Very diverse. Aberrant Mind is very different from Draconic Bloodline, which is very different from Wild magic, which is very different from Divine Soul.
> 
> It's the cleric and warlock that have subclasses that are very samey.  Who you make a pact with is much like having a domain.




I feel like we have very different definitions of samey. Are you honestly arguing that heavy armored, martial weapon front line fighting War Domain Clerics are very samey with unarmoured almost wizardly backline caster Knowledge Domain Clerics?


----------



## DEFCON 1

Marandahir said:


> I feel like we have very different definitions of samey. Are you honestly arguing that heavy armored, martial weapon front line fighting War Domain Clerics are very samey with unarmoured almost wizardly backline caster Knowledge Domain Clerics?



I suspect you both are looking at it from two different perspectives.

You are looking at it it seems from the perspective of what the PC looks like on battlefield.  And yes, in that way a war cleric and a knowledge cleric are wearing different things, are wielding different weapons, etc.  They don't present as the same type of character under the same class.

But I suspect from @Maxperson 's perspective... they're thinking that all Clerics are the same narratively in that they are all divine acolytes of a specific god, each of which does the same thing and has the same categories of power-- the only differences between them is which gods they serve (and the domain that gods reside over.)  As opposed to say clerics that are all different types of priests with different duties or functions-- Missionaries that go out proselytizing, Archivists that collect religious knowledge, Templars that fight on the behalf of their churches etc.

Now sure... obviously we can say that Knowledge Clerics are like Archivists, and War Clerics are like Templars... but the difference would be that EVERY domain could have Archivists and every domain could have Missionaries, and every domain could have Templars.  After all... why shouldn't the priesthood of a Knowledge god have Templars who fight with weapons on the god's behalf?  Or why shouldn't war gods have those priests back at their temple collecting and storing all the god's important items?  And that's where changing up the subclass type would come into play.  Warlocks have two different things that change them-- WHO they get their power from (their Patron), and HOW do they use that power (their Pact).  Clerics could certainly have the same sort of differential.

Maybe I'm wrong with what you both are talking about... but this was my impression of the conversation and the differences between the two of you.


----------



## Maxperson

Marandahir said:


> I feel like we have very different definitions of samey. Are you honestly arguing that heavy armored, martial weapon front line fighting War Domain Clerics are very samey with unarmoured almost wizardly backline caster Knowledge Domain Clerics?



How you play your knowledge and war domain clerics is up to you.  A war domain cleric could be an unarmored strategist who leads armies from the command tent.  That knowledge cleric could be on the front lines in plate armor smashing foes that would destroy knowledge.

A cleric is a cleric, except for the domain which doesn't really change the class in the same way that Divine Soul sorcerers are very different from a Wild Magic sorcerer.


----------



## TwoSix

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t see the differences 5e subclasses make as nearly that significant, but I guess that’s your opinion.



If anything, cleric domain feels more impactful; it's one of the few subclass decisions that impacts your stat choices, because it affects what kind of armor and weapons you'll be using.  

I can see the point that some subclasses move the class in a more martial direction by granting Extra Attack, which is a big differentiator, and would have changed a class into a different class in 3e because the attack progressions are different.  But getting Extra Attack on a caster isn't quite as big of deal in 5e, which is why they give it out fairly liberally.


----------



## Maxperson

DEFCON 1 said:


> I suspect you both are looking at it from two different perspectives.
> 
> You are looking at it it seems from the perspective of what the PC looks like on battlefield.  And yes, in that way a war cleric and a knowledge cleric are wearing different things, are wielding different weapons, etc.  They don't present as the same type of character under the same class.
> 
> But I suspect from @Maxperson 's perspective... they're thinking that all Clerics are the same narratively in that they are all divine acolytes of a specific god, each of which does the same thing and has the same categories of power-- the only differences between them is which gods they serve (and the domain that gods reside over.)  As opposed to say clerics that are all different types of priests with different duties or functions-- Missionaries that go out proselytizing, Archivists that collect religious knowledge, Templars that fight on the behalf of their churches etc.
> 
> Now sure... obviously we can say that Knowledge Clerics are like Archivists, and War Clerics are like Templars... but the difference would be that EVERY domain could have Archivists and every domain could have Missionaries, and every domain could have Templars.  After all... why shouldn't the priesthood of a Knowledge god have Templars who fight with weapons on the god's behalf?  Or why shouldn't war gods have those priests back at their temple collecting and storing all the god's important items?  And that's where changing up the subclass type would come into play.  Warlocks have two different things that change them-- WHO they get their power from (their Patron), and HOW do they use that power (their Pact).  Clerics could certainly have the same sort of differential.
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong with what you both are talking about... but this was my impression of the conversation and the differences between the two of you.



That's a very good way to describe what I'm talking about.  Thanks.


----------



## Clint_L

I'm in charge of the D&D Club at my school, so every term I run two short campaigns for beginners (one for 9/10 students, another for 11/12 students). I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to keep the game as simple as possible at first level. If you have never played D&D there is an ENORMOUS learning curve. Normally level 1 is just one game, but it's about teaching them the basics of rolling dice and role-play. Level 2 adds a few more options, and then at level 3 (typically game 4-5) they are ready to choose a sub-class.

I think hitting them with all that at level 1 would be very difficult.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Clint_L said:


> I'm in charge of the D&D Club at my school, so every term I run two short campaigns for beginners (one for 9/10 students, another for 11/12 students). I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to keep the game as simple as possible at first level. If you have never played D&D there is an ENORMOUS learning curve. Normally level 1 is just one game, but it's about teaching them the basics of rolling dice and role-play. Level 2 adds a few more options, and then at level 3 (typically game 4-5) they are ready to choose a sub-class.
> 
> I think hitting them with all that at level 1 would be very difficult.



Yeah I have been teaching kids, that young and younger, and it’s just an enormous amount of complexity. I make their characters for them, and have them describe what they want to do without worrying about the rules, and it’s still a lot.


----------



## Mephista

cbwjm said:


> One of the things for rogue is that if they intend to start subclasses at 3rd level, they should make thieves cant something which can be selected rather than required. It's one of the things I hate about the rogue scout, a character at home in the wilderness who understands thieves cant just seems to fight against the archetype a little. I'd much rather be able to choose so that they can have sylvan or druidic instead. This isn't an issue when using pen and paper, but since WotC is going all into the online space, it needs to be optional in DnDbeyond.



Note that Thieves Cant grants another language in addition to the actual thief speak. So you basically get both?  Dunno.


----------



## reelo

payn said:


> Oh, hell no.



Why not?
Or maybe "if you multiclass, you need to keep both classes at the same level as much as possible."


----------



## payn

reelo said:


> Why not?
> Or maybe "if you multiclass, you need to keep both classes at the same level as much as possible."



Sounds like good optional rules for the DMG.


----------



## Bill Zebub

reelo said:


> Why not?
> Or maybe "if you multiclass, you need to keep both classes at the same level as much as possible."




That's always been my preference.  "You must increase your lowest level class."


----------



## Charlaquin

Clint_L said:


> I'm in charge of the D&D Club at my school, so every term I run two short campaigns for beginners (one for 9/10 students, another for 11/12 students). I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to keep the game as simple as possible at first level. If you have never played D&D there is an ENORMOUS learning curve. Normally level 1 is just one game, but it's about teaching them the basics of rolling dice and role-play. Level 2 adds a few more options, and then at level 3 (typically game 4-5) they are ready to choose a sub-class.
> 
> I think hitting them with all that at level 1 would be very difficult.



So do you just ban classes that gain their subs at 1st and 2nd?


----------



## Bill Zebub

Charlaquin said:


> So do you just ban classes that gain their subs at 1st and 2nd?



I would have asked that in a more open-ended way. I’m guessing the answer is to encourage beginners toward certain classes. Maybe by just not mentioning the more complex ones.


----------



## Li Shenron

Charlaquin said:


> 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.



In a standardised class system, I'd prefer subclasses start all at 3rd or 4th level so that you have more time before making your final choice.

There's already too many choices to do at 1st level, I think 1st level should be designed around the needs of beginners, not expert players who soon enough will want to start the game at higher level (or at least level up past the first couple of levels quickly).

Besides, the actual subclass starting point is only for the first mechanical feature, nothing prevents you to think of your Wizard as a Necromancer or Rogue as a Swashbuckler since level 1.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

payn said:


> Sounds like good optional rules for the DMG.



I just want some really solid optional rules that give me 2E-style multiclassing in 1D&D, honestly. It would be a hell of a handful but as I recall 4E managed it somewhat (admittedly the AEDU structure helped a lot). I seem to remember someone here came up with such a system.


----------



## payn

Ruin Explorer said:


> I just want some really solid optional rules that give me 2E-style multiclassing in 1D&D, honestly. It would be a hell of a handful but as I recall 4E managed it somewhat (admittedly the AEDU structure helped a lot). I seem to remember someone here came up with such a system.



PF2 went that route very similar to 4E. Thats not what I want at all though.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

reelo said:


> Why not?
> Or maybe "if you multiclass, you need to keep both classes at the same level as much as possible."




This is terrible.
A fighter druid is just a ranger with extra attack at level 10 instead of 5.
Multiclass is nice, because you can dip to gain the features that are worth paying for. 5/5 is terrible in most cases. 3/7 and 5/15 or 4/16 or 3/17 are all worth considering.


----------



## Horwath

Ruin Explorer said:


> I just want some really solid optional rules that give me 2E-style multiclassing in 1D&D, honestly. It would be a hell of a handful but as I recall 4E managed it somewhat (admittedly the AEDU structure helped a lot). I seem to remember someone here came up with such a system.








We use alternate Multiclass rules.

You pick your 1st class normally, then on 2nd level you multiclass normally as per rules.
From then on you MUST be within one level with both classes.

As "even split" multiclass is universally bad past 1st few levels, we add "double class feature levels" at levels 5,8,11,14,17 and 20.

at those levels you gain features of both classes, but still count as attained a single character level. you get HPs from only one class. HD from only one class and for proficiency modifier you count as only one level higher.

you class features will advance faster than single class character, but will be split on two classes.


----------



## Mephista

In my experience, there are three kinds of multiclassing.  Dips, hybrids, and mid-life crisis.  

Dips are where you are primarily one class, but take a level or two of another class to support your main and remove dead levels. This is the kind of multiclassing that the current multiclass rules support

Hybrids are where you're drawing part of two classes, and merging them into one concept.  This is mostly handled by subclasses like Divine Soul sorcerer, Arcana clerics or Scout Rouges. 

Joking about mid life crisis aside, job changes are the third kind, and are usually story driven with little good support in terms of mechanics. I prefer just doing a subclass swap, like how fallen paladins end up as Oathbreakers.  Others prefer just starting to level as a second class, irregardless of the problems that arise.


----------



## cbwjm

Why do people think beginning players will struggle with selecting a subclass at 1st level? It's weird to me to think that, since they already do with some classes; or do people not allow a new player to run a cleric, sorcerer, or warlock? New players are fine with 1st level subclasses and you hardly need the 1st 1 or 2 levels to "learn your class". It honestly sounds a little insulting to me.


----------



## cbwjm

Mephista said:


> Note that Thieves Cant grants another language in addition to the actual thief speak. So you basically get both?  Dunno.



I did see that, but it still irks me that when selecting rogue I'm locked into Thieves cant. It's fine if I'm able to adjust things on dndbeyond, I'm fine with making manual adjustments, but annoying if I can't. It should instead be a suggested language.


----------



## Xamnam

cbwjm said:


> Why do people think beginning players will struggle with selecting a subclass at 1st level?



I've seen it at tables. I've seen the experienced players, in the process of trying to help new players, essentially pick a subclass for them, and it's clear that the newbies are trusting the judgement more than making an intentional choice.

I've also seen brand new players have no problem building very complex characters! I'm not saying it's universal. But I have seen smart, intelligent people stressed by it, and experienced enough trouble with it already that I don't think increased choice density is an area free of consequence to move toward.


----------



## Bill Zebub

cbwjm said:


> Why do people think beginning players will struggle with selecting a subclass at 1st level? It's weird to me to think that, since they already do with some classes; or do people not allow a new player to run a cleric, sorcerer, or warlock? New players are fine with 1st level subclasses and you hardly need the 1st 1 or 2 levels to "learn your class". It honestly sounds a little insulting to me.




I give beginning characters premades so it’s not that would struggle with the concept as much as it doesn’t leave room for their playstyle to emerge. 

I’m currently running a beginner game with two rogues. One really liked the hide-and-shoot tactic and sneaking ahead to scout things out. So at 3rd level I just made her a scout without even explaining about subclasses. The other one loves running up with short swords, doing acrobatics, and climbing things. He is a Tabaxi, so I made him a modified Thief with jumping instead of climbing (not so different from the latest UA, really.). Again, I didn’t explain about subclasses, I just explained their new abilities.


----------



## Horwath

Xamnam said:


> I've seen it at tables. I've seen the experienced players, in the process of trying to help new players, essentially pick a subclass for them, and it's clear that the newbies are trusting the judgement more than making an intentional choice.
> 
> I've also seen brand new players have no problem building very complex characters! I'm not saying it's universal. But I have seen smart, intelligent people stressed by it, and experienced enough trouble with it already that I don't think increased choice density is an area free of consequence to move toward.



then just allow new players to swap class features/skills/tools for first 2 or 3 levels if they are not happy with the choices.


----------



## reelo

UngeheuerLich said:


> This is terrible.
> A fighter druid is just a ranger with extra attack at level 10 instead of 5.
> Multiclass is nice, because you can dip to gain the features that are worth paying for. 5/5 is terrible in most cases. 3/7 and 5/15 or 4/16 or 3/17 are all worth considering.



That's the neat part, though: it undercuts dipping for purely mechanical reasons.


----------



## payn

cbwjm said:


> Why do people think beginning players will struggle with selecting a subclass at 1st level? It's weird to me to think that, since they already do with some classes; or do people not allow a new player to run a cleric, sorcerer, or warlock? New players are fine with 1st level subclasses and you hardly need the 1st 1 or 2 levels to "learn your class". It honestly sounds a little insulting to me.



5E has always struggled with this. It was a sort of be simple and be modern at the same time plan. So, design will always be pulling in two directions. I think its fine if you prefer a simple system, but folks often couch it in terms of "newbs need" to make it seem like tis the best approach.


Xamnam said:


> I've seen it at tables. I've seen the experienced players, in the process of trying to help new players, essentially pick a subclass for them, and it's clear that the newbies are trusting the judgement more than making an intentional choice.
> 
> I've also seen brand new players have no problem building very complex characters! I'm not saying it's universal. But I have seen smart, intelligent people stressed by it, and experienced enough trouble with it already that I don't think increased choice density is an area free of consequence to move toward.



Right, I think the best approach for learning is through pregens and intro products. Just play the game first, that's what you need to learn. Then, start building your own characters. My preferred approach instead of making everyone, every time, go through the newb tube when they play.


----------



## payn

Horwath said:


> then just allow new players to swap class features/skills/tools for first 2 or 3 levels if they are not happy with the choices.



This is what PF1 archetypes do. Worked great.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Horwath said:


> View attachment 263195
> 
> We use alternate Multiclass rules.
> 
> You pick your 1st class normally, then on 2nd level you multiclass normally as per rules.
> From then on you MUST be within one level with both classes.
> 
> As "even split" multiclass is universally bad past 1st few levels, we add "double class feature levels" at levels 5,8,11,14,17 and 20.
> 
> at those levels you gain features of both classes, but still count as attained a single character level. you get HPs from only one class. HD from only one class and for proficiency modifier you count as only one level higher.
> 
> you class features will advance faster than single class character, but will be split on two classes.




This is a nice idea. Probably, 13/13 seems still a bit too low, tells my gut feeling. But i guess you have more experience woth it tham I have.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

reelo said:


> That's the neat part, though: it undercuts dipping for purely mechanical reasons.




No. It is not neat in any way.
It does effectively shut down a lot of character comcepts and sucka the fun out of it.
It also becomes more mechanical as you can't increase the character class that firs more to the current concept.

Rating 0/10.

Horwath's idea at least recognizes the mechanical issues and uses a balancing mechanic that tips the scale to ok.


----------



## Li Shenron

cbwjm said:


> Why do people think beginning players will struggle with selecting a subclass at 1st level? It's weird to me to think that, since they already do with some classes; or do people not allow a new player to run a cleric, sorcerer, or warlock? New players are fine with 1st level subclasses and you hardly need the 1st 1 or 2 levels to "learn your class". It honestly sounds a little insulting to me.



I play mostly with beginners and casual players, and I've seen many of them getting pissed off if there's too many things to be chosen before starting the game. WotC understands that, and in fact they are actually proposing more pre-defined suggestions in this UA than those in the original PHB. And the subclass choice is a big deal, asking someone who just went through 12 classes and was maybe already undecided, to now also make a choice between 3-4 narrower concept, can be too much.

It is nothing about "learning your class", subclass feature or class feature at 1st level doesn't change the level of complexity, it's about giving some time before narrowing down a concept that you then carry on until the end, a bit like choosing your university specialization after a couple of years of broader studies. Besides, Cleric and Sorcerer and Warlock got their subclass at 1st level ONLY because the story behind their subclasses was that they define their source of spellcasting powers and so they wanted them fixed since the start (for the Cleric the story is a bit more complicated, conceptually a domain could easily be granted later, but the original Cleric subclass during 5e playtest had the DEITY as subclass rather than the domain, that's why it was set at 1st and it remained so).


----------



## Xamnam

payn said:


> Right, I think the best approach for learning is through pregens and intro products. Just play the game first, that's what you need to learn. Then, start building your own characters. My preferred approach instead of making everyone, every time, go through the newb tube when they play.



100% agreed about the value of those products, I ran my first group through LMoP and was grateful for the structure it provided both me and the players. I just wouldn't want their assumed presence to affect the quality of introduction and teaching in the PHB, especially if they're separate paid products like LMoP or DoSI.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Mephista said:


> In my experience, there are three kinds of multiclassing. Dips, hybrids, and mid-life crisis.



Spoken like someone who never played 2nd edition or earlier! Good lord! Kids today! (I realize you're probably in your 30s lol)


----------



## Ruin Explorer

payn said:


> Right, I think the best approach for learning is through pregens and intro products.



I dunno about intro products, my experience with them has been mixed at best, but pregen characters is almost always the best way to introduce anyone but the most veteran/picky RPGers to a game. Sometimes they're all you need, like in the Darkstryder campaign for Star Wars D6.


----------



## Horwath

UngeheuerLich said:


> This is a nice idea. Probably, 13/13 seems still a bit too low, tells my gut feeling. But i guess you have more experience woth it tham I have.



we didn't try it at super high levels, but you get double class features at levels 5,11,17 and 20 where single class gets it's power spikes and levels 8 and 14 fall nicely between 5 and 11, and between 11 and 17.

at 13th level, you are 8/8 split.
you have 4 ASI's, vs single class 3.
and 3 extra levels should balance out missing on those 9-13 features.

in the end, you trade last 7 levels of a class for first 13 levels in another class.


----------



## Clint_L

Charlaquin said:


> So do you just ban classes that gain their subs at 1st and 2nd?



Should clarify, that's _grades_ 9/10, 11/12. So there's always a few semi-experienced kids worked in, and those are the ones I direct to more complicated classes. For real newbies I suggest classes like rogue, fighter/barbarian/paladin, ranger.


----------



## Clint_L

There's a lot of suggestions about radical changes to multi-classing coming from the suggestion to add sub-classes at level 1. A much easier solution would be to keep things more or less as they are; OneD&D is supposed to be backwards compatible and more about tinkering than making radical changes.

If it ain't broke...


----------



## Marandahir

cbwjm said:


> I did see that, but it still irks me that when selecting rogue I'm locked into Thieves cant. It's fine if I'm able to adjust things on dndbeyond, I'm fine with making manual adjustments, but annoying if I can't. It should instead be a suggested language.




In the old D&D Next Playtest I recall them trying to rename it to Rogue's Cant, but that getting shot down for nostalgia purposes.

Honestly, I'd move Thieves' Cant into the Thief subclass… though I'd want to give the other subclasses something similar and I do like the idea that the Rogue gets bonus languages unlike other classes given that it's the most experty of Experts. Languages, Tools, Vehicles, Skills, and Stealthy Fighting should all be things its good at.


----------



## Charlaquin

Marandahir said:


> In the old D&D Next Playtest I recall them trying to rename it to Rogue's Cant, but that getting shot down for nostalgia purposes.
> 
> Honestly, I'd move Thieves' Cant into the Thief subclass… though I'd want to give the other subclasses something similar and I do like the idea that the Rogue gets bonus languages unlike other classes given that it's the most experty of Experts. Languages, Tools, Vehicles, Skills, and Stealthy Fighting should all be things its good at.



Just go for “you learn thieves’ cant or another language of your choice.”


----------



## Marandahir

Charlaquin said:


> Just go for “you learn thieves’ cant or another language of your choice.”




That works too. I do like the 2 languages bit here though; makes the Rogue feel like a true expert of tongues. So I'd argue - "you learn two basic languages of your choice, one of which can be substituted with Thieves' Cant, if you don't already know it."


----------



## Clint_L

cbwjm said:


> Why do people think beginning players will struggle with selecting a subclass at 1st level? It's weird to me to think that, since they already do with some classes; or do people not allow a new player to run a cleric, sorcerer, or warlock? New players are fine with 1st level subclasses and you hardly need the 1st 1 or 2 levels to "learn your class". It honestly sounds a little insulting to me.



Because I work with tons of new players, as I explained, and they do. I don't "think" it, I know it. I _think_ it is easy for experienced players to forget how steep the initial learning curve on D&D is. There are new players who don't even know what an RPG is.


----------



## Yaarel

Clint_L said:


> Because I work with tons of new players, as I explained, and they do. I don't "think" it, I know it. I _think_ it is easy for experienced players to forget how steep the initial learning curve on D&D is. There are new players who don't even know what an RPG is.



Is it worthwhile starting newbies at "level 0"?

Now, by using race and background feat, it is feasible to do a level 0 before choosing a class.

Fewer variables can help some players get an easier sense of how a roleplaying game works.


----------



## cbwjm

Clint_L said:


> Because I work with tons of new players, as I explained, and they do. I don't "think" it, I know it. I _think_ it is easy for experienced players to forget how steep the initial learning curve on D&D is. There are new players who don't even know what an RPG is.



And I've had the opposite experience, I've had new players coming in who are starting at level 5 and they had no issue with figuring out subclasses or spells, none of whom had any help from me. They read the class/subclasses and figured it out for themselves. If you have people that have trouble, then that's what starter sets and pregens are for.

An additional note, I don't know if it is just for the playtest, but they seem to be suggesting subclasses and spells so any new player can always take the suggestions if they're having trouble. Combined with starter sets and pregens, I feel like that's more than enough help for new players.


----------



## Charlaquin

cbwjm said:


> And I've had the opposite experience, I've had new players coming in who are starting at level 5 and they had no issue with figuring out subclasses or spells, none of whom had any help from me. They read the class/subclasses and figured it out for themselves. If you have people that have trouble, then that's what starter sets and pregens are for.



Also, like… Every single one of us here was once a new player, who apparently succeeded in learning the game, most likely in a time where the rules and available options were much more complex than they are now. Granted, that complexity has been a barrier to entry for many others, and it makes sense to try to reduce it. But that’s why 1D&D is offering suggested options for those who don’t want to make the decision themselves.


cbwjm said:


> An additional note, I don't know if it is just for the players, but they seem to be suggesting subclasses and spells so any new player can always take the suggestions if they're having trouble. Combined with starter sets and pregens, I feel like that's more than enough help for new players.



Exactly.


----------



## CleverNickName

"Back in my day, you picked a subclass when you got to "Name" level.  I bet you don't even remember what a Name level was!  That was the level by which your character had made a _name _for themselves, which meant ninth level for most of us!  _Ninth! _ Three times as long as this new-fangled 5th Edition that the kids won't shut up about!  It took _ages_, and by the time you got to that level, _literal years_ had passed since you'd rolled up your character!  And you couldn't even remember why you decided to be a Paladin in the first place!  And that's the way it was, _and we liked it_!!"





Seriously though, thanks to the Name Level mechanics of BECM, and the Prestige Class mechanics of 3.5E, it just feels weird to get subclasses so soon in 5E--some of them are available even at 1st level.  It feels like--I dunno, like I don't really have anything to look forward to.  No major decisions to make, nothing to work toward, no pivotal moments in my character's career,  nothing to strive for.  It feels like everything gets mapped out at 1st level, and...that's it.  The biggest decision I'll end up making after that point is whether or not to get another +2 bonus to Whatever, or some kind of feat.  Everything else has already been decided.

I get why people want subclasses at 1st level.  Heck, people want _as much as possible _at 1st level so that they can be done with it, "get it over with." And that's totally fine, I don't want to keep them from doing it.  (And it looks like it would be a losing battle anyway, following the trend from BECMI to the present day.)  I just hope the devs leave enough flexibility in the game for those of us who still want delayed gratification and major character build decisions past 1st level.


----------



## Charlaquin

CleverNickName said:


> "Back in my day, you picked a subclass when you got to "Name" level.  I bet you don't even remember what a Name level was!  That was the level by which your character had made a _name _for themselves, which meant ninth level for most of us!  _Ninth! _ Three times as long as this new-fangled 5th Edition that the kids won't shut up about!  It took _ages_, and by the time you got to that level, _literal years_ had passed since you'd rolled up your character!  And you couldn't even remember why you decided to be a Fighter in the first place!  And that's the way it was, _and we liked it_!!"
> View attachment 263342
> 
> Seriously though, thanks to the Name Level mechanics of BECM, and the Prestige Class mechanics of 3.5E, it just feels weird to get subclasses so soon in 5E--some of them are available even at 1st level.  It feels like--I dunno, like I don't really have anything to look forward to.  No major decisions to make, no pivotal moments in my character's career,  nothing to strive for.  It feels like everything gets mapped out at 1st level, and...that's it.  The biggest decision I'll end up making after that point is whether or not to get another +2 bonus to Whatever, or some kind of feat.  Everything else has already been decided.
> 
> I get why people want subclasses at 1st level.  Heck, people want _as much as possible _at 1st level so that they can "be done with it." And that's understandable, it's totally fine, I don't want to keep them from doing it.  (And it looks like it would be a losing battle anyway, following the trend from BECMI to the present day.)  I just hope the devs leave enough flexibility in the game for those of us who still want delayed gratification and major character build decisions past 1st level.



Amusingly enough, I actually agree about wanting more build elements to look forward to after 1st level. I just don’t want _subclass_ to be among them. 1st level is where subclass has the greatest potential to deviate from the base class In meaningful ways. Theoretically, a 1st level subclass could grant full casting, whereas a 2nd level subclass can only grant half casting at most, a 3rd level subclass can only grant 1/3 casting, etc. And as others have pointed out, it’s weird for a rogue to retroactively become a wilderness expert when they pick up the Scout subclass at 3rd level and suddenly go from untrained to expert in Nature and Survival. The later a Subclass comes, the weaker its ability to transform the base class, and the longer a player who wants to play the concept represented by the subclass has to wait before they can see that concept realized.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Clint_L said:


> Because I work with tons of new players, as I explained, and they do. I don't "think" it, I know it. I _think_ it is easy for experienced players to forget how steep the initial learning curve on D&D is. There are new players who don't even know what an RPG is.



You and me both. And I absolutely start campaigns involving newbies at level 0 rather than level 1.



cbwjm said:


> And I've had the opposite experience, I've had new players coming in who are starting at level 5 and they had no issue with figuring out subclasses or spells, none of whom had any help from me.





Charlaquin said:


> Also, like… Every single one of us here was once a new player, who apparently succeeded in learning the game, most likely in a time where the rules and available options were much more complex than they are now. Granted, that complexity has been a barrier to entry for many others, and it makes sense to try to reduce it. But that’s why 1D&D is offering suggested options for those who don’t want to make the decision themselves.



Two words: Survivor Bias. I'm not saying that neither of these experiences exist (I've seen both of them and am definitely personally at the "can handle much more" end of the spectrum). Just because _some_ people can handle something and almost all of that are part of the group doesn't mean that handling it should be a rite of passage. 

As for the Scout, it's an exceptionally poorly written subclass that incentivises you to _not_ take Nature or Survival at level 1. On the other hand an only slightly better written subclass would give you proficiency _or_ expertise, encouraging people to be wilderness-wise from level 1 (because expertise is good) rather than deliberately encouraging them not to. While I'd agree that a Scout is how not to do it the problem  is with the specific subclass not the general case.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Yaarel said:


> Is it worthwhile starting newbies at "level 0"?
> 
> Now, by using race and background feat, it is feasible to do a level 0 before choosing a class.
> 
> Fewer variables can help some players get an easier sense of how a roleplaying game works.




I did it just 3 month ago. Having newbs start at level 0 works fine. I gave them level 2 hp though to not frustrate them too much.
When they finally leveled up to 1st level, I was glad they did not have to chose a subclass immediately. Those that had to chose at level 1 could not make a sensible choice. So I just gave them one that was appropriate for their character.

That said, I think level 0 should officially be a thing and I think level 1 (or better: level 0) feats help making a level 0 character feel as if background mattered.

Seasoned warrior: lightly armored.
Wizard's apprentice or priest: magic initiate. And so on.

Also, I think the default starting level should be 3 and there should be optional rules to start with level 2 or 3 hp.
This way, you can start your career as dual or tripple classed character or a specialist in your class.

I think, subclass at level 2 would be ok, but making a real choice at level 3 when you have played your character a bit and know what they are actually doing in the party (most probably something entirely different feom what you thought at level 1).


----------



## Mephista

Keep in mind that Fighting Styles are now level 1 feats.  And you can only get them if you take a Warrior class....


----------



## Yaarel

UngeheuerLich said:


> I did it just 3 month ago. Having newbs start at level 0 works fine. I gave them level 2 hp though to not frustrate them too much.
> When they finally leveled up to 1st level, I was glad they did not have to chose a subclass immediately. Those that had to chose at level 1 could not make a sensible choice. So I just gave them one that was appropriate for their character.
> 
> That said, I think level 0 should officially be a thing and I think level 1 (or better: level 0) feats help making a level 0 character feel as if background mattered.



Maybe the race can determine the level 0 hit points, typically like Human at 8 hit points (max of 1d8) plus Constitution bonus.

Some races like Dwarf can be a bit tougher.

Then the class training adds on top of this.





UngeheuerLich said:


> Seasoned warrior: lightly armored.
> Wizard's apprentice or priest: magic initiate. And so on.



Yeah. It is fine to mix-and-match, like a planned Fighter taking Magic Initiate at level 0. But there are advantages to getting a headstart in the planned class concept.





UngeheuerLich said:


> Also, I think the default starting level should be 3 and there should be optional rules to start with level 2 or 3 hp.
> This way, you can start your career as dual or tripple classed character or a specialist in your class.
> 
> I think, subclass at level 2 would be ok, but making a real choice at level 3 when you have played your character a bit and know what they are actually doing in the party (most probably something entirely different feom what you thought at level 1).



As long as the subclass and its flavor are listed separately from the base class, I am comfortable with each class recommending a default class at the 1st level.


----------



## Clint_L

I ran a D&D Camp for mostly neuro-divergent kids over the summer. I started my Grade 9/10 beginner campaign for the term last week, and start the Grade 11/12 one _today_. I've been doing it for years. I know whereof I speak on this issue.

Obviously there are some kids who could step into a complex character or a Level 5 character right away. These are a minority, and typically have had some exposure before (have friends/family members who play D&D, own the PHB or Starter Set but never got a chance to play, etc.). But a lot of others have to have _hit points_ and _dice rolls_ explained, let alone the nuances of spell selection and sorcery points. So the first session, which I am about to run today, with 8 players, is about just getting the basics down. Encouraging a tiny bit of role-playing. Helping them learn that _first_ you roll to hit and _then_ you roll damage but only _if_ you hit. This is what a "saving throw" means, and where to find it on your character sheet. And so on.

You gotta roll back all your accumulated knowledge of D&D and gaming in general and meet new players where they are at, acknowledging that there is a vast amount of information coming at them. And most players pick it up quickly! By the end of one two hour session, they generally have the basics down, and are excited to get to level up. Then I give them a couple sessions at level 2 so they can explore a few of the nuances of play now that they have a few more abilities, and by level 3 they are mostly ready to really fly with their characters. Encounters, traps, puzzles, NPC interactions get more complicated. And they have enough of a sense of their class to make their own sub-class choice without me telling them what to do.

It's really important that OneD&D remain accessible to brand new players. I really don't understand the problem with keeping Level 1 simple. I love playing a level 1 character, but if I didn't it would be easy enough to start a campaign at level 3 or whatever. I'm sure we've all done it.


----------



## payn

I think there is a major difference between D&D being easy to explain and learn and having subclasses at level one. This sounds like cramming a preference into an argument about something unrelated. Also, it's totally anecdotal.


----------



## Bill Zebub

payn said:


> I think there is a major difference between D&D being easy to explain and learn and having subclasses at level one. This sounds like cramming a preference into an argument about something unrelated. Also, it's totally anecdotal.




Just about all evidence in every thread is anecdotal. The only hard data (DnDB) is dismissed as unrepresentative (by those whose opinions are not supported by it). 

That said, while I believe that subclasses at level 1 would further complicate things, based on my anecdotal evidence, it pales in comparison to the spellcasting system. That is by far the biggest barrier to entry, and is used by too many classes.


----------



## payn

Bill Zebub said:


> Just about all evidence in every thread is anecdotal. The only hard data (DnDB) is dismissed as unrepresentative (by those whose opinions are not supported by it).
> 
> That said, while I believe that subclasses at level 1 would further complicate things, based on my anecdotal evidence, it pales in comparison to the spellcasting system. That is by far the biggest barrier to entry, and is used by too many classes.



Exactly my point. There are piles of complicated items in D&D, its a complex game. Instead of saying things shouldn't be done in the name of ease of learning, you should do them in a way that is easy to understand and teach.


----------



## Clint_L

payn said:


> I think there is a major difference between D&D being easy to explain and learn and having subclasses at level one. This sounds like cramming a preference into an argument about something unrelated. Also, it's totally anecdotal.



Yes, of course it's anecdotal. I haven't done a blinded, peer-reviewed study. But as noted, I have a LOT of experience at it, so I think my anecdotal knowledge is pretty relevant here. Have you just run a camp for 20 new players, many on the spectrum, a number of whom were enrolled by their parents and didn't even know what D&D is? I did.

And it is not unrelated _at all_. The discussion is about adding subclasses at level 1, which would add significant complexity to the first game for new players. That's the whole point of the sub-classes: you have the _basic_ class and then you get to _specialize_ by adding complexity. Thus, one way to help D&D be easy to explain and learn is to hold off on adding that complexity until players have a little experience under their belts.

It's a moot discussion anyway, though, so probably not worth much more effort. They aren't going to make fundamental changes such as adding sub-classes at level 1. That's not what OneD&D is. But Pathfinder is a thing, for those who feel like they really need more complex character generation right out of the gate. It's a good game, too.


----------



## Yaarel

Clint_L said:


> Yes, of course it's anecdotal. I haven't done a blinded, peer-reviewed study. But as noted, I have a LOT of experience at it, so I think my anecdotal knowledge is pretty relevant here. Have you just run a camp for 20 new players, many on the spectrum, a number of whom were enrolled by their parents and didn't even know what D&D is? I did.
> 
> And it is not unrelated _at all_. The discussion is about adding subclasses at level 1, which would add significant complexity to the first game for new players. That's the whole point of the sub-classes: you have the _basic_ class and then you get to _specialize_ by adding complexity. Thus, one way to help D&D be easy to explain and learn is to hold off on adding that complexity until players have a little experience under their belts.



Suppose choosing a subclass at level 1 is a NECESSARY for various class and character concepts.

How would you go about doing it?


----------



## Bill Zebub

Yaarel said:


> Suppose choosing a subclass at level 1 is a NECESSARY for various class and character concepts.
> 
> How would you go about doing it?




I’d like to see a demonstration of “necessary” as opposed to somebody’s preference.


----------



## Xamnam

Yaarel said:


> Suppose choosing a subclass at level 1 is a NECESSARY for various class and character concepts.
> 
> How would you go about doing it?



Find a way to concisely, but clearly, make the flavor and concept of each abundantly clear, and more importantly, add as few additional mechanics as absolutely possible over classes that don't require that.


----------



## Yaarel

Bill Zebub said:


> I’d like to see a demonstration of “necessary” as opposed to somebody’s preference.



I gave a number examples for each class earlier in the thread.

But for example, a Warlock requires a pact at level 1. And so on.


----------



## Vaalingrade

I just want D&D to decide whether I'm supposed to play the whole game or not. This fake zero level thing means 10% of the game is worthless to me.


----------



## Yaarel

Vaalingrade said:


> I just want D&D to decide whether I'm supposed to play the whole game or not. This fake zero level thing means 10% of the game is worthless to me.



To be fair, level 0 requires a paragraph or less to describe. The race and background feat are listed elsewhere.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Yaarel said:


> To be fair, level 0 requires a paragraph or less to describe.



Right:  Levels 1 and 2.


----------



## Yaarel

Vaalingrade said:


> Right:  Levels 1 and 2.



The Warlock must have a pact at level 1.

There are similar situations for other classes.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Yaarel said:


> I gave a number examples for each class earlier in the thread.
> 
> But for example, a Warlock requires a pact at level 1. And so on.




If you know what your pact is going to be, just say that's your pact.  No mechanics required.  Solved.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Yaarel said:


> The Warlock must have a pact at level 1.
> 
> There are similar situations for other classes.



Then let the other classes also shed their two 0 levels.


----------



## Xamnam

Yaarel said:


> The Warlock must have a pact at level 1.
> 
> There are similar situations for other classes.



I'm not saying it's the right call for 5E's specific implementation of the class, but I honestly like the idea of the warlock who has found a power source, and has managed to draw from it to a degree, but still hasn't actually figured out what it is yet. Bit close to the Sorcerer though.


----------



## payn

Clint_L said:


> Yes, of course it's anecdotal. I haven't done a blinded, peer-reviewed study. But as noted, I have a LOT of experience at it, so I think my anecdotal knowledge is pretty relevant here. Have you just run a camp for 20 new players, many on the spectrum, a number of whom were enrolled by their parents and didn't even know what D&D is? I did.
> 
> And it is not unrelated _at all_. The discussion is about adding subclasses at level 1, which would add significant complexity to the first game for new players. That's the whole point of the sub-classes: you have the _basic_ class and then you get to _specialize_ by adding complexity. Thus, one way to help D&D be easy to explain and learn is to hold off on adding that complexity until players have a little experience under their belts.
> 
> It's a moot discussion anyway, though, so probably not worth much more effort. They aren't going to make fundamental changes such as adding sub-classes at level 1. That's not what OneD&D is. But Pathfinder is a thing, for those who feel like they really need more complex character generation right out of the gate. It's a good game, too.



Ah, just go play something else now. I just about got my bingo card filled out.


----------



## MGibster

Charlaquin said:


> 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.



I would like to subscribe to your newsletter or other publications.  You are absolutely correct.  I can't think of any good reason why you can't start with your subclass at level 1.  A lot of my players want to skip straight to level 3 because they find it more interesting than starting at level 1.  Let's just skip the baloney and get right into the meat of the class.  
From a balance perspective, this might make multi-classing a problem.  But I have a confession to make, I've never liked multi-classing.  Ever.  I don't think it'd be any great loss for multi-classing to go the way of always evil orcs or racial ASI.


----------



## payn

MGibster said:


> I would like to subscribe to your newsletter or other publications.  You are absolutely correct.  I can't think of any good reason why you can't start with your subclass at level 1.  A lot of my players want to skip straight to level 3 because they find it more interesting than starting at level 1.  Let's just skip the baloney and get right into the meat of the class.
> From a balance perspective, this might make multi-classing a problem.  But I have a confession to make, I've never liked multi-classing.  Ever.  I don't think it'd be any great loss for multi-classing to go the way of always evil orcs or racial ASI.



So close, you had me until get rid of multi-classing.


----------



## MGibster

payn said:


> So close, you had me until get rid of multi-classing.



I can live with it, I've just never cared for it.  It was especially bad during 3rd edition with their prestige classes.  I honestly thought prestige classes were great at first, but in the end I thought they were more trouble than they were worth.


----------



## payn

MGibster said:


> I can live with it, I've just never cared for it.  It was especially bad during 3rd edition with their prestige classes.  I honestly thought prestige classes were great at first, but in the end I thought they were more trouble than they were worth.



I loved 3E/PF1 multi and prestige classing, but am well aware of the pitfalls and issues. 5E has cleared much of that up.


----------



## billd91

Honestly, given what we've got now and the importance of compatibility, there's more reason to NOT start specialties at 1st level than to do so. Besides, anyone who feels they want to start their games with specialties can start their game at 3rd level with little fuss.


----------



## Charlaquin

payn said:


> I think there is a major difference between D&D being easy to explain and learn and having subclasses at level one. This sounds like cramming a preference into an argument about something unrelated. Also, it's totally anecdotal.



Yeah, this. I’m sympathetic to the idea of keeping the early levels simple and accessible, but if it’s possible to have 1st level class features that are simple enough for new players to handle, then it’s possible to have 1st level subclass features that are simple enough for new players to handle. It doesn’t have to be a choice between a simple start and 1st level subclasses. We can have both.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bill Zebub said:


> I’d like to see a demonstration of “necessary” as opposed to somebody’s preference.



It would be necessary if key features of the character were tied to subclass. For example, if subclasses came at first level, that could be where your saving throw proficiencies came from, so that different fighters were proficient in different saves depending on subclass. In that case, subclass would be necessary at 1st level because without one, you wouldn’t have a complete character, as you would be lacking save proficiencies.


----------



## cbwjm

billd91 said:


> Honestly, given what we've got now and the importance of compatibility, there's more reason to NOT start specialties at 1st level than to do so. Besides, anyone who feels they want to start their games with specialties can start their game at 3rd level with little fuss.



People who say " just start at 3rd level" are part of the problem, we all want to start at 1st level, we don't want to ignore it we want to start there and have our subclass shaping our character from the start.


----------



## Charlaquin

payn said:


> So close, you had me until get rid of multi-classing.



I don’t think it has to be either-or. If it’s possible to have 1st level class features that are safe for multiclassing, then it’s possible to have 1st level subclass features that are safe for multiclassing.


----------



## cbwjm

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t think it has to be either-or. If it’s possible to have 1st level class features that are safe for multiclassing, then it’s possible to have 1st level subclass features that are safe for multiclassing.



And we know it's possible since we have classes that already start at 1st level. While some might complain about some of the options, it otherwise works fine to multiclass clerics, warlocks, or sorcerers.


----------



## Charlaquin

cbwjm said:


> People who say " just start at 3rd level" are part of the problem, we all want to start at 1st level, we don't want to ignore it we want to start there and have our subclass shaping our character from the start.



It also doesn’t actually address the reasons for wanting subclasses at 1st level. It’s not just that we want to start play at a point where our characters are somewhat specialized - if that was the only reason, “just start at third level” would be a perfectly valid solution. But it’s about more than that. Again, the earlier subclasses start, the greater their ability to transform the base class. 1st level subclasses would allow for the greatest flexibility in subclass design.


----------



## billd91

cbwjm said:


> People who say " just start at 3rd level" are part of the problem, we all want to start at 1st level, we don't want to ignore it we want to start there and have our subclass shaping our character from the start.



Yeah, well, maybe the people saying start at 3rd level don't necessarily want to change the game so classes start with specialties. The difference here is there *already is* a situation in which you *can* start with specialties, and that's starting at 3rd level. 
In other words, *there already is a compromise solution out there* - redesign of classes with specialties at 1st level *removes it*.


----------



## Vaalingrade

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.


----------



## Charlaquin

billd91 said:


> Yeah, well, maybe the people saying start at 3rd level don't necessarily want to change the game so classes start with specialties. The difference here is there *already is* a situation in which you *can* start with specialties, and that's starting at 3rd level.
> In other words, *there already is a compromise solution out there* - redesign of classes with specialties at 1st level *removes it*.



But it isn’t a compromise solution because again, it doesn’t actually address the reason people who want subclasses at 1st level want it. It isn’t about wanting to start play with a specialization, if it was, starting at 3rd level would be a valid compromise. But it’s not about that, it’s about wanting to open up more design space for classes and subclasses.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Yaarel said:


> I gave a number examples for each class earlier in the thread.
> 
> But for example, a Warlock requires a pact at level 1. And so on.




I'd swap patron and pact boon in importance. So you chose a patron with a minkr benefit and then the pact will determine most of your abilities. Pact of the blade gets everything from hexblade. 
Invocations can give extra abilities related to your patron.

I find it funny that you wrote, warlock needs a pact at level 1, while you actually meant patron. So maybe swapping the roles would be a good Idea.
I would do the same for clerics. You chose a diety at level 1. On level 3 you make the choice of how you spread the word.
The sorcerer is the most tricky. But I guess in the first 3 levels you might just not have discovered where your magic comes from. The revelation comes at level 3.


----------



## Mephista

I have gamer friend with anxiety issues that panics if they feel like peer pressure is forcing them to start making lots of choices all at once.  I would like them to be comfy with the game.

Moving subclasses to 3 makes multiclass considerations easier from a design point. 

I know lots of new players that like having "apprentice" levels.


----------



## Yaarel

Vaalingrade said:


> 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.



Judging by the Bardic Inspiration advancement, the tiers might be five levels each:
0-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, then 20 up is epic.


----------



## cbwjm

billd91 said:


> Yeah, well, maybe the people saying start at 3rd level don't necessarily want to change the game so classes start with specialties. The difference here is there *already is* a situation in which you *can* start with specialties, and that's starting at 3rd level.
> In other words, *there already is a compromise solution out there* - redesign of classes with specialties at 1st level *removes it*.



And there looks to be a compromise with oneDnD that could incorporate 1st level subclasses, that is, take the suggested features which includes subclasses. There easy, you can start at 1st level with a subclass and not trouble yourself with any hard decision at level 1.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Are they honestly ready for the brutal beating they're going to get from their unpleasable fanbase trying to do epic levels again?


----------



## Maxperson

Charlaquin said:


> And as others have pointed out, it’s weird for a rogue to retroactively become a wilderness expert when they pick up the Scout subclass at 3rd level and suddenly go from untrained to expert in Nature and Survival.



First, pick nature and survival as skills up front and when you become a scout you get expertise in them for free. The PC is going from good to an expert, which makes perfect sense.

Second, if the player does choose not to get those proficiencies early, the choice for it not to make sense was his right out of the gate, so he has no right to complain.


----------



## Maxperson

Vaalingrade said:


> 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.



The game is really 3-8. Above 8 and the monster selection plummets


----------



## Bill Zebub

Charlaquin said:


> It would be necessary if key features of the character were tied to subclass. For example, if subclasses came at first level, that could be where your saving throw proficiencies came from, so that different fighters were proficient in different saves depending on subclass. In that case, subclass would be necessary at 1st level because without one, you wouldn’t have a complete character, as you would be lacking save proficiencies.




To play devil's advocate, why would a 1st level character with 1 or 0 saving throw proficiencies be "incomplete"?  Just because we have learned to expect that 1st level characters have proficiency in two saving throws does not mean it's necessary.

I sort of have a preference to delay subclasses by a couple of levels, and one reason is to make it easier for beginners although that's minor.  Really it's just a preference.  It seems like others have a preference for 1st level, and I respect that.  I don't think anybody has a truly compelling reason why it objectively _should_ be one or the other.  It's just...preference.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Vaalingrade said:


> Are they honestly ready for the brutal beating they're going to get from their unpleasable fanbase trying to do epic levels again?




I really think some people are overestimating the extent to which they care one way or another what a tiny handful of outraged people are saying on the Internet.  If I were in their shoes, running a franchise making as much money as this one is, and surveys showed that I was keeping a majority of the customer base happy, I really wouldn't be bothered at all by a fraction of a percent of self-styled superfans kicking and screaming and complaining.  I mean, I'd rather keep them happy customers than angry ex-customers, but at the end of the day it says more about them than about me or my product.


----------



## Charlaquin

Maxperson said:


> First, pick nature and survival as skills up front and when you become a scout you get expertise in them for free. The PC is going from good to an expert, which makes perfect sense.
> 
> Second, if the player does choose not to get those proficiencies early, the choice for it not to make sense was his right out of the gate, so he has no right to complain.



Scout is just an example, one that illustrates the problem particularly well. If it’s supposed to be the non-magical ranger, it should be that from 1st level instead of spending 2 levels as a thief and then retroactively becoming a non-magical ranger. But you can see the same effect with like the Cavalier Fighter.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bill Zebub said:


> To play devil's advocate, why would a 1st level character with 1 or 0 saving throw proficiencies be "incomplete"?  Just because we have learned to expect that 1st level characters have proficiency in two saving throws does not mean it's necessary.
> 
> I sort of have a preference to delay subclasses by a couple of levels, and one reason is to make it easier for beginners although that's minor.  Really it's just a preference.  It seems like others have a preference for 1st level, and I respect that.  I don't think anybody has a truly compelling reason why it objectively _should_ be one or the other.  It's just...preference.



It’s definitely preference. But personally I think there’s good reason to favor the more flexible design. And I don’t think doing so has to make the game more complex at 1st level.


----------



## Dausuul

Charlaquin said:


> It’s definitely preference. But personally I think there’s good reason to favor the more flexible design. And I don’t think doing so has to make the game more complex at 1st level.



If you want subclasses chosen at 1st level, that makes the game more complex by definition unless something else is removed. What should be taken out, or pushed back to 3rd, to make room?


----------



## Vaalingrade

Bill Zebub said:


> I really think some people are overestimating the extent to which they care one way or another what a tiny handful of outraged people are saying on the Internet.



A _decade_ of sabotage. Even once they got what they wanted.


----------



## Charlaquin

Dausuul said:


> If you want subclasses chosen at 1st level, that makes the game more complex by definition unless something else is removed.



How so?


Dausuul said:


> What should be taken out, or pushed back to 3rd, to make room?



I mean, I guess re-arrange the class features slightly?


----------



## Bill Zebub

Vaalingrade said:


> A _decade_ of sabotage. Even once they got what they wanted.



I have no idea what you mean here.


----------



## Bill Zebub

I’ll add that I’m voicing an opinion because, well, it’s teh Interwebz. But if I had to prioritize my hopes and concerns for 5.5, this one would be down in the triple digits.


----------



## The Myopic Sniper

At this point, I would prefer a subclass scheme that goes 1st level, 2nd level, 6th level, 10th level, 14th level. 1st level would offer more basic benefits that you would expect the subclass to have such as additional relevant skills, bonus spells, weapon proficiencies, armor training and possibly a ribbon feature, while 2nd level would get the real crunchy unique feature that the rest of the subclass will build on. 

I imagine if they keep the 3rd, 6th, 10th and 14th level subclass scheme we are going to see some pretty big changes to some of the priest and mage subclasses. I imagine that Cleric might get a domain choice at 2nd level. Domains would no longer be subclasses but instead might just be a list of bonus spells at 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th and 10th level like the Song of Restoration on the Bard as well as an alternative use of Channel Divinitiy. Subclasses would be a lot broader with an option for a Warpriest, a Cloistered Cleric and  an Evangelist to cover some of the basic archetypes and possibly something one oddball subclass for flavor.  

I could probably live with either. If they start cramming a bunch of bonus spells and expected proficiencies and training at 3rd level, I would prefer they go to a 1st level/2nd level type plan instead. I will definitely wait to see what they do before I judge though.


----------



## Maxperson

Charlaquin said:


> Scout is just an example, one that illustrates the problem particularly well. If it’s supposed to be the non-magical ranger, it should be that from 1st level instead of spending 2 levels as a thief and then retroactively becoming a non-magical ranger. But you can see the same effect with like the Cavalier Fighter.



I see it as a problem that is self created.  Were I playing the future scout, I would have the scouting skills already and be using them from level 1 to scout for the group.  By level 3 nothing retroactive is happening. It's just the natural progression what I started at level 1 and my skills are improving.  Same with the cavalier.


----------



## Charlaquin

Maxperson said:


> I see it as a problem that is self created.  Were I playing the future scout, I would have the scouting skills already and be using them from level 1 to scout for the group.  By level 3 nothing retroactive is happening. It's just the natural progression what I started at level 1 and my skills are improving.  Same with the cavalier.



But the magical ranger gets to be a ranger from 1st level, whereas the scout has to wait until 3rd level. Until then they’re just the same as anyone else who happened to train in Nature and Survival (which by the way Scout actively disincentivizes).

If a subclass has a meaningful character and story element to it (which in my opinion, it should), you should get to play that character’s story immediately.


----------



## Charlaquin

The Myopic Sniper said:


> At this point, I would prefer a subclass scheme that goes 1st level, 2nd level, 6th level, 10th level, 14th level. 1st level would offer more basic benefits that you would expect the subclass to have such as additional relevant skills, bonus spells, weapon proficiencies, armor training and possibly a ribbon feature, while 2nd level would get the real crunchy unique feature that the rest of the subclass will build on.



I’d be fine with that even if the unique crunchy feature didn’t come until 3rd level, honestly.


----------



## Minigiant

Counterpoint: 1st and 2nd level are supposed to be Rookie levels and you aren't intended to be complete until level 3.


----------



## Charlaquin

Minigiant said:


> Counterpoint: 1st and 2nd level are supposed to be Rookie levels and you aren't intended to be complete until level 3.



But this doesn’t address the problem of subclasses having less design space the later they’re acquired. It also ignores the fact that some classes _do_ get to have their subclasses at 1st level. Apparently one more nice thing non-casters aren’t allowed to have.


----------



## Maxperson

Charlaquin said:


> But the magical ranger gets to be a ranger from 1st level, whereas the scout has to wait until 3rd level. Until then they’re just the same as anyone else who happened to train in Nature and Survival (which by the way Scout actively disincentivizes).
> 
> If a subclass has a meaningful character and story element to it (which in my opinion, it should), you should get to play that character’s story immediately.



You're conflating class with specialty.  The magical ranger can't be a super duper hunter until 3rd level.  He can't be a magical beast master until 3rd level.  Nor can he be an underdark sneaky gloomstalker until 3rd level.  Just like the rogue, he's only somewhat decent at what he will become at 3rd level, then he advances in skill into his specialty. 

There's no difference.  Both start out decent and then get better.  Neither one starts out fully in their concept at 1st level.


----------



## Minigiant

Charlaquin said:


> But this doesn’t address the problem of subclasses having less design space the later they’re acquired. It also ignores the fact that some classes _do_ get to have their subclasses at 1st level. Apparently one more nice thing non-casters aren’t allowed to have.



The only class that needs its subclasses at level1 are cleric and sorcerer do to the way subclass drastically changes how they play.

It's not a noncaster thing. It D&D had a scholar or aristocrat class,it would need subclass at level 1 as well.

But you'd still be a Rookie at level1.

It actually makes more sense that a nonmagical ranger doesn't work at level 1 because you are purposely ignoring magic and sttempting to overcome that.... in a magical world.


----------



## Charlaquin

Maxperson said:


> You're conflating class with specialty.  The magical ranger can't be a super duper hunter until 3rd level.  He can't be a magical beast master until 3rd level.  Nor can he be an underdark sneaky gloomstalker until 3rd level.  Just like the rogue, he's only somewhat decent at what he will become at 3rd level, then he advances in skill into his specialty.



Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer are 1st level features. The ranger gets to be a wilderness expert and monster hunter from 1st level. They get better at those things as they level up, sure, but they get to be the concept from the beginning. But Scout, the thing people point to as the alternative to a non-spellcasting ranger, doesn’t get to be a wilderness expert until 3rd level and arguably doesn’t ever get to be a monster hunter.


----------



## Charlaquin

Minigiant said:


> The only class that needs its subclasses at level1 are cleric and sorcerer do to the way subclass drastically changes how they play.



Which is only possible _because_ they get their subclasses at 1st level. Having subclasses start at 3rd level, or even 2nd level, significantly curtails the subclasses’ ability to change how the base class plays, which is precisely why I’m advocating for all subclasses to start at 1st level. Doing otherwise is leaving valuable design space on the table.


Minigiant said:


> It's not a noncaster thing. It D&D had a scholar or aristocrat class,it would need subclass at level 1 as well.



It’s a noncaster thing in 5e. Every class that gets a 1st level subclass is a caster. Because only casters are allowed to do anything interesting.


Minigiant said:


> But you'd still be a Rookie at level1.



That’s fine, I don’t have a problem with that.


Minigiant said:


> It actually makes more sense that a nonmagical ranger doesn't work at level 1 because you are purposely ignoring magic and sttempting to overcome that.... in a magical world.



I’m not having this argument with you again.


----------



## Horwath

Charlaquin said:


> But the magical ranger gets to be a ranger from 1st level, whereas the scout has to wait until 3rd level. Until then they’re just the same as anyone else who happened to train in Nature and Survival (which by the way Scout actively disincentivizes).
> 
> If a subclass has a meaningful character and story element to it (which in my opinion, it should), you should get to play that character’s story immediately.



Scout:
1st level: proficiency in Nature and Survival
2nd level: expertise in Nature and Survival
3rd level: skirmisher
6th level: superior mobility
10th level: Ambush master
14th level: Sudden strike


----------



## Charlaquin

Horwath said:


> Scout:
> 1st level: proficiency in Nature and Survival
> 2nd level: expertise in Nature and Survival



The Scout subclass doesn’t grant features until 3rd level, and that fact actively discourages players from taking these skills from their background or class, or using their limited expertise slots on them.


Horwath said:


> 3rd level: skirmisher
> 6th level: superior mobility
> 10th level: Ambush master
> 14th level: Sudden strike



None of these features really express wilderness expertise or monster hunting. They’re entirely stealth and mobility focused features, which while certainly beneficial for a survivalist type character, don’t really express the archetype in any significant way.


----------



## Horwath

Charlaquin said:


> The Scout subclass doesn’t grant features until 3rd level, and that fact actively discourages players from taking these skills from their background or class, or using their limited expertise slots on them.
> 
> None of these features really express wilderness expertise or monster hunting. They’re entirely stealth and mobility focused features, which while certainly beneficial for a survivalist type character, don’t really express the archetype in any significant way.



As this is a thread about 1st level subclasses, I have just made a suggestion how a Scout subclass could work from 1st level and still not be too much features at 1st level.


----------



## CreamCloud0

Okay, so my ultimate solution to this issue that I’m certain absolutely no-one will have problems with is this: Everyone HAS to pick their subclass at 1st level, no backsies or changing, but you don’t actually receive ANY BENEFITS of picking your subclass until 3rd level.

Problem solved.

/j


----------



## Minigiant

Charlaquin said:


> Which is only possible _because_ they get their subclasses at 1st level. Having subclasses start at 3rd level, or even 2nd level, significantly curtails the subclasses’ ability to change how the base class plays, which is precisely why I’m advocating for all subclasses to start at 1st level. Doing otherwise is leaving valuable design space on the table



Nothing is stopping a 3rd level subclass from seriously altering a class.

The only reason why clerics and sorcerer need 1st level subclasses is because there aren't a bunch of different base classes so you have to section off the spells and features of vastly different archtypes that don't make sense together in the lore in a way to not overload fans at 1st level.

If there were a cleric class and invoker class, you could shift subclasses to 1st level.



Charlaquin said:


> It’s a noncaster thing in 5e. Every class that gets a 1st level subclass is a caster. Because only casters are allowed to do anything interesting.




No it's not. The result has nothing to do with the grouping.

Its because the nonspellcaster classes that would need 1st level subclasses doesn't exist in 5e edition because WOTC created no new classes.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Horwath said:


> As this is a thread about 1st level subclasses, I have just made a suggestion how a Scout subclass could work from 1st level and still not be too much features at 1st level.




Noone stops you from taking proficiency in nature and survival at level 1... Except for a badly written feature that does not explicitely allow taking different skills if you already had them... although dndbeyond allows you to chose other skills in that case...


----------



## Horwath

UngeheuerLich said:


> Noone stops you from taking proficiency in nature and survival at level 1... Excet for a badly written feature that does not explicitely allow taking different skills if you already had them... although dndbeyond allows you to chose other skills in that case...



proficiencies should come with 1st level package.

any "special" powers can wait level or two.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Horwath said:


> proficiencies should come with 1st level package.
> 
> any "special" powers can wait level or two.




Thank god that proficiency come with class and background... so I repeat: noone stops you from taking the proficiencies.

Edit: I think however going down to level 2 would probably OK. And would make the progression nicer...


----------



## Bill Zebub

CreamCloud0 said:


> Okay, so my ultimate solution to this issue that I’m certain absolutely no-one will have problems with is this: Everyone HAS to pick their subclass at 1st level, no backsies or changing, but you don’t actually receive ANY BENEFITS of picking your subclass until 3rd level.
> 
> Problem solved.
> 
> /j




I know you're joking, but that _is_ the solution.  Even Warlocks/Clerics can subclass at 3rd level: you don't need mechanical features to roleplay.

(EDIT: and I’m not really all that opposed to subclasses at first level. I am just dismissing the argument that some classes “must” have it.)


----------



## Charlaquin

Horwath said:


> As this is a thread about 1st level subclasses, I have just made a suggestion how a Scout subclass could work from 1st level and still not be too much features at 1st level.



Oh, I see. In that case, yes, I agree. I thought you were suggesting taking those proficiencies/expertise at levels 1 and 2 from rogue in order to make their sudden acquisition at 3rd less jarring.


----------



## Vaalingrade

CreamCloud0 said:


> Okay, so my ultimate solution to this issue that I’m certain absolutely no-one will have problems with is this: Everyone HAS to pick their subclass at 1st level, no backsies or changing, but you don’t actually receive ANY BENEFITS of picking your subclass until 3rd level.
> 
> Problem solved.
> 
> /j



~throws hat on the ground and stomps it.~

That's it. Delete the class system.


----------



## Charlaquin

Minigiant said:


> Nothing is stopping a 3rd level subclass from seriously altering a class.



Except that it would be jarring as heck to be playing your class one way through the tutorial levels and then have it drastically change at 3rd. Also, you can’t have full casting or half-casting start at 3rd level.


Minigiant said:


> The only reason why clerics and sorcerer need 1st level subclasses is because there aren't a bunch of different base classes so you have to section off the spells and features of vastly different archtypes that don't make sense together in the lore in a way to not overload fans at 1st level.
> 
> If there were a cleric class and invoker class, you could shift subclasses to 1st level.



Right, but having all subclasses start at 1st level would allow more of that sort of thing. Then you don’t need a bunch of new classes to have a bunch of characters that play differently than each other in a significant way.


Minigiant said:


> No it's not. The result has nothing to do with the grouping.
> 
> Its because the nonspellcaster classes that would need 1st level subclasses doesn't exist in 5e edition because WOTC created no new classes.



There are absolutely non-caster subclasses that would benefit from starting at 1st level. The Scout, the Cavalier, the Samurai, heck even the beast master.


----------



## akr71

Snarf Zagyg said:


> We need to galaxy brained on this.
> 
> You choose your subclass at first level.
> 
> But you don’t choose your class until third level.



How about you pick your Class Group at level 1, your Class at level 3 & your subclass at level 5.


----------



## Minigiant

Charlaquin said:


> Except that it would be jarring as heck to be playing your class one way through the tutorial levels and then have it drastically change at 3rd. Also, you can’t have full casting or half-casting start at 3rd level.



My point is if specialty subclass alters your class that much, not only should it not be level 1 to overload the 1st level...

 ... it should be its own class.


----------



## Charlaquin

Minigiant said:


> My point is if specialty subclass alters your class that much, not only should it not be level 1 to overload the 1st level...
> 
> ... it should be its own class.



Do you feel that way about Sorcerer, Warlock, and Cleric subclasses?


----------



## Minigiant

Charlaquin said:


> Do you feel that way about Sorcerer, Warlock, and Cleric subclasses?



Some of them. The Hexblade should be its own class. The Blasty clerics are too different from battle clerics that they could split as well.

But WOTC is anti new classes.


----------



## Charlaquin

Minigiant said:


> Some of them. The Hexblade should be its own class. The Blasty clerics are too different from battle clerics that they could split as well.



Well, I agree about Hexblade, but that’s a problem caused by it being an attempt to fix the blade pact boon, rather than a fully-realized subclass of its own. And the only real difference between blasty clerics and battle clerics is heavy armor vs. a bonus cantrip. That’s definitely not a distinction worth an entirely separate class.


Minigiant said:


> But WOTC is anti new classes.



So let’s do with subclass what WotC won’t with class.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Charlaquin said:


> So let’s do with subclass what WotC won’t with class.



Like PF archetypes. Just straight overhaul the class by replacing class features.

Including subclasses that say to take them at level 1 instead after it's far too late to be reasonable.


----------



## Minigiant

Charlaquin said:


> Well, I agree about Hexblade, but that’s a problem caused by it being an attempt to fix the blade pact boon, rather than a fully-realized subclass of its own



Agreed.




Charlaquin said:


> And the only real difference between blasty clerics and battle clerics is heavy armor vs. a bonus cantrip. That’s definitely not a distinction worth an entirely separate class.
> So let’s do with subclass what WotC won’t with class



There's no need to repeat WOTC's overreacting style. There is a lot of design "missed" because the cleric is both Blasty and Fighty. It is why Cleric Domains QUICKLY got broken once out the PHB.


----------



## Yaarel

Vaalingrade said:


> Like PF archetypes. Just straight overhaul the class by replacing class features.
> 
> Including subclasses that say to take them at level 1 instead after it's far too late to be reasonable.



Swapping features is fine. It is kinda what 1DD is doing − take this default or swap it for something else you want.

(I didnt understand how "level 1" is "far too late to be reasonable".)


----------



## The Myopic Sniper

Charlaquin said:


> I’d be fine with that even if the unique crunchy feature didn’t come until 3rd level, honestly.



The reason I like 1st level for proficiences/training/ribbons and the crunchy stuff at 2nd rather than 3rd is that all the full-casters get a decent power buff at level 3 with extra higher spell slots as well a huge assortment of new 2nd level spells. Full casters have plenty to do at level 3 without adding another boost there. If we moved to a 1/2/6/10/14 scheme for all subclasses, martial would obviously have to get a power spike at level 3 to compensate, but that could be done by rearranging the current features or adding a new feature since martials need a buff anyway. Half-casters probably don't need as much of a buff because they gain an extra spell-slot and spell, but the half-casters don't need as much as a buff as something like the Monk, 1D&D Playtest Rogue and even the Fighter and Barbarian, so half-casters could probably benefit from simply reshuffling where features are on the class list.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Yaarel said:


> (I didnt understand how "level 1" is "far too late to be reasonable".)



Level 1 'instead' of far too late.


----------



## Charlaquin

The Myopic Sniper said:


> The reason I like 1st level for proficiences/training/ribbons and the crunchy stuff at 2nd rather than 3rd is that all the full-casters get a decent power buff at level 3 with extra higher spell slots as well a huge assortment of new 2nd level spells. Full casters have plenty to do at level 3 without adding another boost there. If we moved to a 1/2/6/10/14 scheme for all subclasses, martial would obviously have to get a power spike at level 3 to compensate, but that could be done by rearranging the current features or adding a new feature since martials need a buff anyway. Half-casters probably don't need as much of a buff because they gain an extra spell-slot and spell, but the half-casters don't need as much as a buff as something like the Monk, 1D&D Playtest Rogue and even the Fighter and Barbarian, so half-casters could probably benefit from simply reshuffling where features are on the class list.



Ah, I see. When you explain it like that, yeah, that makes total sense.


----------



## MichaelSomething

I don't want subclasses at level one. Level one is suppose to be commoner+.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Commoner + is NPC or Level 0. They should just make a level 0 and stop half-assing it, I say.

Let the man part of the game about heroic fantasy be about fantastic heroes.


----------



## Minigiant

MichaelSomething said:


> I don't want subclasses at level one. Level one is suppose to be commoner+.



D&D level 1 isn't commoner+ anymore. It's Rookie level. Fresh of the (Class Name) Academy. Glorified Apprentice. First quest is some dude's basement.


----------



## Yaarel

Minigiant said:


> D&D level 1 isn't commoner+ anymore. It's Rookie level. Fresh of the (Class Name) Academy. Glorified Apprentice. First quest is some dude's basement.



Yeah. Level 1 is something like a 20 year old college student − or its equivalent.


----------



## Yaarel

D&D classes represent something like combat experience. NPCs who dont have combat experience dont really gain in levels.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Yaarel said:


> Yeah. Level 1 is something like a 20 year old college student − or its equivalent.




Nobody would survive to 2nd level. 

“Mom, the monster wouldn’t give me his treasure! Apparently it just gets to turn a failed saving throw into a success! It’s so unfair!”

“Don’t worry, I will call the administrator of the dungeon and fix this for you. Oh, aon’t forget to bring your dirty armor home this weekend!”

“Thanks, mum.”


----------



## Yaarel

Bill Zebub said:


> Nobody would survive to 2nd level.
> 
> “Mom, the monster wouldn’t give me his treasure! Apparently it just gets to turn a failed saving throw into a success! It’s so unfair!”
> 
> “Don’t worry, I will call the administrator of the dungeon and fix this for you. Oh, aon’t forget to bring your dirty armor home this weekend!”
> 
> “Thanks, mum.”



At least in my campaigns, the "mom" / mentor / contact is part of the student tier, levels 1 to 4, when they return home from an adventure.

Levels 5 to 8 is the professional tier.


----------



## DEFCON 1

MGibster said:


> I can live with it, I've just never cared for it.  It was especially bad during 3rd edition with their prestige classes.  I honestly thought prestige classes were great at first, but in the end I thought they were more trouble than they were worth.



I agree with this regarding prestige classes.

I'm currently playing in a Pathfinder game and when I created the character originally I had an idea of what they were about and what their intended beliefs and focuses were (and where they believed they were going to go as they got older.)  And when flipping through the online Pathfinder online SRD I found a prestige class that had pretty much the flavor of where I thought my character was heading.

Only problem was... it would involve multiclassing and the nitpicky little "need this feature here", "that feat there" etc. etc... all to reach a prestige class for whom the mechanics seemed so generic and disconnected to the fluff anyway.  And I realized once more (after having come to a similar conclusion all those years ago when I played 3E)... that I could just play my character with the fluff I had thought of for him as though he had this specific prestige class... without needing to jump through all the goshdarn design hoops to get there.

I found there absolutely was a dopamine rush when I considered what the story of "gaining the prestige class" would give me... but once that rush went away I came to the conclusion that it was just a whole bunch of pain in the ass mechanics to wade through to get there and that actually having that prestige class would not gain me anything more than just playing the character as though I already had it.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Yaarel said:


> At least in my campaigns, the "mom" / mentor / contact is part of the student tier, levels 1 to 4, when they return home from an adventure.
> 
> Levels 5 to 8 is the professional tier.




Very Torchbearer.


----------



## DEFCON 1

You know what a lot of people really should do if they want subclasses at Level 1 but the game ends up going in a different direction?

Just create and name their character's Background as part of their subclass.

In that way you get the best of both worlds... you get to denote who your character is and what they feel they are from the very beginning of their adventuring career... _and_ they gain mechanical benefits for having it-- a pair of skills, a tool, language, and a feat.  Basically turn your Background into your very first subclass feature.

Make your Background "Acolyte of the Open Hand Temple".  Or "Yoriki to the Local Samurai".  Or "Student of the Illusion School".  Or "Fey Chanter of the Glamour Queen".  Or "Adherent of the Moon Circle".

Heck... there's probably a good DM's Guild product right there-- writing up a whole bunch of Backgrounds that are all connected to each of the subclasses in the game, with all the proper mechanical selections made to boost it.


----------



## Bill Zebub

DEFCON 1 said:


> You know what a lot of people really should do if they want subclasses at Level 1 but the game ends up going in a different direction?
> 
> Just create and name their character's Background as part of their subclass.
> 
> In that way you get the best of both worlds... you get to denote who your character is and what they feel they are from the very beginning of their adventuring career... _and_ they gain mechanical benefits for having it-- a pair of skills, a tool, language, and a feat.  Basically turn your Background into your very first subclass feature.
> 
> Make your Background "Acolyte of the Open Hand Termple".  Or "Yoriki to the Local Samurai".  Or "Student of the Illusion School".  Or "Fey Chanter of the Glamour Queen".  Or "Adherent of the Moon Circle".
> 
> Heck... there's probably a good DM's Guild product right there-- writing up a whole bunch of Backgrounds that are all connected to each of the subclasses in the game, with all the proper mechanical selections made to boost it.




I suspect one underlying difference in opinion is how much mechanical distinction is necessary/desireable to define a concept. I’m on the low end of that scale. A couple of flavorful but mechanically minor features, even just ribbons, and I’m happy.


----------



## Yaarel

Bill Zebub said:


> Very Torchbearer.



Access to "mom" is also kinda Strixhaven, where the school has mentors and staff.


----------



## Maxperson

Charlaquin said:


> Except that it would be jarring as heck to be playing your class one way through the tutorial levels and then have it drastically change at 3rd. Also, you can’t have full casting or half-casting start at 3rd level.



Then don't do that. You don't really have much right to complain if you choose to play it drastically different for levels 1 and 2 and then switch to something jarring.  That's all on you.

I would not play it different and so it would not be drastically different or jarring.

Also, why can't you have full or half casting start at 3rd level?  It's simple to accomplish. All you need to do is start it at 3rd level.  Done.  

Seriously, though.  Start it at 3rd level and every few levels add in an extra slot and the missing spell level at some point.  By 9th level you will have made up the lost 2 levels of spells without there being anything jarring going on and will progress like every other full or half caster.


----------



## Maxperson

akr71 said:


> How about you pick your Class Group at level 1, your Class at level 3 & your subclass at level 5.



What do those of us who have no class do?!


----------



## Maxperson

Yaarel said:


> Yeah. Level 1 is something like a 20 year old college student − or its equivalent.



22. You just got your bachelors degree and are ready to go out into the world and try to find your first real job, except no one will hire you due to lack of practical experience.


----------



## Maxperson

Yaarel said:


> D&D classes represent something like combat experience. NPCs who dont have combat experience dont really gain in levels.



NPCs aren't generally built with the class system, so you can make a researcher archmage that has several "levels" of power without ever having gone into combat.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Yaarel said:


> Yeah. Level 1 is something like a 20 year old college student − or its equivalent.



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


----------



## Charlaquin

Maxperson said:


> Then don't do that. You don't really have much right to complain if you choose to play it drastically different for levels 1 and 2 and then switch to something jarring.  That's all on you.
> 
> I would not play it different and so it would not be drastically different or jarring.



I was talking about a significant mechanical change.


Maxperson said:


> Also, why can't you have full or half casting start at 3rd level?  It's simple to accomplish. All you need to do is start it at 3rd level.  Done.



Then you’d miss the first two levels of spell progression…


Maxperson said:


> Seriously, though.  Start it at 3rd level and every few levels add in an extra slot and the missing spell level at some point.  By 9th level you will have made up the lost 2 levels of spells without there being anything jarring going on and will progress like every other full or half caster.



That’s just not how 5e spell progression works


----------



## Maxperson

Charlaquin said:


> I was talking about a significant mechanical change.



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.

The player has control over whether his PC is moving smoothly towards his subclass or whether it's a jarring change.


Charlaquin said:


> Then you’d miss the first two levels of spell progression…



Not if you follow my suggestion.


Charlaquin said:


> That’s just not how 5e spell progression works



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.


----------



## Yaarel

Maxperson said:


> 22. You just got your bachelors degree and are ready to go out into the world and try to find your first real job, except no one will hire you due to lack of practical experience.



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



Maxperson said:


> NPCs aren't generally built with the class system, so you can make a researcher archmage that has several "levels" of power without ever having gone into combat.



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


----------



## Yaarel

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> 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

Maxperson said:


> 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.


Maxperson said:


> 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

Charlaquin said:


> 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.


Charlaquin said:


> 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?


Charlaquin said:


> 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?


Charlaquin said:


> 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

Yaarel said:


> 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! 


Yaarel said:


> 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

Charlaquin said:


> 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

Maxperson said:


> 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.


Maxperson said:


> 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.


Maxperson said:


> 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.


Maxperson said:


> 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.


Maxperson said:


> 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

UngeheuerLich said:


> 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

Charlaquin said:


> 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

Maxperson said:


> 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.


----------



## cbwjm

DEFCON 1 said:


> You know what a lot of people really should do if they want subclasses at Level 1 but the game ends up going in a different direction?
> 
> Just create and name their character's Background as part of their subclass.
> 
> In that way you get the best of both worlds... you get to denote who your character is and what they feel they are from the very beginning of their adventuring career... _and_ they gain mechanical benefits for having it-- a pair of skills, a tool, language, and a feat.  Basically turn your Background into your very first subclass feature.
> 
> Make your Background "Acolyte of the Open Hand Temple".  Or "Yoriki to the Local Samurai".  Or "Student of the Illusion School".  Or "Fey Chanter of the Glamour Queen".  Or "Adherent of the Moon Circle".
> 
> Heck... there's probably a good DM's Guild product right there-- writing up a whole bunch of Backgrounds that are all connected to each of the subclasses in the game, with all the proper mechanical selections made to boost it.



I feel like that is what we'll have to do, but I do find the idea lacking.


----------



## Yaarel

cbwjm said:


> I feel like that is what we'll have to do, but I do find the idea lacking.



Yeah. It is a feat tax. To require a feat just to get a subclass to work is poor design.


----------



## Charlaquin

DEFCON 1 said:


> You know what a lot of people really should do if they want subclasses at Level 1 but the game ends up going in a different direction?
> 
> Just create and name their character's Background as part of their subclass.
> 
> In that way you get the best of both worlds... you get to denote who your character is and what they feel they are from the very beginning of their adventuring career... _and_ they gain mechanical benefits for having it-- a pair of skills, a tool, language, and a feat.  Basically turn your Background into your very first subclass feature.
> 
> Make your Background "Acolyte of the Open Hand Temple".  Or "Yoriki to the Local Samurai".  Or "Student of the Illusion School".  Or "Fey Chanter of the Glamour Queen".  Or "Adherent of the Moon Circle".
> 
> Heck... there's probably a good DM's Guild product right there-- writing up a whole bunch of Backgrounds that are all connected to each of the subclasses in the game, with all the proper mechanical selections made to boost it.



Eh, that’s ok, but it isn’t going to give me a non-spellcasting ranger, or a divine casting sorcerer, or anything like that, which 1st level subclasses _would_ enable.


----------



## Yaarel

UngeheuerLich said:


> I really think the warlock has it subclass tied to the wrong ability (patron instead of pact).



The Warlock "pact" is with the "patron". They are the same thing. They happen at the same level, level 1.

At Warlock level 1:
• Otherworldly Patron grants Expanded Spell List.
• Pact Magic is just spellcasting, but slots are for short rest refresh.

At Warlock level 3:
• Pact Boon is unrelated to the rest of the Warlock features.

Pact Boon is irrelevant.

The Hexblade is a special Warlock subclass and exactly starts at level 1, in order to make its proficiency in armor and weapons, and its substituting Charisma for Strength feasible.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Yaarel said:


> The Warlock "pact" is with the "patron". They are the same thing. They happen at the same level, level 1.
> 
> At Warlock level 1:
> • Otherworldly Patron grants Expanded Spell List.
> • Pact Magic is just spellcasting, but slots are for short rest refresh.
> 
> At Warlock level 3:
> • Pact Boon is unrelated to the rest of the Warlock features.
> 
> Pact Boon is irrelevant.
> 
> The Hexblade is a special Warlock subclass and exactly starts at level 1, in order to make its proficiency in armor and weapons, and its substituting Charisma for Strength feasible.




Would also work at level 3. Yiu can easily start with str or dex to attack or with eldritch blast... 
And actually charisma to attack should have never been a thing to begin with.
Should instead be a melee substitute for eldritch blast. Would have spared us a lot of warlock/paladins or bards, just to get cha to attack...


----------



## Charlaquin

UngeheuerLich said:


> Would have spared us a lot of warlock/paladins or bards, just to get cha to attack...



You could also spare that by giving paladins and bards Cha to attack without having to multiclass.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Charlaquin said:


> You could also spare that by giving paladins and bards Cha to attack without having to multiclass.



No thanks.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Maxperson said:


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



Yeah, but as discussed in another thread concerning Spider-man: bullying grants XP, so being harangued by angsty jerks for somehow choosing to be born late will make them level faster, so they can then just take the money from those same jerks.


----------



## Maxperson

Charlaquin said:


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



Except that it doesn't.  Let's say that the player is roleplaying a fighter who is going to be an eldritch knight.  Well, he's been roleplaying that since 1st level, and perhaps before via background and maybe even a feat if he's vhuman. 

When he hits 3rd level his learning and practice simply complete and he gains the ability he's been working towards.  Nothing jarring or out of place there at all.

To be jarring or out of place, the player has to have avoided roleplaying towards becoming an eldritch knight, avoided putting anything in his background that would explain it, and avoided taking skills like arcana or a feat to support the transition.  In short, he created his own problem.

I want to see an example of a subclass that will be jarring or won't make sense when the player is putting forth the effort from my first paragraph above.


Charlaquin said:


> 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.



Multi-classing wouldn't be a issue, since levels add in a specific way which would not be affected by my suggestion.


----------



## Maxperson

UngeheuerLich said:


> Would also work at level 3. Yiu can easily start with str or dex to attack or with eldritch blast...
> And actually charisma to attack should have never been a thing to begin with.
> Should instead be a melee substitute for eldritch blast. Would have spared us a lot of warlock/paladins or bards, just to get cha to attack...



Eldritch blast comes from the pact and patron, so it wouldn't work unless the pact happens at level 1, but the specific subclass doesn't happen until level 3 for some reason.


----------



## clearstream

Charlaquin said:


> 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

Yaarel said:


> 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

clearstream said:


> 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

Yaarel said:


> 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

Yaarel said:


> 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

clearstream said:


> 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

clearstream said:


> 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

Yaarel said:


> 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

Yaarel said:


> 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.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Bill Zebub said:


> 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?



It's not impossible, but that doesn't mean that's what I want to do.

I want to play my character concept without wasting levels not being that character, plain and simple.


----------



## Yaarel

Bill Zebub said:


> 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?



I said I dont want it. I did not say I can not imagine it.

I dont want an Eldritch Knight that is nonmagical at any level.


----------



## Yaarel

UngeheuerLich said:


> 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.



Wait you just told someone to pay a feat tax.

No thank you.

Feats Should Be Nice, Not Required.

The Eldritch Knight "gish" concept must be a magical warrior at level 1.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Yaarel said:


> Wait you just told someone to pay a feat tax.
> 
> No thank you.
> 
> Feats Should Be Nice, Not Required.
> 
> The Eldritch Knight "gish" concept must be a magical warrior at level 1.




You just got a free feat. So if you want to start woth your concept from level 1, just use the free feat.
So you just got a freebie. The most free, classless extra. And then you complain about a tax...

So you want me to pay a subclass tax to be able to cast a spell as a fighter at level 1?
What if I want to be a battlemaster with a bit of magical ability?


----------



## cbwjm

UngeheuerLich said:


> You just got a free feat. So if you want to start woth your concept from level 1, just use the free feat.
> So you just got a freebie. The most free, classless extra. And then you complain about a tax...
> 
> So you want me to pay a subclass tax to be able to cast a spell as a fighter at level 1?
> What if I want to be a battlemaster with a bit of magical ability?



That's fine, then you can pick up the feat and for others who want to start off at level 1 as an eldritch knight, with a completely different feat, can do that. Maybe I want to be an eldritch knight who is a trained healer, your way means I can't do that because I have to spend the feat on picking up spells to feel like I'm an eldritch knight from the start. With a subclass at level 1, you can be a battlemaster and have a little bit of magic without needing the eldritch knight subclass.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Vaalingrade said:


> It's not impossible, but that doesn't mean that's what I want to do.




That’s fine. As long as everybody agrees there’s no “need” on either side of this debate, only “want”. 



Vaalingrade said:


> I want to play my character concept without wasting levels not being that character, plain and simple.




Oops. Except this, again, suggests it’s not possible to “be” the subclass without mechanics.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Yaarel said:


> I said I dont want it. I did not say I can not imagine it.
> 
> I dont want an Eldritch Knight that is nonmagical at any level.




And I want a pony.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

cbwjm said:


> That's fine, then you can pick up the feat and for others who want to start off at level 1 as an eldritch knight, with a completely different feat, can do that. Maybe I want to be an eldritch knight who is a trained healer, your way means I can't do that because I have to spend the feat on picking up spells to feel like I'm an eldritch knight from the start. With a subclass at level 1, you can be a battlemaster and have a little bit of magic without needing the eldritch knight subclass.



It is not my way. It is the 5e way. And 1D&D makes it easier to have your concept from level 1.
I am still not convinced that level 1 subclasses are necessary. And I think the disadvantages to having a subclass at level 1 outweighs the advantages and I also mean classes like sorcerers and warlocks.

I still think giving those classes two decision points would help, and put subclass into the second.

Actually fighters already have a decision point at level 1. We could easily invent a fighting style that allows the taking of magic initiate. Then you are the eldritch knight from the get go, without wasting your level 1 feat.
Right now, fighting style look very much like level 1 feats... so the power level are about equal.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Bill Zebub said:


> Oops. Except this, again, suggests it’s not possible to “be” the subclass without mechanics.



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.


----------



## Clint_L

I'm not seeing a lot of discussion of what is good for the game in general, here. 

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?


----------



## Clint_L

Vaalingrade said:


> 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

Bill Zebub said:


> And I want a pony.



I want a gish − that works well.


----------



## MoonSong

Clint_L said:


> 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

Vaalingrade said:


> 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

Clint_L said:


> 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

Yaarel said:


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




Oh really?


----------



## Yaarel

Bill Zebub said:


> 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”


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Yaarel said:


> 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.




The bladesinger should be no single classed wizard anyway 
I´d rather add an arcane half caster into the mix....


----------



## Yaarel

UngeheuerLich said:


> The bladesinger should be no single classed wizard anyway
> I´d rather add an arcane half caster into the mix....



I like how the Bladesinger is a fullcaster.


----------



## Yaarel

It is worthwhile  to standardize the amount of design for a subclass across all classes. Schedule the same levels for the subclass features in a character advancement table, so they can apply to all classes.



The UA Ranger gains spells at:
levels 1 (3), 5 (7), 9 (11), 13 (15), and 17 (19).

The 2014 Fighter and Rogue gain spells at:
levels 3 (4), 7 (10), 13 (16), 19.

A future UA Fighter and Rogue can easily gain spells from level 1:
levels 1 (4), 7 (10), 13 (16), and 19,
for a smooth spell progression every third level.



It is convenient to coordinate the levels for the subclasses with the same levels when Fighter and Rogue gain spells.

For example, going by the 2014 Fighter-Rogue, all classes can gain subclass features at levels 1, 7, 13, and 19.

Possibly schedule the subclass features to coordinate with levels 1-and-4, then 7, 13, and 19, to help flesh out the mechanics early on for the subclass concept.

Alternatively, coordinate subclass features for all classes with the spells at:
levels 1, 5, 9, 13, and 17.


----------



## Yaarel

The Fighting Styles are said to cost a feat. But they are not worth a feat.

A Fighting Style should at least be worth half of a feat. (The Archery Fighting Style is an extra good half-feat.) When taking a Fighting Style as a feat, it should also grant an extra +1 ability score improvement as well.

Where the Fighting Style is a design space of a half-feat, a Fighting Style can easily grant spellcasting. For example: a hypothetical "Eldritch Fighting Style" can grant a 1st-slot spell and a cantrip, plus some minor feature. Then the rest of the spells can come later.

If the UA updates the Fighting Styles to be more powerful and worth a full feat, then the Eldritch Fighting Style can grant the full suite of two 1st-slot spells and two cantrips, plus something like the Arcane skill proficiency, at level 1.


----------



## cbwjm

UngeheuerLich said:


> The bladesinger should be no single classed wizard anyway
> I´d rather add an arcane half caster into the mix....



I would like a warrior-mage half-caster too, but people keep coming back with "but what story would that tell" or "what character is it trying to portray".


----------



## Vaalingrade

Bill Zebub said:


> If so, decide when that point was, then back up two weeks. There. There’s your starting point for a level 1.



No. That's not the character I'm playing. 

I'm not here to play the Zero. I'm not here to waste my time playing something that isn't the character I want just because some people want a zero level the designers don't actually want to give them or to 'earn' the right or something. They're going to be asking like $50 for this book, so let's not hedge people out of 10% of the game by making the first two levels unappealing and pretty much a bait and switch vis-a-vi the idea of 'play what you want'.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Vaalingrade said:


> No. That's not the character I'm playing.
> 
> I'm not here to play the Zero. I'm not here to waste my time playing something that isn't the character I want just because some people want a zero level the designers don't actually want to give them or to 'earn' the right or something. They're going to be asking like $50 for this book, so let's not hedge people out of 10% of the game by making the first two levels unappealing and pretty much a bait and switch vis-a-vi the idea of 'play what you want'.




Well, you may not want this game, then.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Clint_L said:


> What is best for the game overall?



Just making 10% of the game a disappointment for both the people who want a genuine zero level and people who want to play their characters for the entire game?


----------



## Vaalingrade

Bill Zebub said:


> Well, you may not want this game, then.



I don't _need_ it.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Vaalingrade said:


> Just making 10% of the game a disappointment for both the people who want a genuine zero level and people who want to play their characters for the entire game?



That is a valid point of view. Other people might love the Idea.
Is 10% of 60 bucks, around 2 cups of coffee worth arguing?

Then you already have 10 levels that you use so rarely, that those could be easily done away with and most people would not notice it in play.
So make those levels more accessible and then there is enough room for apprentice levels.


----------



## Maxperson

Vaalingrade said:


> 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.



It's far easier to add than subtract, though.  There are feats and races that have spells, or you could get DM permission to bring some of the magic down to 1st level.  If you build in the magic from 1st, though, you take away peoples ability to grow into a concept.

If I were to play an eldritch knight and wanted to have fighting and magic from 1st level, I'd pick ardling, Elf, gnome or tiefling, since those races have built in magic.  Then I'd pick Cultist, Sage, or make up a background that has Magic Initiate(Arcane) so I can grab some battle cantrips.  Poof! A skilled warrior that blends bladecraft and spellcraft, and who will get better at it at 3rd level.


----------



## clearstream

Charlaquin said:


> What’s the problem? If 1st level class features can be made safe for multiclassing,



They can't. Multiclassing 1/1 is already hard to balance for. While 3/1 and 3/3 are moderately balanced against 4 and 6, 1/1 is not balanced against 2.



Charlaquin said:


> then 1st level subclass features can be too.



So this can't happen. A feature of game systems is what's called "designability", meaning how robustly future content can be designed for it. Subclassing at 3 has high designability. At 1 it has low designability.



Charlaquin said:


> In fact, they already exist for the classes that currently get their subclass at 1st level.



They do, and those represent some of the most problematic design space for classes. An example that makes the point strongly is the hexblade.

All that will happen is that subclassing from 1st will put a dampener on what can be offered with subclasses.


----------



## Horwath

Eldritch knight subclass from 1st level:

Level 1: Weapon bond, one cantrip known
Level 2: extra cantrip known, 1 spell known, one 1st level slot
Level 3: 2 more spells knows, extra 1st level slot

rest as normal.


----------



## clearstream

Yaarel said:


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



There's a reason sorlocks often appear in charop threads.



Yaarel said:


> 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.



Why not standardise to 3?



Yaarel said:


> 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.



I agree that it broadens the design space (far more permutations.) Unfortunately, that makes the game _harder_ to design for with the perverse effect of narrowing actual designs.


----------



## Yaarel

Heh, having had a full long-rest refresh.



The Character Advancement Table for leveling can schedule:

*Race and Background*
Level 0

*Feats*
Levels 0 (Background), 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 19

*Boons*
Levels 20 and up

*Subclass Features*
Levels 1, 2, 6, 10, 14, and 18

*Class Features*
Levels 1 (x4), 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 17

Note, the Warrior classes can use a class level for a Warrior feat. The third casters like Eldritch Knight and Trickster instead gain their spells at Subclass levels, unlike the full and half casters that gain their spells at Class levels.



*Level 1*
Level 1 has a design space of about 5 feats: Simple Combat, Class Saves, Subclass Features, and a 2-feat space for Class Features.

*SIMPLE COMBAT*
• d8 Hit Die (improves from d6)
• All Simple Weapons
• Light Armor

Note, the Wizard irregularly swaps out the Simple Combat design space for more magic. Because the Wizard can fight with cantrips, I suggest the Wizard class doesnt even get Simple Weapons. However, a Wizard player can optionally choose to swap out a cantrip to gain: either All Simple Weapons or Light Armor. Narratively, the character showed an aptitude for magic at a young age, and while other teens were training for defense with armory, these Wizard apprentices were training separately for defense with magic. But a few individuals got a smattering of armory training, before dedicating themselves to magic training.

*CLASS SAVES*
• "Strong" Save
• "Weak" Save

*SUBCLASS FEATURES*
• A design space of about one feat to establish the subclass.

Note, each class will recommend a specific subclass. For example, the default Fighter is a Champion, the default Rogue is a Thief, the default Wizard is an elemental Evoker. Make sure the flavor for the default subclass is described separately from base class. More experienced players can choose whichever subclass they want.

Where the Eldritch Knight and Trickster only gain spells at the subclass levels, the schedule is as follows: level 1 (2x 1st Slot), level 2 (1st Slot), level6 (1st Slot, 2x 2nd Slot), level 10 (2nd Slot, 2x 3rd Slot), level 14 (3rd Slot), level 18 (4th Slot).

*CLASS FEATURES*
• A design space of about two feats to establishes the base class.

With three feats of design space being spent on Simple Combat, Class Saves, and Subclass Features, there are about two feats remaining to establish the Class Features.

For example, Warrior classes will use the design space for advanced combat, such as better Hit Die, Medium Armor, Martial Weapons, plus combat features that are distinctive to the class. The Rogue Class uses the design space for Sneak Attack with almost a half feat left over for other Rogue features.



It is useful and easy to establish Subclass features at level 1, as part of an overall Character Advancement Table that schedules the various features that each character gains while leveling.


----------



## clearstream

Yaarel said:


> Heh, having had a full long-rest refresh.
> 
> 
> 
> The Character Advancement Table for leveling can schedule:
> 
> *Race and Background*
> Level 0
> 
> *Feats*
> Levels 0 (Background), 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 19
> 
> *Boons*
> Levels 20 and up
> 
> *Subclass Features*
> Levels 1, 2, 6, 10, 14, and 18
> 
> *Class Features*
> Levels 1 (x4), 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 17
> 
> Note, the Warrior classes can use a class level for a Warrior feat. The third casters like Eldritch Knight and Trickster instead gain their spells at Subclass levels, unlike the full and half casters that gain their spells at Class levels.
> 
> 
> 
> *Level 1*
> Level 1 has a design space of about 5 feats: Simple Combat, Class Saves, Subclass Features, and a 2-feat space for Class Features.
> 
> *SIMPLE COMBAT*
> • d8 Hit Die (improves from d6)
> • All Simple Weapons
> • Light Armor
> 
> Note, the Wizard irregularly swaps out the Simple Combat design space for more magic. Because the Wizard can fight with cantrips, I suggest the Wizard class doesnt even get Simple Weapons. However, a Wizard player can optionally choose to swap out a cantrip to gain: either All Simple Weapons or Light Armor. Narratively, the character showed an aptitude for magic at a young age, and while other teens were training for defense with armory, these Wizard apprentices were training separately for defense with magic. But a few individuals got a smattering of armory training, before dedicating themselves to magic training.
> 
> *CLASS SAVES*
> • "Strong" Save
> • "Weak" Save
> 
> *SUBCLASS FEATURES*
> • A design space of about one feat to establish the subclass.
> 
> Note, each class will recommend a specific subclass. For example, the default Fighter is a Champion, the default Rogue is a Thief, the default Wizard is an elemental Evoker. Make sure the flavor for the default subclass is described separately from base class. More experienced players can choose whichever subclass they want.
> 
> Where the Eldritch Knight and Trickster only gain spells at the subclass levels, the schedule is as follows: level 1 (2x 1st Slot), level 2 (1st Slot), level6 (1st Slot, 2x 2nd Slot), level 10 (2nd Slot, 2x 3rd Slot), level 14 (3rd Slot), level 18 (4th Slot).
> 
> *CLASS FEATURES*
> • A design space of about two feats to establishes the base class.
> 
> With three feats of design space being spent on Simple Combat, Class Saves, and Subclass Features, there are about two feats remaining to establish the Class Features.
> 
> For example, Warrior classes will use the design space for advanced combat, such as better Hit Die, Medium Armor, Martial Weapons, plus combat features that are distinctive to the class. The Rogue Class uses the design space for Sneak Attack with almost a half feat left over for other Rogue features.
> 
> 
> 
> It is useful and easy to establish Subclass features at level 1, as part of an overall Character Advancement Table that schedules the various features that each character gains while leveling.



Long-rest refresh, always helpful  

A question that comes to mind immediately - what do I do as a player when I try a class for the first time (e.g. I try playing a Monk for the first time), and make my subclass level one pick, and then I find that the class doesn't play exactly how I pictured and I would prefer to play a _different_ subclass now that I understand it better? Reroll?


----------



## MoonSong

clearstream said:


> There's a reason sorlocks often appear in charop threads.



sorlock is a thing because 1st level warlock gives you:


Eldritch blast
Hex
1 slot that comes back on a short rest.
None of these come from subclass. Even then, to fully come online you need 3 warlock levels to gain an improved version of  the sorcerer capstone and the boon. And for sorcerer is the same, you need three levels to gain metamagic, and it has no ingredients that come from subclass. Sorlock is only a thing at the very least at 5th level. Hardly the point you want to make.


----------



## Yaarel

clearstream said:


> Long-rest refresh, always helpful
> 
> A question that comes to mind immediately - what do I do as a player when I try a class for the first time (e.g. I try playing a Monk for the first time), and make my subclass level one pick, and then I find that the class doesn't play exactly how I pictured and I would prefer to play a _different_ subclass now that I understand it better? Reroll?



Personally as DM, I allow the players to change features while leveling, but not during a level. To change an entire subclass is extreme, like creating a new character. I would allow it when the current subclass is impeding the fun of the game for the player. If possible I would encourage minimalistic changes. Maybe swapping out one feature for a different feature is enough to improve the players experience. Similar changes can happen when WotC publishes a new book or UA article with more options, and the players want to swap out some current options for the new one.


----------



## Clint_L

Vaalingrade said:


> Just making 10% of the game a disappointment for both the people who want a genuine zero level and people who want to play their characters for the entire game?



What about the people for whom playing their character is how it works now? I _like_ starting a character at a very basic level and having them become more specialized and gradually grow in power as they go out in the world. For many of us, getting to make the sub-class decision at level 3, when you have a bit of time into the character and a sense of where their adventures are taking them, is a feature, not a flaw.

Why are you assuming that only people who start with their sub-class and multi-class choices pre-determined are the only folks who are trying to play their character for the entire game? For many of us our character is a process, not a thing we have fully formed in our heads before the first adventure.

Edit: I think this discussion is being driven by folks who like to start a campaign with a really detailed idea of who their next character is right out of the gate. That's fine, but recognize that for new players, that isn't really an option, and also there are a _lot_ of experienced players who prefer character building to be a more story-driven process. I'm not a min/maxer, and I make character decisions based on what actually happens in the campaign. I typically don't know what sub-class and multi-class decisions I am going to make until the story unfolds. Getting to pick the sub-class at level 3 is a super exciting moment and I have to think really hard about where this character seems to be headed.

I would like to see the system standardized so that _every_ class gets to make that decision at level 3.

Edit: Someone previously mentioned World of Warcraft, where the only level that matters is the current level cap, and everything else is just seen as a the hassle of getting there. The game becomes about optimization. I think it's super unhealthy for an RPG. I think the journey and the important choices you make on the way are the best part of D&D.


----------



## Yaarel

By the way, the Character Advancement Table can look something like the following.

Each row represents the design space of about a feat.

The Background "1st level" feat (but more like a level 0 feat) is worth a half feat. With two skills and a tool set, the entire Background altogether is worth about a feat. The Ability Scores Improvement is about a feat. The race should have about a 2-feat design space.

5e is a robust gaming engine so it is unnecessary for designers to color inside the lines sotospeak. If the designers want an extra powerful feature at a certain level, it is normal to appropriate some of the design space from the level before or after it. So some levels look "weak" because the missing space is being moved to an "extra-strong" level. Remember, the Subclass is a separate design space, so an extra-strong Subclass level corresponds a weak Subclass level earlier or later.

Each tier has feats that have more design space than the ones of the previous tier.



CHARACTER ADVANCEMENT TABLE

*LEVEL**PRO**FEATURE**TIER*0+1RaceCOMMONER (LEVEL 0)0+1Race0+1Ability Scores0+1Background1+2Simple CombatSTUDENT (HERO/BASIC)1+2Subclass1+2Class1+2Class Saves1+2Class2+2Subclass3+2Class4+2FeatPROFESSIONAL (HERO/EXPERT)5+3Class6+3Subclass7+3Class8+3FeatMASTER (PARAGON/CHAMPION)9+4Class10+4Subclass11+4Class12+4FeatGRANDMASTER (PARAGON/MASTER)13+5Class14+5Subclass15+5Class16+5FeatLEGEND (EPIC/IMMORTAL)17+6Class18+6Subclass19+6Feat20+6BoonEPIC (EPIC/IMMORTAL)(21)+7Boon(22)+7Boon(23)+7Boon(24)+7Boon


----------



## Bill Zebub

Clint_L said:


> That's fine, but recognize that for new players, that isn't really an option, and also there are a _lot_ of experienced players who prefer character building to be a more story-driven process.




This exactly why I prefer 3rd level. And not just for new players; it’s what I like for my own characters.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Clint_L said:


> What about the people for whom playing their character is how it works now?



In my ideal, there are optional zero levels for them.

That way they have the option they want without invalidating 10% of the game for me.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Horwath said:


> Eldritch knight subclass from 1st level:
> 
> Level 1: Weapon bond, one cantrip known
> Level 2: extra cantrip known, 1 spell known, one 1st level slot
> Level 3: 2 more spells knows, extra 1st level slot
> 
> rest as normal.




Or level 1:
Fighting style: eldritch bond
2 cantrips, weapon bond.
Rest as normal.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Vaalingrade said:


> In my ideal, there are optional zero levels for them.
> 
> That way they have the option they want without invalidating 10% of the game for me.



So only ~5%

Or maybe they should raise level cap to 22. Would that work for you?

EDIT: Or….if they raised the cap to 40 you would only be missing out on 5%, about the same as your idea for a level 0. 

Then again, if we factor in how long it takes to gain levels, 1&2 are about 0.05% of the game. 

Unless we are actually measuring likely levels actually played, in which case it’s more like 25%.


----------



## Clint_L

Vaalingrade said:


> In my ideal, there are optional zero levels for them.
> 
> That way they have the option they want without invalidating 10% of the game for me.



You seem perfectly happy to suggest invalidating parts of the game as it currently exists for other folks.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Clint_L said:


> You seem perfectly happy to suggest invalidating parts of the game as it currently exists for other folks.



Invalidating... by making a special effort to accommodate them without putting myself out?

Okay.


----------



## clearstream

Yaarel said:


> CHARACTER ADVANCEMENT TABLE
> 
> *LEVEL**PRO**FEATURE**TIER*0+1RaceCOMMONER (LEVEL 0)0+1Race0+1Ability Scores0+1Background1+2Simple CombatSTUDENT (HERO/BASIC)1+2Subclass1+2Class1+2Class Saves1+2Class2+2Subclass3+2Class4+2FeatPROFESSIONAL (HERO/EXPERT)5+3Class6+3Subclass7+3Class8+3FeatMASTER (PARAGON/CHAMPION)9+4Class10+4Subclass11+4Class12+4FeatGRANDMASTER (PARAGON/MASTER)13+5Class14+5Subclass15+5Class16+5FeatLEGEND (EPIC/IMMORTAL)17+6Class18+6Subclass19+6Feat20+6BoonEPIC (EPIC/IMMORTAL)(21)+7Boon(22)+7Boon(23)+7Boon(24)+7Boon



I like this table (other than our disagreement about where subclass should start.) I'd designed a 0th-level for my campaign and it is very similar to what you have. You need to include the hit die however (add a column.) For instance, analyse Barbarian excluding the hit die... you'll notice that some of Barb's feats are invested in that d12 (based on toughness, we can call each step up from 1d6 a half-feat.)


----------



## Yaarel

clearstream said:


> I like this table (other than our disagreement about where subclass should start.) I'd designed a 0th-level for my campaign and it is very similar to what you have. You need to include *the hit die* however (add a column.) For instance, analyse Barbarian excluding the hit die... you'll notice that some of Barb's feats are invested in that d12 (based on toughness, we can call each step up from 1d6 a half-feat.)



In the Character Advancement table, the hit die at *level 0* is *d6*, and this hit die generally represents Humanoid noncombatants.

At *level 1*, the Simple Combat level improves the hit die to *d8*. (Except for the Wizard class that swaps out the Simple Combat for magic features.) This d8 is typical for any Humanoids that player characters encounter in combat encounters.

Also at *level 1* are two "levels" to further detail the class features. Some classes, like Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger, will use part of one of these class features to improve the hit die from d8 to *d10*. The Barbarian class will actually use a full class feature to improve the hit die from d8 to *d12*.

There doesnt need to be a column for the hit die because whatever the hit die is is established during level 1. From then on up, it is always that hit die for every level (unless multiclassing).


----------



## Clint_L

Vaalingrade said:


> Invalidating... by making a special effort to accommodate them without putting myself out?
> 
> Okay.



I agree that you definitely are not putting yourself out.


----------



## Maxperson

Vaalingrade said:


> Invalidating... by making a special effort to accommodate them without putting myself out?
> 
> Okay.



If 10% of any game were invalidated for me, I'd play something else.  What have you been doing for the last 10 years?  Starting at 3rd level?


----------



## Horwath

Maxperson said:


> If 10% of any game were invalidated for me, I'd play something else.  What have you been doing for the last 10 years?  Starting at 3rd level?



except the very 1st campaign, yes!


----------



## clearstream

Yaarel said:


> In the Character Advancement table, the hit die at *level 0* is *d6*, and this hit die generally represents Humanoid noncombatants.
> 
> At *level 1*, the Simple Combat level improves the hit die to *d8*. (Except for the Wizard class that swaps out the Simple Combat for magic features.) This d8 is typical for any Humanoids that player characters encounter in combat encounters.



Rather than saying - except for the wizard - it makes more sense to me to base it at 1d6 and count each step as a half-feat (half of Tough, effectively). So Wizard pays 0-feats, Cleric etc 1/2-feat, Fighter etc 1-feat, Barb 1+1/2-feats.



Yaarel said:


> Also at *level 1* are two "levels" to further detail the class features. Some classes, like Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger, will use part of one of these class features to improve the hit die from d8 to *d10*. The Barbarian class will actually use a full class feature to improve the hit die from d8 to *d12*.



Seeing as everyone has hit dice, it makes more sense to me to give it a separate row. FTM I think weapons, armor and skills should also have separate rows. Otherwise it is obfuscated what is counted into "class."



Yaarel said:


> There doesnt need to be a column for the hit die because whatever the hit die is is established during level 1. From then on up, it is always that hit die for every level (unless multiclassing).



Yup, that also works.


----------



## Yaarel

Here is a tweak of the earlier Character Advancement schedule. The main difference is, level 1 is a single level. So any "level 1" character is unambiguously there, and all the "level 0" levels before it are in the characters past. By extension, many of the features of the class itself are developing during the level-0 levels. Each level is a design space of a feat. 

Level 0 comprises two tiers: the Background tier and the Class tier. The choice of a default Background comes with recommendations for the Skillset and the Feat that become available at different levels. The Background Feat is the cusp where Background tier ends and the Class tier begins. The second tier is the formative levels of the Class during level 0. 

To help a newbie player learn how to play a roleplaying game, or D&D 5e specifically, it helps to go thru each level of the two tiers of level 0. The newbie can focus on each feature one while leveling. Each level is a mini-quest of about two encounters, that the DM customizes to highlight the newly acquired feature. By the end of level 0, the newbie is reasonably familiar with the mechanics and narratives of the D&D the game.



*CHARACTER ADVANCEMENT SCHEDULE







BACKGROUND TIER*

Before the *Background* tier is an *Origin*: a Race, a birth, a childhood, and early teens. The Race exhibits a Feat or its equivalent. For example the Human Race has Skilled as a default Feat. The DM helps the newbie player choose the Race of the player character, plus the cultural identity and place of birth. The native language is typically Common, but might be an other language. Describe the family, including parentage and siblings.

The *Abilities* level begins the Background tier. It describes a teenager around 16 years of age. (Still in high school.) The youth now exhibits the aptitudes for a certain class. The player now chooses what the class of the character will be, but only for the sake of deciding the ability scores and qualifying for certain features at higher levels. Regardless of the chosen class, the current Hit Die is a d6. For example, the Ranger will typically have Dexterity and Wisdom scores of at least 13.

The DM guides the newbie thru two noncombat encounters. The player gets a sense of how a roleplaying game works. The DM describes the scene, and the player roles Ability Checks to explore it and socialize.

The chosen class determines the *Saves* level. For example, Ranger grants Saving Throw Proficiencies for Dexterity and Wisdom. The DM can present a quest with nonlethal challenges to highlight the saves, such as a sudden gust of wind while on ice, or pixie Charm with harmless intentions such as to protect a young animal.

Then the character levels up to the *Skillset* level. This level represents a passage of time. The teen has acquired some skillfulness. At this level, the player chooses the Background itself of the Background tier. The DM helps the player pick one of the default Backgrounds. It sketches the experiences and interests of the character so far. For this level, the Background recommends a default Skillset: two skills, a tool set, and an additional language. If the native language isnt Common, the additional language should be. For a later level, it also recommends a specific feat.

Decide where and how the character gained this Skillset. Think about friends, school and work, mentors and influences. At this point, one or two sentences is enough to describe the character bio, along with a small list of persons and places. The player can add more details later when inspiration hits. Two encounters describe the Background environment vividly and encourage the player to apply the Skill Proficiency to the Ability checks, for various challenges.

The next level up is the *Combat* level. It is part of the Background during level 0. For example, the feat at the next level might require a weapon proficiency, such as spear qualifying for the Fighting Style Great Weapon Fighting feat. Background Combat can supply this weapon proficiency.

I suggest two approaches to the Background Combat: Warrior Combat and Mage Combat. A nonmage character defaults to the Warrior Combat.

*Warrior:* d8 Hit Dice, All Simple Weapons, Light Armor
*Mage:* Cantrip, 1st Slot, Prep Spell x Spellcasting Ability

(Note, each Background Combat approach is worth about a feat, a player can take the other one as the choice for the level 4 feat later on.)

The Warrior Combat is self-evident. The Warrior becomes effective with weapons and defending against weapons. The Mage Combat merits explanation.

Mage Combat grants a cantrip, a 1st-Slot spell slot, and the capacity to prepare a number of spells equal to the Spellcasting Ability of the chosen class (at least one spell). The spells must be on the spell list of the chosen class and belong to the same school (unless there are not enough spells of a school on the list at that slot level). These personal spells are thematic and last a lifetime, but the player can change them while leveling. The spells are in addition to any spells gained later from other features. Likewise, the Slot is in addition, so a level 1 Wizard will have three spell slots total. The personal Slot can be used normally for other Prepped Spells gained elsewhere.

Whether by hunting, fightsports, magesports, accompanying adults to train in a community defense, or so on, the teen is starting to demonstrate combat prowess.

The adolescent mage discovers how to cast spells. Often there were earlier instances of magic, but this time it is on purpose. It is a life altering moment. The personal insight demonstrates a talent for magic, and mages and mage schools are often on the lookout for such individuals to take them on as apprentices.

The DM helps the newbie decide the circumstances when this combat competence became evident. Was the character training? Did the prowess show up instinctively during a dangerous situation? Then the DM guides the newbie player gently thru an adventure comprising two combat encounters, to flex this aggressivity.

The next level is the *Feat* level. The chosen Background recommends the default Feat. It is a "level 0" Feat that the character takes before gaining level 1 in the class. Two encounters highlight the use of this Feat.

These encounters should also decide on the a way to formally train in the class, such as a choosing a military academy or a wizard to apprentice under. This is a lifelong decision that factors into the identity of the character, and both the player and the DM need to agree on it.

The Feat is the cusp that marks the ends the Background tier and the beginning of the Class tier.



*CLASS TIER*

Typically, a student enters the *Class* during level 0, while about 18 years old. (Akin to a college freshman or sophmore.)

The *Entry* level describes a formal entry into a town defense, a military academy, a mage school, an apprenticeship of various kinds, or some other community tradition. It is possible to be self-taught, but it is unusual.

Each Class grants its own level 0features. Consult the chosen Class for more information.

For the sake of example, here is a Ranger.



*RANGER*

BACKGROUND
_Typically 16 Years Old_
*Abilities:* At least Dexterity Score 13 and Wisdom Score 13
*Saves:* Dexterity and Strength
*Skillset:* Any Background
*Combat (Warrior):* d8 Hit Die, Simple Weapons, Light Armor

CLASS
_Typically 18 Years Old_
*Feat:* Qualifies for Warrior Feat
*Entry:* Skill x3, Cantrip x2
*Subclass (Hunter):* Slotless Spell x2
*Combat: *d10 Hit Die, Martial Weapons, Medium Armor

ROOKIE
_Typically 20 Years Old_
*Group (Expert):* Expertise x2
*Level 1:* 1st Slot x2, Prep Spells x2, Favored Enemy
*Level 2 Subclass (Hunter):* Hunters Prey
*Level 3:* 1st Slot, Fighting Style



(Note. The UA Ranger frontloads awkwardly. A class has a design space of three features − not including the Saves, Background Combat, Subclass, and Group feature. Despite seeming alot, the 1DD Ranger features for level 1 and earlier exceed it. Meanwhile the 1DD Bard has difficulty filling out this design space, and the 2014 Wizard is painfully less. Even then, it is necessary to budget the Ranger class. The shield training relocates to the design space one of the Fighting Styles at later level, since high-Dexterity two-weapon fighting or high-Dexterity longbow fighting probably wont need a shield as a salient characteristic. If a player wishes, it is acceptable to swap one cantrip for the shield training.)

This exemplary ranger character joins a guard at the age of 18. The guard patrols the wilderness around a remote town. The family has been involved in the guard for generations. 

During the *Entry* level, the ranger has been observing comrades to learn new skills and slowly acclimates to the great outdoors. The Entry grants Ranger Class skills: Survival to navigate wilderness and subsist within it, Athletics to move quickly thru it as well as for unarmed combat to keep combat ready, and Stealth to hunt as well as to ambush incoming threats.

The guard emphasizes to the fledgling the need to attune the forces of nature, adapting to its ways of magic. As part of the magical defenses of the guard, the ranger masters a regimen of two cantrips: _Guidance_ and _Thornwhip_.

The novice faces real threats, even occasional combat, but the other rangers keep close supervision and keep the novice out of harms way as much as possible.

At the *Subclass* level, the Ranger Class lists the default Hunter Subclass. The ranger ventures out to hunt for meals for the team at the camp. Instinctively the magic of nature facilitates the hunt. The ranger gains two Slotless spells: _Entangling Strike_ and _Faerie Fire_ (or any two Ranger spells that the player and the DM agree are useful while hunting). The predatory nature demonstrates affinity for the archetype of the Hunter.

(Note. A "Slotless" spell is a specific spell that the character can cast once per Long Rest without a spell slot. Compare Drow _Darkness_. The spell can also be Prepared to cast with a slot if any. The Hunter feature Hunters Prey at a later level is extrapowerful − roughly equivalent to Sneak Attack and worth over a feat and a half, thus requires extra design space. Therefore, the Subclass feature at the Class tier level is missing some design space. Two Slotless spells are modest but useful and thematic. The reverse can be true for the Beast Master archetype. Here the initial Subclass feature is likely to be extrapowerful in order for the animal companion to be effective in combat. So the later Subclass level is likely to be missing some design space. A Subclass is a separate design space from the class.)

Next up, the *Combat* level of the Class advances the skill at arms. The ranger has been practicing with swords and other weapons all along, but now wields them reliably and effectively. Class Combat grants: d10 Hit Die (improving the earlier d8 to d10), and training in All Martial Weapons, while wearing Medium Armor such as a chain shirt. The ranger contributes more to the fights that the patrol encounters.

Then comes the *Group* level. The Group Feat isnt a Feat exactly, but a feature from beyond the Class itself. The Group grants the same feature to several related Classes. Here, the Expert Group grants Expertise for two proficient skills. When choosing two useful skills, this level is an impressive upgrade to the repertoire of the character. The ranger now excels at the wilderness skills of the guard: _Survival_ and _Stealth_.

The Group Feat is the cusp between the Class tier and the Rookie tier.


*
ROOKIE TIER*

Finally, the character is Level 1! This *Rookie* is an adult, about 20 years old. (Akin to a college junior or senior, to an acquirer of an Associates degree, and to a rookie in a police department.) The character is an accomplished student, still learning the vocation, but competent to do well if venturing out on ones own. The character usually remains in the community of learning to advance the studies, so keeps contact with mentors and comrades even when away on missions and adventures abroad.

For this particular ranger, there is a rite of passage. The guard has an initiation ceremony. The ranger has proved the ability to attune the forces of nature and to wield its spellcraft of the wilderness. The *Level 1 Class* grants: two 1st-Slot spell slots, and the capability to Prepare two different spells, _Cure Wounds_ and _Entangle_. 

The character will remain a Rookie until the level 4 Feat. At that cusp, the *Professional* tier begins. Then the ranger will be leading the patrols. Or the town might entrust the ranger and a team of comrades on a dangerous mission that the survival of the town depends on.

The adventure begins.


----------



## Yaarel

When teaching a newbie to D&D, or any roleplaying game, it helps to unpack the Background into separate levels. This brief walkthru happens to present the fundamental mechanics of D&D, one level at a time. Abilities, to saves, to skills, to simple combat, to a feat.

The rest of the entirety of D&D is a recombinant of these five building blocks.


----------



## Knight_Marshal

They can take those useless fluff/ribbon features they give subclasses that they call abilities and move them to level 1.


----------



## Horwath

Yaarel said:


> When teaching a newbie to D&D, or any roleplaying game, it helps to unpack the Background into separate levels. This brief walkthru happens to present the fundamental mechanics of D&D, one level at a time. Abilities, to saves, to skills, to simple combat, to a feat.
> 
> The rest of the entirety of D&D is a recombinant of these five building blocks.



a friend just played his first session of DnD.
He didn't play any roleplaying game of this kind.

we are level 7 with house ruled bonus feat(any feat) at 1st level.

He started at level 7 and he is doing fine.


In campaign before that we started at 3rd level with bonus feat again and we had 4 out of 6 players that were complete n00bs.

There is no need for level 0, there never was.

Only if you want to have that journey for your characters.

everyone can grab mechanics of 3rd level characters.


----------



## Yaarel

Horwath said:


> a friend just played his first session of DnD.
> He didn't play any roleplaying game of this kind.
> 
> we are level 7 with house ruled bonus feat(any feat) at 1st level.
> 
> He started at level 7 and he is doing fine.
> 
> 
> In campaign before that we started at 3rd level with bonus feat again and we had 4 out of 6 players that were complete n00bs.
> 
> There is no need for level 0, there never was.
> 
> Only if you want to have that journey for your characters.



It depends on the player. Some newbs can just jump in and figure it out the rules mechanics as they go along. Other newbs prefer to understand each step, similar to learning math.

It is a kind of playstyle preference.



Horwath said:


> everyone can grab mechanics of 3rd level characters.



If every one is supposed to start at level 3, why not rename this level "level 1"?


----------



## Vaalingrade

Horwath said:


> There is no need for level 0, there never was.



For newbie care, yes. D&D players are kind of like Rick and Morty fans in thinking that their hobby requires way more intellect than they actually do. The idea that newbies are too dumb to operate Rage and thus can't possibly be able to grock a subclass is a toxic and false idea that's already proven false by the fact that you typically get to level 3 in two sessions.

HOWEVER

Level 0 idoes have a purpose as an option for those who want the zero-to-hero concept where you start as a weak sadboy who will probably die in order to 'earn' being an actual character because tradition. Unless you're a wizard... the class that traditionally started as a sadboy who will probably die in order to 'earn' being an actual wizard.


----------



## Yaarel

The cool thing about the subclass as a separate design space, all kinds of character options become possible.

There can be subclasses that any class can take − a 5e version of a prestige class. The UA for Strixhaven tried to do this, but the conflictive subclass space and schedule ultimately made it unworkable.

A standard subclass space for the Monk class, will like expand it, making different kinds of Monk concepts more doable.

Because each level is about a feat, it is even possible for one class to take an other class as its subclass, by parceling out its level 1 across at least two subclass levels. So a Fighter-Wizard or a Wizard-Fighter becomes practicable, even at level 1.

Consider the Rogue class with Sneak Attack. Sneak Attack by itself is a massive feature, worth more than a feat and a half. It doesnt fit in a single level. But by having a modest level towards a half feat, the subclass level afterward can use the extra space left over to have the full-on Sneak Attack feature, while retaining balance.

Meanwhile, it is possible to switch back and forth between two different subclasses, like both Swashbuckler and Thief.

The player can reuse the subclass design space for something else entirely, such as a class that further develops race features, for particularly powerful race concepts like Dragon or Vampire.

Meanwhile, each class defaults its own subclass, like Evoker Wizard, so newbies and casual players dont need to deal with the many options.


----------



## Yaarel

Vaalingrade said:


> For newbie care, yes. D&D players are kind of like Rick and Morty fans in thinking that their hobby requires way more intellect than they actually do. The idea that newbies are too dumb to operate Rage and thus can't possibly be able to grock a subclass is a toxic and false idea that's already proven false by the fact that you typically get to level 3 in two sessions.



It depends on the player. Some newbs appreciate the step-by-step. Most of the time for other players, the DM is doing all of the work to do whichever mechanic applies, while the newbie is focusing on the narrative. In this situation too, it can help when the player is learning the mechanics step by step.



Vaalingrade said:


> HOWEVER
> 
> Level 0 idoes have a purpose as an option for those who want the zero-to-hero concept where you start as a weak sadboy who will probably die in order to 'earn' being an actual character because tradition. Unless you're a wizard... the class that traditionally started as a sadboy who will probably die in order to 'earn' being an actual wizard.



Yeah. Zero to hero is important.

Yay, via the level zeroes, everyone can be like the Wizard!


----------



## Horwath

Yaarel said:


> If every one is supposed to start at level 3, why not rename this level "level 1"?



I'm all for that.

That is why we only played one campaign in 5E from 1st level. The 1st one in 2014 as we wanted to learn the game from the start.

but level one is so boooring, with characters that have very few options to use.


all classes could have their 1st and 2nd level features be molded into 1st level.
just so characters have more things to do.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Yaarel said:


> If every one is supposed to start at level 3, why not rename this level "level 1"?



Because it would make the 3e-style multiclassing even more front-loaded. There's easy fixes to that, but then it wouldn't be like 3e.

Similarly, 4e had lv1 characters with 20hp and with actual options, so we cannot have that ever again, because then it would be like 4e.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Horwath said:


> but level one is so boooring, with characters that have very few options to use.




But it lasts for literally ONE session….


----------



## Bill Zebub

Look, if the goal is to both give new players a slower on-ramp and give more experienced a quicker path to their fully realized character, which group should be asked to do something other than start at level one? Either way it’s the same thing, with different labels attached to the levels. So who gets the irregular labels? Do we ask beginning players to understand these funny levels that don’t fit the pattern of 1, 2, 3, etc.? Or do we ask veterans, who understand what they are doing, to skip ahead to 3?


----------



## Bill Zebub

Doop


----------



## clearstream

Yaarel said:


> The cool thing about the subclass as a separate design space, all kinds of character options become possible.
> 
> There can be subclasses that any class can take − a 5e version of a prestige class. The UA for Strixhaven tried to do this, but the conflictive subclass space and schedule ultimately made it unworkable.
> 
> A standard subclass space for the Monk class, will like expand it, making different kinds of Monk concepts more doable.
> 
> Because each level is about a feat, it is even possible for one class to take an other class as its subclass, by parceling out its level 1 across at least two subclass levels. So a Fighter-Wizard or a Wizard-Fighter becomes practicable, even at level 1.
> 
> Consider the Rogue class with Sneak Attack. Sneak Attack by itself is a massive feature, worth more than a feat and a half. It doesnt fit in a single level. But by having a modest level towards a half feat, the subclass level afterward can use the extra space left over to have the full-on Sneak Attack feature, while retaining balance.
> 
> Meanwhile, it is possible to switch back and forth between two different subclasses, like both Swashbuckler and Thief.
> 
> The player can reuse the subclass design space for something else entirely, such as a class that further develops race features, for particularly powerful race concepts like Dragon or Vampire.
> 
> Meanwhile, each class defaults its own subclass, like Evoker Wizard, so newbies and casual players dont need to deal with the many options.



I like many of your thoughts about level 0, and I would still not want to be locked into a subclass from level 1. Maybe I was thinking Scout, but as it turns out when I play this tiefling rogue she wants to be a Swashbuckler.

I'd even be willing to make an argument for a sub-class fork at each tier


----------



## tetrasodium

Bill Zebub said:


> Look, if the goal is to both give new players a slower on-ramp and give more experienced a quicker path to their fully realized character, which group should be asked to do something other than start at level one? Either way it’s the same thing, with different labels attached to the levels. So who gets the irregular labels? Do we ask beginning players to understand these funny levels that don’t fit the pattern of 1, 2, 3, etc.? Or do we ask veterans, who understand what they are doing, to skip ahead to 3?



Back in the day the GM had some tools that came with "_start at 3_" & "_start at 5_" in that they allowed that phrase to continue with "but xyz" like but "use this pointbuy"  "multiclassing is restricted like so" & similar. Those were all good things for the health of a campaign since there wasroom to negotiate with tradeoffs for each side of the discussion.  That give & take allowed a more amicable discussion where everyone came away with things they wanted.


----------



## Clint_L

Vaalingrade said:


> For newbie care, yes. D&D players are kind of like Rick and Morty fans in thinking that their hobby requires way more intellect than they actually do. The idea that newbies are too dumb to operate Rage and thus can't possibly be able to grock a subclass is a toxic and false idea that's already proven false by the fact that you typically get to level 3 in two sessions.



As previously posted, I am a teacher, and I run the D&D Club at my school, as well as D&D camp in the summer. I've run D&D pro-D sessions for other teachers who wanted to know what the game is all about.

You don't know what you are talking about, and your argument is almost entirely a straw man.

Nobody has claimed that D&D requires exceptional intellect. No one has claimed that new players can't grasp the rage mechanic. So calling ideas "toxic" that _literally no one has put forward in this discussion_ is just a means of substituting ad hominem attack for actual argument. It is, in fact, toxic. If you want to actually argue, see if you can do so against actual positions that people hold, rather than ones you are making up.

Incidentally, my campaigns typically get to Level 3 in 3-4 sessions.

D&D is an extremely complicated game. You may have noted, for example, that there are many rulebooks together totalling hundreds, nay thousands of pages of text. But to a truly new player, even concepts that seem obvious to us veterans are not. None of them individually are particularly hard. But in aggregate, they are a lot. When I want to teach the basic concept of an RPG to a large group, I don't use D&D at all. I use _Dread_, because everyone already understands Jenga.

There are a great many new players who are interested in D&D, try it, and decide it's not for them. For some, it's just the entire nature of the game. Maybe roleplaying makes them uncomfortable. But there are some who have point blank told me that the amount of rules and new concepts just seemed overwhelming.

People learn at different paces and in different styles. But any experienced teacher will tell you that it is good teaching to scaffold learning so that students can develop incremental mastery by building on what they learn in logical steps.

My actual arguments against doing sub-classes at level 1 are straightforward:
1. It adds further complication to an already complicated task - not only does a new player have to understand the basic concepts of D&D (weird dice! hit points! saving throws! armour class! etc.), PLUS the basic differences between 12 different classes, they then have to further understand those classes enough to make an informed choice between many different sub-classes for each, all before even playing the game.

2. Many veteran players, such as me, don't _want_ to be forced into a sub-class right away. We see character creation as an ongoing process rather than something that is complete before the first game, and enjoy seeing how the journey unfolds. Learning what choice feels best for a new character is a fun part of early levelling.


----------



## Yaarel

Horwath said:


> I'm all for that.
> 
> That is why we only played one campaign in 5E from 1st level. The 1st one in 2014 as we wanted to learn the game from the start.
> 
> but level one is so boooring, with characters that have very few options to use.



I agree, many experienced players want to start off with a substantial character at level 1. Compare 4e with suite of solid hit points, comprehensive concept, plus featlike Background, and various feature swaps.

The solution is using "level 0" to unpack the frontloading into an incremental advancement across several "level zero" levels. By calling them all "zero" and naming each zero level by its D&D mechanic, Abilities, Saves, Skills, Combat, and Feat, invites the experienced players to start with the amount of features that they prefer. The level 0 is literally the "zero to hero" style of character development.



Horwath said:


> all classes could have their 1st and 2nd level features be molded into 1st level.
> just so characters have more things to do.



Yeah. The 1DD Ranger is an example of a very substantial level 1 character. If the model for the Ranger and the Rogue extends to Bard and other classes, all level 1 characters will be substantial.



fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Because it would make the 3e-style multiclassing even more front-loaded. There's easy fixes to that, but then it wouldn't be like 3e.
> 
> Similarly, 4e had lv1 characters with 20hp and with actual options, so we cannot have that ever again, because then it would be like 4e.



The 1DD Ranger feels like 5e. Yet it is feels substantial like 4e. This set up might have threaded the needle between the two preferences?

With level 1 being substantial, I would normally start at level 1. But occasionally, I would start characters during level zero for "zero to hero". In the Character Advancement Schedule above, using the 1DD Ranger as the model, level zero comprises four levels for the Background development and four additional levels for frontloading the Class features. Plus the level of Abilities and the level 1, a level 1 character comprises a remarkable ten feats at character creation. Each level is worth about a feat of design space.

When multiclassing, it seems possible to start at a level 0 of the secondary class. Thus the narrative feel more like training, and the mechanics add on more smoothly, while dips for a level 1 feature an additional level away.



Bill Zebub said:


> Look, if the goal is to both give new players a slower on-ramp and give more experienced a quicker path to their fully realized character, which group should be asked to do something other than start at level one? Either way it’s the same thing, with different labels attached to the levels. So who gets the irregular labels? Do we ask beginning players to understand these funny levels that don’t fit the pattern of 1, 2, 3, etc.? Or do we ask veterans, who understand what they are doing, to skip ahead to 3?



A game is for its gameplayers. Teaching a game is a separate consideration. The "normal" level 1, needs to be whatever the experienced players feel should be normal. Albeit a roleplaying game does well to accommodate different playstyles as much as possible.

I feel strongly, the subclass is the essential aspect of a character concept, and must be actualizable at level 1. Level 1 must allow for a comprehensive character concept, even when looking forward to further advancing this concept at higher levels.

The solution is to unpack the zero levels, for use by players who prefer undeveloped character concepts.



clearstream said:


> I like many of your thoughts about level 0, and I would still not want to be locked into a subclass from level 1. Maybe I was thinking Scout, but as it turns out when I play this tiefling rogue she wants to be a Swashbuckler.
> 
> I'd even be willing to make an argument for a sub-class fork at each tier



It seems to me, the Rogue character can pick Scout for the subclass during level 0, then decide to switch to Swashbuckler at level 2 or 6.

Multi-classing can work, and multi-sub-classing can work too.



tetrasodium said:


> Back in the day the GM had some tools that came with "_start at 3_" & "_start at 5_" in that they allowed that phrase to continue with "but xyz" like but "use this pointbuy"  "multiclassing is restricted like so" & similar. Those were all good things for the health of a campaign since there wasroom to negotiate with tradeoffs for each side of the discussion.  That give & take allowed a more amicable discussion where everyone came away with things they wanted.



These kinds of recommendations sound useful for deciding where to begin during level 0.



Clint_L said:


> My actual arguments against doing sub-classes at level 1 are straightforward:
> 1. It adds further complication to an already complicated task - not only does a new player have to understand the basic concepts of D&D (weird dice! hit points! saving throws! armour class! etc.), PLUS the basic differences between 12 different classes, they then have to further understand those classes enough to make an informed choice between many different sub-classes for each, all before even playing the game.



When dealing with players that are grocking the concept of a roleplaying game, it is, by far, more helpful to start at level 0, specifically at the beginning of the five levels of the Background, before taking any features from the class or subclass levels.



Clint_L said:


> 2. Many veteran players, such as me, don't _want_ to be forced into a sub-class right away. We see character creation as an ongoing process rather than something that is complete before the first game, and enjoy seeing how the journey unfolds. Learning what choice feels best for a new character is a fun part of early levelling.



Many veteran players might prefer to go with the default subclass at level 0, then multisubclass to a different subclass at a later level.


----------



## Composer99

So, as a preliminary remark, this topic is, I expect, going to be never more than hypothetical. WotC is not going to fundamentally change class design so that all classes will have subclasses come online at 1st level.

With that stated, I'm of the mind that a 1st-level D&D character ought to be _complete_. Period, end of story. Gaining levels is great, and all good fun, and is part of the game, but in principle, IMO you should be able to take a 1st-level character and play that character without gaining levels at all - maybe just picking up hit points, feats, and cool gear instead.

(Note that if you allow for the scaling of class features that you get at 1st level - such as spellcasting - this amounts to allowing a recreation of an old-school gameplay style.)

If the game's core design aesthetic includes subclasses - that is, if being a _complete_ character means having a subclass - then subclasses ought to be available at 1st level for any character.


With respect to one's concept for a character being incomplete, or changing over time, it would be better to my mind to be able to change subclass than to punt subclasses down the road. (A game with more granularity, à la PF2, could see mixing and matching of subclass features instead, but I think that's out of line with the 5e design aesthetic, which 1D&D still clearly aims to fall within.)

As far as teaching new players goes, I think it is better to have a _progressive method for introducing gameplay_ - rather like an instructional book for learning an instrument - that starts with the basics of the game before getting into character creation, and, if someone wants to jump into character creation straight away, _specialised introductory classes_ for newer players that reinforce those methods. (Not entirely coincidentally, these specialised classes could in theory also fulfill the gameplay preferences of folks who want an intentionally simpler gameplay experience with respect to character mechanics.)

I can't say that I care for an extended level-zero progression - if we're looking to specifically cater to a zero-to-hero gameplay preference, I think it would be better to either have a distinct variant rule or use the aforementioned introductory classes with an eventual conversion to a 1st-level character in a core class.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Clint_L said:


> As previously posted, I am a teacher, and I run the D&D Club at my school, as well as D&D camp in the summer. I've run D&D pro-D sessions for other teachers who wanted to know what the game is all about.



Good for you even if it's in no way relevant?


Clint_L said:


> You don't know what you are talking about, and your argument is almost entirely a straw man.



Not a philosophy teacher though, trying to appeal to a fallacy right after an ad hominem (on top of earlier little jabs I ignored)


Clint_L said:


> Nobody has claimed that D&D requires exceptional intellect. No one has claimed that new players can't grasp the rage mechanic.



Not on this thread, but I wouldn't say it if I hadn't heard it.


Clint_L said:


> So calling ideas "toxic" that _literally no one has put forward in this discussion_ is just a means of substituting ad hominem attack for actual argument.



"You don't know what you're talking about" ~ the pot calling the copper kettle black a couple of sentences ago.


Clint_L said:


> D&D is an extremely complicated game. You may have noted, for example, that there are many rulebooks together totalling hundreds, nay thousands of pages of text. But to a truly new player, even concepts that seem obvious to us veterans are not. None of them individually are particularly hard. But in aggregate, they are a lot. When I want to teach the basic concept of an RPG to a large group, I don't use D&D at all. I use _Dread_, because everyone already understands Jenga.



Chess is an extremely complicated game. An yet we manage not to gate knights behind an experience wall.

And if you don't even use D&D to teach RPGs, why put roadblocks in the game to make it 'easier' to teach?



Clint_L said:


> There are a great many new players who are interested in D&D, try it, and decide it's not for them. For some, it's just the entire nature of the game. Maybe roleplaying makes them uncomfortable. But there are some who have point blank told me that the amount of rules and new concepts just seemed overwhelming.



1) I'm sure plenty of people say the same for chess. Just because something isn't for everyone doesn't mean you make it not for other people to accommodate.

2) Do you think the very simple addition of a subclass ability is the issue and not the subsystems/subconcepts we drop into for skills and species and _magic_. You can get spells straight up at 1st level; each one a little packet of all new rules, but no one's trying to screw people out of that at level 1.



Clint_L said:


> People learn at different paces and in different styles. But any experienced teacher will tell you that it is good teaching to scaffold learning so that students can develop incremental mastery by building on what they learn in logical steps.



But just on this one part of the whole because (wait for it)


Clint_L said:


> My actual arguments against doing sub-classes at level 1 are straightforward:
> 1. It adds further complication to an already complicated task - not only does a new player have to understand the basic concepts of D&D (weird dice! hit points! saving throws! armour class! etc.), PLUS the basic differences between 12 different classes, they then have to further understand those classes enough to make an informed choice between many different sub-classes for each, all before even playing the game.



But magic is okay, fighting styles are okay, bardic inspiration is okay, the ranger's woefully ineffectual front-loading is okay, expertise and sneak attack are okay.

No, it's just this one grain of sand that breaks the whole thing.

Except...


Clint_L said:


> 2. Many veteran players, such as me, don't _want_ to be forced into a sub-class right away. We see character creation as an ongoing process rather than something that is complete before the first game, and enjoy seeing how the journey unfolds. Learning what choice feels best for a new character is a fun part of early levelling.



Boom.

Told you to wait for it and here it is.

It's about enforcing a playstyle. It's about starting at level zero with as few powers as possible and making sure that's the default. Making people 'earn' their character like in the good old days.

It's nothing that would be effectively changed by them actually printing level 0 rules that would actually fulfil those asperations in a way that would actually satisfy that desire... except then it wouldn't be the default; people starting with their character concept in full wouldn't be made the outliers who are going outside the rules and the norms.

Newbie friendliness to me is just a stalking horse.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Vaalingrade said:


> Chess is an extremely complicated game. An yet we manage not to gate knights behind an experience wall.




_Actually_.... (because it has to start that way)

1. The rules of chess are almost trivial compared to D&D.  Sure, those simple rules lead to incredible complex behavior, but the rules are simple.

2. And even so, in all the introductory chess books I've seen, first all the moves of a single piece are taught, with some problems to solve with just that piece and a couple other pieces on the board.  Then another piece is introduced, with some problems to solve using just the first two pieces and a small handful of other pieces, etc.  Eventually the knight is learned;  basically gating it behind an experience wall.  Probably a bigger wall (in terms of hours invested) than it typically takes to reach 3rd level in D&D.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Vaalingrade said:


> Except...
> 
> Boom.
> 
> Told you to wait for it and here it is.
> 
> It's about enforcing a playstyle. It's about starting at level zero with as few powers as possible and making sure that's the default. Making people 'earn' their character like in the good old days.




No, that's a false characterization.

First, that's his 2nd point.  By ignoring their first point, and saying it's really all about his second point, the implication...voiced or not...is that they are lying.

Second, you are distorting what they wrote.  They are expressing their own desire for how they like to play, and yet you add it "enforcing a play style" and "making sure that's the default" and this garbage about "making people earn their character like in the good old days."

While none of those accusations are incompatible with the poster's argument, neither are they necessary.  It's possible to have a preferred playstyle without trying to enforce it on others.  It's possible to want your playstyle to be accommodated without "insisting" on anything.  It's possible to...no, that last bit, about "earning" something, you just totally made that up.  There's nothing in their post to give any hint of "earning" anything.

So basically you completely twisted their argument into something...something unpleasant and distasteful...that it wasn't.


----------



## Yaarel

Composer99 said:


> If we're looking to specifically cater to a zero-to-hero gameplay preference, I think it would be better to ... use the aforementioned introductory classes with an eventual conversion to a 1st-level character in a core class.



Yeah, the levels of "level 0", and the "introductory" "onramp", are the same thing.

While the level-0 levels are useful for teaching D&D mechanics step-by-step to beginners, they are also useful to experienced players as specific decision points to flesh out the background biography and help immerse in the campaign setting. Plus they allow for a sense of "zero to hero".


----------



## Composer99

Yaarel said:


> Yeah, the levels of "level 0", and the "introductory" "onramp", are the same thing.
> 
> While the level-0 levels are useful for teaching D&D mechanics step-by-step to beginners, they are also useful to experienced players as specific decision points to flesh out the background biography and help immerse in the campaign setting. Plus they allow for a sense of "zero to hero".



So, my thinking is that "zero-to-hero" progression is fulfilling a particular gameplay preference, which could be a preference held by new or experienced players alike.

To my mind, that's not similar enough to the idea of progressively teachings someone how to play the game to merit bundling the two together. Certainly I wouldn't want to make an experienced player who wants to play "zero-to-hero" have to play an advancement track meant to facilitate learning how to play the game.

Making "introductory classes" that can work both as a teaching tool and a facilitator of a gameplay preference seems more possible, but it may be difficult enough to not be worth it? I don't have as firm a view with respect to this notion.


----------



## Yaarel

Composer99 said:


> So, my thinking is that "zero-to-hero" progression is fulfilling a particular gameplay preference, which could be a preference held by new or experienced players alike.
> 
> To my mind, that's not similar enough to the idea of progressively teachings someone how to play the game to merit bundling the two together. Certainly I wouldn't want to make an experienced player who wants to play "zero-to-hero" have to play an advancement track meant to facilitate learning how to play the game.
> 
> Making "introductory classes" that can work both as a teaching tool and a facilitator of a gameplay preference seems more possible, but it may be difficult enough to not be worth it? I don't have as firm a view with respect to this notion.



I view the Background itself (including Abilities, Saves, Skillset, Simple Combat, and finally Feat) as the "introductory class".

An introductory onramp would be a separate text that refers to the Background levels while explaining what a roleplaying game is.

But experienced players would zoom thru the Background levels as memorable decision points in the biography of the character. When did the character notice being unusually strong? Who are the family members? What events lead to the Background training? Who are the main influencences for gaining these skills? Who does the character keep in contact with now? And so on.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Here's what I don't get.  If we have two "warm up" levels, what does it matter what they are called?

Background/Group/1,2,3,4...
-1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5....
0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5....
1, 2, 3, 4, 5....

Assuming that in each of those sequences, the third "level" is the one where you have both class and subclass, and everybody clamoring for "subclass at 1st level" is going to pick that starting point, why is it so important that 3rd level is called "1st level" and 1st and 2nd level be called something else?


----------



## Yaarel

Bill Zebub said:


> Here's what I don't get.  If we have two "warm up" levels, what does it matter what they are called?
> 
> Background/Group/1,2,3,4...
> -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5....
> 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5....
> 1, 2, 3, 4, 5....
> 
> Assuming that in each of those sequences, the third "level" is the one where you have both class and subclass, and everybody clamoring for "subclass at 1st level" is going to pick that starting point, why is it so important that 3rd level is called "1st level" and 1st and 2nd level be called something else?



It is more like tiers, each with four levels:

• Background
• Formative Character Concept
• Complete Character Concept

Level 1 refers to a complete character concept, especially the subclass concept, which is often radically different from other subclass concepts.

For example, the Divine Sorcerer uses the Cleric spell list. The subclass is the essence of the character concept, not a later development during the career of the Sorcerer.

The subclass is a level 1 decision point − even a level 0 decision point.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Yaarel said:


> It is more like tiers, each with four levels:
> 
> • Background
> • Formative Character Concept
> • Complete Character Concept
> 
> Level 1 refers to a complete character concept, especially the subclass concept, which is often radically different from other subclass concepts.
> 
> For example, the Divine Sorcerer uses the Cleric spell list. The subclass is the essence of the character concept, not a later development during the career of the Sorcerer.
> 
> The subclass is a level 1 decision point − even a level 0 decision point.




You are stating something as fact..."The subclass is a level 1 decision point"...which is clearly _not_ a fact, since for most classes it doesn't happen at level 1.

Are you trying to say something else?  Such as, "I _think it should be_ a level 1 decision point."  Or even, "It's a decision that takes place at a point in a character arc that I think should carry the label 'level 1'."

But, even then...why?  If there are multiple stages in character development, and we give those stages names and numbers, why is it important for that particular stage...the one where subclass is chosen...be called "Level 1".  

Furthermore, since it's not even the first stage in defining a character...even you acknowledge that...isn't it a little bit weird to give it the number 1?  

I totally get that you are super keen on equating "Subclass" with "Level 1".  But I honestly don't understand why.


----------



## Einlanzer0

I don't really have strong feelings about this one way or another, but one thing I do think is important is that subclasses should all use the "archetype" convention. I do not like the way that some classes use thematically broad subclasses while others are needlessly narrow.

Why, for example, are all sorcerers tied specifically to some kind of bloodline, instead of broadening their theme by allowing other concepts like supernatural powers born from initiation rites? Likewise, why is the entire bard class hogtied to the concept of a formally educated urban performer? Where is my nordic skald who functions more like a war-shaman than like a stereotypical lute-playing bard? This diversity of concepts is present for some of the base classes while being curiously missing for others.


----------

