Sub class features at the same level in 5.5e or 6e?

[Diovid]

So the strixhaven UA got me thinking. In the next edition of dnd would you like it if all classes got their subclass features at the same level? (level 1 maybe?)

This would allow for things like champion and rune knight being a subclass for fighters, barbarians and monks. Or a swashbuckler that is a subclass of both fighters and rogues. Or warlocks and sorcerers both having the same celestial subclass (but fluffed differently). This would also mean a book with a few subclasses open up a lot of new character options (since a separate celestial warlock and a celestial sorcerer do not have to be introduced).

Of course there could still be subclasses unique to classes in addition to these, especially for subclasses that interact with the main class's features.

Or would such a system limit how interesting those multi-class subclasses could be since they have to be designed with multiple classes in mind?

[Luccan]

I said this in the UA thread, but right now I'm not fond of crossing over subclasses. And if you take a look at the way they currently work, it wouldn't even make sense in many cases. Literally nothing barbarians get would work for other classes because it relies so much on the rage feature. So does rage become a generic ability you can pick up and we drop the barbarian? Do we maintain some class exclusive subclasses and if so, what happens to the barbarian that takes a non rage-improving subclass or the monk that doesn't get new uses for Ki? We could make subclasses completely generic so they don't effect too many existing class features, but that seems dull and could produce cases of "X class is better for Y subclass" anyway.

It seems to me that subclasses as conceived in 5e serve to differentiate between members of the same class and I think keeping it that way is for the best. The Strixhaven experiment will, hopefully, stick to MTG settings.

[Amnestic]

or the monk that doesn't get new uses for Ki?

They get to burn it all on stunning strike! Just like they were doing before :D

I think having some crossover subclasses works. I've given druids access to the beastmaster subclass for instance, because they had an animal companion option in 3.5 and in BM's case it's a fairly effortless port. I do think that crossovers should be a minority though, since usually subclasses that interact with mechanics of the main class are more interesting to me than ones that don't.

[MoiMagnus]

(level 1 maybe?)

Mechanically, I think level 1 is a pretty bad choice.

One good thing about 5e is that the first few levels are simple, meaning that you get "tutorial levels" for new players, with some important choices being delayed to (roughly) level 3, making level 3 a reasonable starting level for experienced players.

Following that idea, I'm quite fine with all subclasses starting at level 3.

[Additionally, level 1 subclasses usually means that classes are very front-loaded, which tend to skew multiclassing.]

However, thematically, subclasses at level 3 can lead to some issues.
+ If warlock's subclass is their Patron, how come they decide only at level 3 from who they get their power? That means Warlock has to be rebuild so that their subclass is their pact (blade/tome/...), while their Patron is a regular level 1 class feature.
+ Same for cleric, their subclass cannot be too strongly linked to the god they worship. [Well, technically, WotC could go with "before level 3, you worship a pantheon, and you select a god at level 3", but I find this kind of weird]
=> In general, it would force the designers to put more though on what are the subclasses, so that they still make narrative sense without requiring too much retconning.



In the next edition of dnd would you like it if all classes got their subclass features at the same level?


I think this is uniformity for the sake of uniformity. I don't see how the game would significantly benefits from it (it's not like it's simpler for players). And I can see how it can make class design more difficult, forcing the designers to sometimes sacrifice gameplay in favour of respecting this rule.

There is one situation where I'd agree this might be a reasonable idea, it is if they get rid of multiclassing, and instead fully replace it by subclasses. [The wizard class come with a "half-wizard" subclass, that anybody else can take to simulate a wizard-multiclassing, etc]
In which case having homogeneous subclasses across all classes can really help balancing. But I'm still not convince that would be better for the game.

[Man_Over_Game]

So the strixhaven UA got me thinking. In the next edition of dnd would you like it if all classes got their subclass features at the same level? (level 1 maybe?)

This would allow for things like champion and rune knight being a subclass for fighters, barbarians and monks. Or a swashbuckler that is a subclass of both fighters and rogues. Or warlocks and sorcerers both having the same celestial subclass (but fluffed differently). This would also mean a book with a few subclasses open up a lot of new character options (since a separate celestial warlock and a celestial sorcerer do not have to be introduced).

Of course there could still be subclasses unique to classes in addition to these, especially for subclasses that interact with the main class's features.

Or would such a system limit how interesting those multi-class subclasses could be since they have to be designed with multiple classes in mind?

Personally, I've always liked the idea of "buying" your abilities with levels you've earned, with some abilities requiring levels from different core classes.

For instance, the Paladin powers require some Fighter and some Divine Magic.

And then you get passive abilities that you just earn by having those levels in the first place (like level 1 Divine Magic spells for just investing into Divine Magic).

Probably wouldn't feel like DnD, though, even if you could make all the same classes with it.

--------------------------------------------------

A more realistic solution would probably be to have subclasses be less "weird", and instead have bonuses to multiclass combinations that grant you features based on the lowest level class within that multiclass.

For instance, being a Fighter 4/Rogue 2 would consider you a Swashbuckler 2, and passively grant the features that'd come with that. Tack on 1 level of Barbarian, and now you're also a level 1 Champion (Fighter/Barbarian) and a level 1 Thug (Barbarian/Rogue).

The trick, I think, is to make the more interesting powers come from multiclassing, and the more generic power growths come from maxing out the classes you have. That way, the game gets more interesting for those who want complexity, and the game gets easier for those who don't.

It separates creativity from power, so you don't end up with a plethora of Paladin/Sorcerer hybrids that are built solely for the mechanical benefit with virtually zero, or the same, backstories. Or, similarly, folks picking something like the current Champion, thinking that it's statistically better because of its simplicity and ending up wrong.

It has a unique benefit of controlling how multiclassing power curves work together, since you can make the classes not interact inherently without those multiclassing bonuses. So a Rogue can't get a Sneak Attack with a Barbarian's Mighty Blow...unless the Thug features state otherwise. THeir current solution was to ignore multiclassing and cross their fingers (which is why it feels very clunky when you're not multiclassing martials together most of the time).

Lastly, it allows people to develop depth as they are comfortable with it. As-is, the Fighter plays the same from levels 1-20, which seems really stupid when you consider how much time that takes, and multiclassing a couple levels at the endgame isn't going to give you any notable kind of update to your Fighter gameplay in case your subclass isn't giving you anything extra. For instance, a player who chooses the Champion because they're afraid of being overwhelmed, and ends up getting the hang of the game by level 5, is now entirely bored for the latter 15 levels of their experience unless they work with their DM to change their character. Instead of relying on DM fiat for the player to have fun in the way they want, just...give the player the opportunity to do it themselves.

------------------------------

I'm not entirely sure if they'll even have subclasses in a future edition. It's a fairly new mechanic, and they've had a habit of completely changing editions and only keeping the sacred cows for each one and picking off individual stuff they liked about previous editions. Subclasses are cool and all, but it's always seemed odd that you can't be two different "Types" of Fighter, yet you can multiclass into both Ranger and Barbarian as a Fighter without issue.

My guess is, they'll scrap the rigidity of the subclass mechanics and replace it with something more fluid that has the same end results.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

I think it's a good idea to have some crossover capability. Like being able to use Champion on a Barbarian, or Gloomstalker on a Rogue, type of crossover. But not every subclass would be suitable for a crossover.

[Intregus182]

I wanted every class to have the same amount of subclass features coming online at the same levels since the playtest. I think it allows for better game design.

For example i want to play a vampire....great! Heres the vampire subclass. You get these abilities at x level. A wizard vampire will feel different than a fighhter vampire so on and so forth


I think it's a good idea to have some crossover capability. Like being able to use Champion on a Barbarian, or Gloomstalker on a Rogue, type of crossover. But not every subclass would be suitable for a crossover.

I agree with this. Some subclasses should be tages with "universal" or something and then you can still have class specific subclasses.



Of course i don't think wotc can or should do this in 5e. It's too late for that.

If the core classes are designed from the ground up with this subclass system in mind then i think it'd work beautifully. As for which level these should come online at I'd say level 1, 2, or 3. 2 probably fits the best IMO.

[Ettina]

However, thematically, subclasses at level 3 can lead to some issues.
+ If warlock's subclass is their Patron, how come they decide only at level 3 from who they get their power? That means Warlock has to be rebuild so that their subclass is their pact (blade/tome/...), while their Patron is a regular level 1 class feature.
+ Same for cleric, their subclass cannot be too strongly linked to the god they worship. [Well, technically, WotC could go with "before level 3, you worship a pantheon, and you select a god at level 3", but I find this kind of weird]
=> In general, it would force the designers to put more though on what are the subclasses, so that they still make narrative sense without requiring too much retconning.

Paladins already have this issue, and the way I've run it (when we aren't just starting at lvl 3, which we usually do, or when someone multiclasses as paladin) is that you swear your oath at level 1, but for level 1 & 2, the mechanical benefits of all paladin oaths are the same. So one character is a lvl 1 devotion paladin, sworn to honesty, courage, compassion, honor and duty; the other is a lvl 1 crown paladin who's sworn to uphold the principles of law, loyalty, courage and responsibility. Just because they have the same abilities doesn't mean they have the same oath, and if they uphold that oath long enough, they'll continue gaining power, eventually taking the two down different paths. I would expect the PC to choose their oath at lvl 1, and only allow retconning or changing subclass under the same circumstances I would for a PC whose subclass is making a mechanical difference already.

I tend to be a permissive DM with retcons, but if it totally changes the character or their place in the world, I'll probably encourage them to switch characters or at least insist on strong story support for the change. For example, a paladin whose actions have focused mostly on courageously upholding a duty to a lord who expects them to show compassion to the people would probably be allowed to retcon whether they're devotion or crown, because that's not a huge change to their character. But if they're switching between vengeance and redemption, that'll need story backing.

I actually do like the idea of a cleric initially focusing on a pantheon and then narrowing down to a god, though. That seems like a really fun way to play it, to the point where now I want to set that up as a thing. Even with lvl 1 cleric subclass choice, you could maybe be a generic worshipper of nature who narrows down into a worshipper of this particular nature god over time. And my homebrew world already has loose groupings of gods according to domains...

[KorvinStarmast]

I wanted every class to have the same amount of subclass features coming online at the same levels since the playtest. I think it allows for better game design.
I agree. This is one of those things intended, I think, to make the game 'easier for beginners' but structurally I don't care for it.

Clerics and Sorcerers sub class comes line at level 1
Druids, Wizards sub class comes line at level 2
Monks, Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins, Rangers, Rogues, Bards, Warlocks sub class comes on line at level 3

I get how narratively the cleric needs to be on line at 1 (but then, why not the druid also?) and I guess also for sorcerous origin.

But it's clunky as hell.

Bring everyone on line at level 2 or 3 with the sub class feature.
(@MoiMagus: yeah, 3's a fine level for that).

[ZRN]

So the strixhaven UA got me thinking. In the next edition of dnd would you like it if all classes got their subclass features at the same level?

I don't care about which levels the features come at per se, but I definitely don't think subclasses should be cross-class. A good subclass should interact with what makes each class distinct, which is why most barbarian subclasses improve Rage, most rogue subclasses alter Sneak Attack and/or Cunning Action, etc. If anything, in a new edition I hope they'd lean hard into making the base classes more mechanically distinct so that it would make even less sense to do this.

I know that the lore justifications for the subclasses are mostly ignored, but I like the idea that each paladin swears a specific Oath with its own code of conduct, and that every monk trains in a particular Order. Mechanics should encourage players to embrace and play with archetypes, not just mix and match.

[rlc]

subclasses should get the same number of features at the same levels.
i don't care if they do cross-class subclasses. i like the idea of it, but i'm not sure i'd bother playing one.

[OACSNY97]

I agree. This is one of those things intended, I think, to make the game 'easier for beginners' but structurally I don't care for it.

Clerics and Sorcerers sub class comes line at level 1
Druids, Wizards sub class comes line at level 2
Monks, Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins, Rangers, Rogues, Bards, Warlocks sub class comes on line at level 3

I get how narratively the cleric needs to be on line at 1 (but then, why not the druid also?) and I guess also for sorcerous origin.

But it's clunky as hell.

Bring everyone on line at level 2 or 3 with the sub class feature.
(@MoiMagus: yeah, 3's a fine level for that).

I've been having an ongoing discussion with one of my IRL gaming friends about when subclasses should come online. We're both in agreement that it would be better if all classes get their subclass at the same time, but we disagree as to when.

I'm of the camp that first level should the the explicit tutorial level and be as simple as possible and experienced groups should probably start at a higher level. I don't mind the character building mini-game, but would rather not have to spend too long sifting through alternatives when I don't necessarily know what I want and/or what works, so I like a somewhat simplified character building with complexity coming later.

My friend is of the opinion that a player should be able to play the basics of the desired character from first level and how a character functions/plays within its base class should not radically change when subclass comes online. As such, he wants subclasses to be chosen at first level as they include many defining class features, saying that it isn't fun to have to work through some period of time when your character doesn't do its basic functionality. Monk and Ki are frequently mentioned examples.

Since neither of us can really convince the other, nor come up with new points in the argument, I'm wondering what other posters think, especially since KorvinStarmast and MoiMagus both think that level three is a good time for subclasses.

[Composer99]

Personally, IMO the subclass across all classes should come online at 1st level. For paladins, the swearing of the sacred oath seems thematically the point where they become paladins - IMO, at any rate. Beastmaster rangers seem more sensible when their beloved animal companions are available right off the bat.

If you want to have "tutorial" levels, there are subclasses like the champion. For most spellcasters, the subclass doesn't add as much complexity as spellcasting does.

[Hytheter]

Full agree that subclass features should all be at level 1. Delay the other features if you have to, but subclasses are too character-defining to neglect. They change the class's flavour and even the playstyle, to the extent that people say certain subclass concepts are unviable (e.g. 'you couldn't do an unarmed barbarian sub because he has to fight with weapons for two levels").

As for synchronising the progression across classes, I don't see why not. It certainly presents better, and as you say enables subclasses shared by multiple classes. These won't always be appropriate - as aforementioned, a lot of subs key into the main class's features. But not all do, and not all would have to. A mix of locked-class and multiple-class subclasses sounds like a lot of fun to me.

[Kane0]

So the strixhaven UA got me thinking. In the next edition of dnd would you like it if all classes got their subclass features at the same level? (level 1 maybe?)

Of course there could still be subclasses unique to classes in addition to these, especially for subclasses that interact with the main class's features.

Or would such a system limit how interesting those multi-class subclasses could be since they have to be designed with multiple classes in mind?


I'd appreciate the standardization if it was. I feel like levels 1, 6, 10, 14 and 18 are a good spread.

Yes a mixture of class-specific and class-agnostic subclasses would be best I think.

MCs could be interesting, if you set them up to always be at a regular interval like 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15 then if you MC between two classes sharing the subclass you can progress at the same rate as far as the subclass is concerned.
If you don't set them up at regular intervals you probably wouldn't be able to do that but you could still pick a different subclass (even another generic one) when MCing, or perhaps build in a use for your ASI/Feats that allows you to progress a subclass you're already in (and have the collective levels for).

[ZZTRaider]

Subclasses should absolutely come online at level 1.

If my character concept is an assassin, I want to feel like an assassin from the beginning, not wait until level 3. I also agree with Composer99, Paladin oath is definitely a great example. It feels really weird to know exactly what oath my character will be taking and why that makes sense for them, but they go off adventuring for a while before they actually take the oath. Taking the oath also feels like something that should have some pomp and circumstance in a lot of settings. It's fine if that happens as backstory, but it's weird to forgo it and just take your oath in the middle of nowhere because that's where you happened to be when you hit level 3.

Just starting at level 3 so everyone has their subclasses works, but has always felt unsatisfying to me. Why do we have to skip so much of Tier 1 play just to have our basic character concepts at the start of the campaign? 5e is way better than 3.5/PF, where concepts often don't come online until level 7 or higher, but it could still better.

[KorvinStarmast]

Monk and Ki are frequently mentioned examples.

Since neither of us can really convince the other, nor come up with new points in the argument, I'm wondering what other posters think, especially since KorvinStarmast and MoiMagus both think that level three is a good time for subclasses. I would suggest starting the game at level three with experienced players. The first two levels are, by the way this game is structured, almost tutorial in nature.

Once the players have gone up in level a bit they really don't need the tutorial phase.

Start at level 3. (My nephew did this, thank goodness, and I really enjoyed having my Archfey Chainlock's features already on line as we opened the game by landing on a distant shore ...)

[MoiMagnus]

Admittedly, I would also be fine with adding "level -1" and "level 0" for tutorial purposes, and having all the subclasses starting at level 1 (which would be the default starting points for experienced players), but I've heard that peoples tend to dislike negative numbers.


Why do we have to skip so much of Tier 1 play just to have our basic character concepts at the start of the campaign?

I do concede that if "experienced players start at level 3" was to be taken as an official stance, Tier 1 would have to be extended (and the spike of power of level 5 delayed), as a lot of experienced players want to have a significant Tier 1.

My position is indeed influenced by the fact that my table tend to consider Tier 1 (and low level struggles) as a whole as only relevant for tutorial purposes.


and how a character functions/plays within its base class should not radically change when subclass comes online.

My "extreme" position is that characters should also get an additional "parangonic subclass when reaching the higher Tiers, significantly changing how the character functions/plays when unlocking them. So I'm also all for a significant gameplay change when the first subclass is unlocked.

[ZRN]

Subclasses should absolutely come online at level 1.

If my character concept is an assassin, I want to feel like an assassin from the beginning, not wait until level 3. I also agree with Composer99, Paladin oath is definitely a great example. It feels really weird to know exactly what oath my character will be taking and why that makes sense for them, but they go off adventuring for a while before they actually take the oath. Taking the oath also feels like something that should have some pomp and circumstance in a lot of settings. It's fine if that happens as backstory, but it's weird to forgo it and just take your oath in the middle of nowhere because that's where you happened to be when you hit level 3.

Just starting at level 3 so everyone has their subclasses works, but has always felt unsatisfying to me. Why do we have to skip so much of Tier 1 play just to have our basic character concepts at the start of the campaign? 5e is way better than 3.5/PF, where concepts often don't come online until level 7 or higher, but it could still better.

I know you mean this in earnest but your examples seem like arguments the other way to me.

"I want to be an assassin at level 1" - man, assassin used to be a prestige class! Which leads to one of the benefits of starting subclasses past level 1: they're something your character develops towards and doesn't get until he's somewhat powerful.

"Taking a paladin oath should be a big important character moment, so the best thing to do is push it back into the character backstory so the DM/circumstances don't mess it up" - sounds like throwing the baby out with the bathwater! Don't you WANT your character to grow and change and make choices as they level up?

The way subclasses are set up now honestly pushes some important character development distinctions. A sorcerer (character, not player) doesn't GET to choose his bloodline - that's locked in from the first level. Same with a cleric or warlock - the source of their power is a specific entity, and without that they can't even get to square one. But all wizards start out as guys who read spell books, and only a bit later on do they begin to specialize their studies. A level 1 wizard isn't an "illusionist" any more than a first-term college freshman is a "biologist" - they have to declare a major and do a lot of studying first. A rogue is a dexterous, clever guy, but once he's established himself a little he can hatch a "scheme" to gain real power - by training as an assassin, becoming a master thief, taking to the seas as a swashbuckler, etc. And paladin is actually the most interesting to me: he's a holy warrior, but the mechanics (CHA caster, gets subclass after spells) indicate that it's actually his zeal that powers him rather than a specific deity. His oath is how he locks himself to a path, and potentially to a deity or order. That has potentially huge RP implications!

[mythmonster2]

I know you mean this in earnest but your examples seem like arguments the other way to me.

"I want to be an assassin at level 1" - man, assassin used to be a prestige class! Which leads to one of the benefits of starting subclasses past level 1: they're something your character develops towards and doesn't get until he's somewhat powerful.

"Taking a paladin oath should be a big important character moment, so the best thing to do is push it back into the character backstory so the DM/circumstances don't mess it up" - sounds like throwing the baby out with the bathwater! Don't you WANT your character to grow and change and make choices as they level up?

The way subclasses are set up now honestly pushes some important character development distinctions. A sorcerer (character, not player) doesn't GET to choose his bloodline - that's locked in from the first level. Same with a cleric or warlock - the source of their power is a specific entity, and without that they can't even get to square one. But all wizards start out as guys who read spell books, and only a bit later on do they begin to specialize their studies. A level 1 wizard isn't an "illusionist" any more than a first-term college freshman is a "biologist" - they have to declare a major and do a lot of studying first. A rogue is a dexterous, clever guy, but once he's established himself a little he can hatch a "scheme" to gain real power - by training as an assassin, becoming a master thief, taking to the seas as a swashbuckler, etc. And paladin is actually the most interesting to me: he's a holy warrior, but the mechanics (CHA caster, gets subclass after spells) indicate that it's actually his zeal that powers him rather than a specific deity. His oath is how he locks himself to a path, and potentially to a deity or order. That has potentially huge RP implications!
In practice, I don't think I've ever seen anyone start their character without knowing what subclass they wanted to go into. Hell, most games I've played in outside of AL start at level 3 exactly because people want to get into their chosen subclass right out of the gate.

[OACSNY97]

Subclasses should absolutely come online at level 1.

If my character concept is an assassin, I want to feel like an assassin from the beginning, not wait until level 3. I also agree with Composer99, Paladin oath is definitely a great example. It feels really weird to know exactly what oath my character will be taking and why that makes sense for them, but they go off adventuring for a while before they actually take the oath. Taking the oath also feels like something that should have some pomp and circumstance in a lot of settings. It's fine if that happens as backstory, but it's weird to forgo it and just take your oath in the middle of nowhere because that's where you happened to be when you hit level 3.

Just starting at level 3 so everyone has their subclasses works, but has always felt unsatisfying to me. Why do we have to skip so much of Tier 1 play just to have our basic character concepts at the start of the campaign? 5e is way better than 3.5/PF, where concepts often don't come online until level 7 or higher, but it could still better.

These are the kinds of arguments in favor of subclasses at first level that my IRL friend puts forward. I struggle to refute them because yes the Paladin should know who or what s/he is dedicated to and, as someone else mentioned, the unarmed Barbarian should work from first level if it's going to be an possible character option.

And while acknowledging that these are good points, I am vaguely dissatisfied with just having subclasses start at first level. I think part of my dissatisfaction is based on the desire to make it easy to start with new players, but another part is that I suffer from choice paralysis when presented with too many big choices at once. At no other time in the game does a player have to make as many important choices for their character than when building for first level.

Since this thread is discussing a 5.5 or 6e, what would you delay to get subclass to fit in at first level without adding even more choices to bog down character creation?

[Intregus182]

These are the kinds of arguments in favor of subclasses at first level that my IRL friend puts forward. I struggle to refute them because yes the Paladin should know who or what s/he is dedicated to and, as someone else mentioned, the unarmed Barbarian should work from first level if it's going to be an possible character option.

And while acknowledging that these are good points, I am vaguely dissatisfied with just having subclasses start at first level. I think part of my dissatisfaction is based on the desire to make it easy to start with new players, but another part is that I suffer from choice paralysis when presented with too many big choices at once. At no other time in the game does a player have to make as many important choices for their character than when building for first level.

Since this thread is discussing a 5.5 or 6e, what would you delay to get subclass to fit in at first level without adding even more choices to bog down character creation?

Id say nothing since level 1 is already the level with the most choices that need to be made whats one more. Along with that in general id say the choice of subclass is usually chosen at level 1 anyway so i dont think it's too much.

At later levels i think itd be nice if you had multiple choices of features to take per your class or subclass. So if 3 people are playing an elsrotch knight instead of everyone getting the same feature at lets just say level 4 from their sub class maybe theres a couple different options.

That way there's still good choices to make goimg forward.

[Willie the Duck]

If every class got their sub-class benefits at the same time, it would (for the most part, in an edition designed around it) be relatively trivial both ways -- a little easier for newbies to conceptualize/get down the basics, with a little bit of design constraint (if you are making a base class that you think really really needs to have such and such a powerful ability right at Level 1, then having subclass abilities come online at 1 can hamper your design process, or something like that). The cross-compatibility issue is more of interest to me:


This would also mean a book with a few subclasses open up a lot of new character options (since a separate celestial warlock and a celestial sorcerer do not have to be introduced).
Of course there could still be subclasses unique to classes in addition to these, especially for subclasses that interact with the main class's features.
Or would such a system limit how interesting those multi-class subclasses could be since they have to be designed with multiple classes in mind?
This part of the OP highlights both the benefit and problems of such sharing. And it is not unlike the spell sharing that goes on in this edition (be that something like a Bard's Magical Secrets or Magic Initiate-like feats, or just something like Eldritch Knights getting wizard spells. It does allow for increased options for multiple classes just by adding one spell/archetype, but on the other hand it means multiple classes (or builds, since multiclassing seems to be very commonly allowed) will be affected by changes/additions in spells/archetypes. Think about the pitfalls the sharing system has had with spells: Eldritch Knights getting evocation spells entirely too late for them to be routinely impressive, bards getting flying mount summons before the paladins they copied the spell from, pseudo-class feature spells like SCAGtrips and Find Familiar being so readily grabbable with a feat, etc. Now, imagine those kind of subtle interaction issues multiplied across any number of classes (because such and such a widget that interacts favorably with such and such thingamajig can be combined with it in multiple different ways). I'm not saying that it can't be done, nor even that it couldn't be done well and relatively balanced, I'm just saying that I think it would increase the complexity of the challenge of keeping things relatively even. It would run the risk of creating a 3e-like level of clear and obvious winners and losers, something 5.0 is having trouble and growing pains not running into.

Regardless, for an actual 5.5 or 6e, I don't have a strong opinion on what to do, only that the risks of such an approach should be well understood, and that that version of the game should be designed from the ground up with whatever strategy they choose in mind.

[KorvinStarmast]

In practice, I don't think I've ever seen anyone start their character without knowing what subclass they wanted to go into. I've seen it a lot, particularly with people new to this edition and new to the game. Guess it depends on who you play with. heck, as long as I've been around, I had a hard time making up my mind between Lore Bard, Glamour Bard, and Creation Bard recently ... at level 3 ... I finally went with Lore. Paralysis by Analysis is a thing. :smallcool:

At later levels i think itd be nice if you had multiple choices of features to take per your class or subclass.
Ranger (Hunter) does this.
Hunters Prey (pick one of three) Defensive Tactics, (pick one of three) Multiattack (volley or horde breaker) Superior Hunter's Defense (pick one of three).

Regardless, for an actual 5.5 or 6e, I don't have a strong opinion on what to do, only that the risks of such an approach should be well understood, and that that version of the game should be designed from the ground up with whatever strategy they choose in mind. Yeah, from the ground up.

[Telwar]

This would be much easier if they did have subclass features come in at the same time. That being said, I can see why, say, sorcerer gets theirs at first level, though also that could be presented in a way that you only find out more about your bloodline at 2nd or 3rd level.

And I don't necessarily mind having a generic or shared subclass, it's an interesting idea, but it's hampered by the design choices made for publication, like so much else.

[Asmotherion]

I'd like for character builds/concepts to come online by level 1, and linearly improve from there. So yeah, subclass should be a Level 1 thing, and so should some key abilities like a Warlock's Invocations. Also, I'm a firm believer in "Cantrips should be treated the same way as weapons, since both are a basic attack". So, spellcasting ability should go to damage by default, and instead of adding damage dice, add more attacks, the same way Eldritch Blast is Handled.

There's a lot of tweeks that could improve the overall 5e experiance. I don't know if what we need is a 5.5, I figure PF2e covers that role. I just think a Character Concept and Basic Build should be online by level 1. Finally, I'd like more Racial Feats, maybe just like PF2e handles them, as a ceparate feat tree, in order to customise your character more.

Finally, I think subclasses would be more interesting if they were not Class Bound, but rather a free choice to customise your character (Instead of Multiclass rules, you could for example have a Fighter who's a Transmutation Adept, a Barbarian with a Dragonic Bloodline or a Sorcerer who's gained his power via a Pact with an otherwordly Eldritch Horror).

[OACSNY97]

I would suggest starting the game at level three with experienced players. The first two levels are, by the way this game is structured, almost tutorial in nature.

Once the players have gone up in level a bit they really don't need the tutorial phase.

Start at level 3. (My nephew did this, thank goodness, and I really enjoyed having my Archfey Chainlock's features already on line as we opened the game by landing on a distant shore ...)

I think you're saying that your preference for starting at a higher level with experienced players is directly tied to the existing format of 5e. Would this change in an addition where subclass came on line at first level? Does subclass at first level "muddy" the tutorial phase or could the tutorial phase be skipped? If the latter, how to avoid choice paralysis in new players who don't know enough about the game to understand the choices they're making?



Admittedly, I would also be fine with adding "level -1" and "level 0" for tutorial purposes, and having all the subclasses starting at level 1 (which would be the default starting points for experienced players), but I've heard that peoples tend to dislike negative numbers.

I do concede that if "experienced players start at level 3" was to be taken as an official stance, Tier 1 would have to be extended (and the spike of power of level 5 delayed), as a lot of experienced players want to have a significant Tier 1.

My position is indeed influenced by the fact that my table tend to consider Tier 1 (and low level struggles) as a whole as only relevant for tutorial purposes.

My "extreme" position is that characters should also get an additional "parangonic subclass when reaching the higher Tiers, significantly changing how the character functions/plays when unlocking them. So I'm also all for a significant gameplay change when the first subclass is unlocked.

I'm ok with level 0 play as the tutorial level, but again when discussing this with people in my gaming group, there seems to be a preference that no matter when you start, you should always have your core class features as soon as you start playing- if you're going to be a weapon class you need that type of weapon right away; if you're going to be a summoner, you need the summons right away; if you're a Monk, you need Ki right away, because otherwise you're not playing your class.

Since this is a what if thread for 5.5 or 6e, what sorts of things do you envision when you see new game play options opening up with subclass or "paragon class"?

I think I'm more fond of the idea that the "paragonic subclass" should be a refinement and emphasis increase rather than a major shift in how you play. On the other hand, I can definitely see the appeal of having situational and thematic options like "dragon slayer" allowing a shift in play as desired an appropriate for the game.


I know you mean this in earnest but your examples seem like arguments the other way to me.

"I want to be an assassin at level 1" - man, assassin used to be a prestige class! Which leads to one of the benefits of starting subclasses past level 1: they're something your character develops towards and doesn't get until he's somewhat powerful.

"Taking a paladin oath should be a big important character moment, so the best thing to do is push it back into the character backstory so the DM/circumstances don't mess it up" - sounds like throwing the baby out with the bathwater! Don't you WANT your character to grow and change and make choices as they level up?

The way subclasses are set up now honestly pushes some important character development distinctions. A sorcerer (character, not player) doesn't GET to choose his bloodline - that's locked in from the first level. Same with a cleric or warlock - the source of their power is a specific entity, and without that they can't even get to square one. But all wizards start out as guys who read spell books, and only a bit later on do they begin to specialize their studies. A level 1 wizard isn't an "illusionist" any more than a first-term college freshman is a "biologist" - they have to declare a major and do a lot of studying first. A rogue is a dexterous, clever guy, but once he's established himself a little he can hatch a "scheme" to gain real power - by training as an assassin, becoming a master thief, taking to the seas as a swashbuckler, etc. And paladin is actually the most interesting to me: he's a holy warrior, but the mechanics (CHA caster, gets subclass after spells) indicate that it's actually his zeal that powers him rather than a specific deity. His oath is how he locks himself to a path, and potentially to a deity or order. That has potentially huge RP implications!

Good point about wanting major character defining events to be moved front and center of the game play rather than regulated to back story.

Overall, I think this might factor into an even more underlying discussion of what does level mean and how competent should early game characters be? At first level, should they be basically competent "adults" who have all of the foundational skills for their chosen class, or should they grow into their class through the early game? Should a Fighter have to wait until 3rd level to get spells if the player wanted to a magic knight concept?

Your example of the level 1 wizard who's still the equivalent to a college undergrad who hasn't fully grown into or even chosen a specialty is what I like about delayed subclass access since it allows more time to let the character grow "organically." However, it is also pretty annoying if you want to play something that should be an early game option, I believe I saw mention of the unarmed Barbarian as an example, but you can't do it until later mechanically.


To the thread in general:
I'm asking all of these questions because this is something that I've spent a lot of time thinking about and discussing with my DnD group, but still can't come to a good conclusion or compromise. I came to DnD through 4e and still somewhat calibrated to the idea that rather than having subclasses, the designers simply peel them off into separate classes. This does allow for easier early access to all class features at first level, but at the cost of a lot of duplicated effort or classes that are released later having fewer options and less support.

I think the underlying question is how competent and specialized should first level character be? Should you start out an apprentice in your chosen class with only some of the basic skills or should you start the game closer to a journeyman with all of the basics and are now being sent out into the world to refine what you know?

[Intregus182]

I think you're saying that your preference for starting at a higher level with experienced players is directly tied to the existing format of 5e. Would this change in an addition where subclass came on line at first level? Does subclass at first level "muddy" the tutorial phase or could the tutorial phase be skipped? If the latter, how to avoid choice paralysis in new players who don't know enough about the game to understand the choices they're making?




I'm ok with level 0 play as the tutorial level, but again when discussing this with people in my gaming group, there seems to be a preference that no matter when you start, you should always have your core class features as soon as you start playing- if you're going to be a weapon class you need that type of weapon right away; if you're going to be a summoner, you need the summons right away; if you're a Monk, you need Ki right away, because otherwise you're not playing your class.

Since this is a what if thread for 5.5 or 6e, what sorts of things do you envision when you see new game play options opening up with subclass or "paragon class"?

I think I'm more fond of the idea that the "paragonic subclass" should be a refinement and emphasis increase rather than a major shift in how you play. On the other hand, I can definitely see the appeal of having situational and thematic options like "dragon slayer" allowing a shift in play as desired an appropriate for the game.



Good point about wanting major character defining events to be moved front and center of the game play rather than regulated to back story.

Overall, I think this might factor into an even more underlying discussion of what does level mean and how competent should early game characters be? At first level, should they be basically competent "adults" who have all of the foundational skills for their chosen class, or should they grow into their class through the early game? Should a Fighter have to wait until 3rd level to get spells if the player wanted to a magic knight concept?

Your example of the level 1 wizard who's still the equivalent to a college undergrad who hasn't fully grown into or even chosen a specialty is what I like about delayed subclass access since it allows more time to let the character grow "organically." However, it is also pretty annoying if you want to play something that should be an early game option, I believe I saw mention of the unarmed Barbarian as an example, but you can't do it until later mechanically.


To the thread in general:
I'm asking all of these questions because this is something that I've spent a lot of time thinking about and discussing with my DnD group, but still can't come to a good conclusion or compromise. I came to DnD through 4e and still somewhat calibrated to the idea that rather than having subclasses, the designers simply peel them off into separate classes. This does allow for easier early access to all class features at first level, but at the cost of a lot of duplicated effort or classes that are released later having fewer options and less support.

I think the underlying question is how competent and specialized should first level character be? Should you start out an apprentice in your chosen class with only some of the basic skills or should you start the game closer to a journeyman with all of the basics and are now being sent out into the world to refine what you know?

Not just this but what is a class even? Just because my character is a level 1 druid doesn't mean i can't roleplay it as a shaman or a wizard.

Why must a level 1 fighter be an apprentice in their fighter class vs a veteran soldier ( which is a background)

The way i see it classes arent in game lore and shouldn't be. They should be meta knowledge for us the playets to make decisions.

Dnd is all over the place in that regaurd. Some classee are lore driven like the sorcerer and others arent like the fighter rogie or ranger.

But i think you're right they need to degine what a level actually is and what a class actually represents.

[Kane0]

I think D&D has always tried to hold to the zero-to-hero sort of progression, but over time has gradually shifted to competent-to-demigod. From what I can tell, the stage when someone was first exposed to the genre greatly influences which side they prefer.

Personally I can see it either way, but to accommodate both you would need to implement something to exist before level 1 or push back the level at which the character is considered 'whole' (which is what 5e does to some extent).

[OACSNY97]

Not just this but what is a class even? Just because my character is a level 1 druid doesn't mean i can't roleplay it as a shaman or a wizard.

Why must a level 1 fighter be an apprentice in their fighter class vs a veteran soldier ( which is a background)

The way i see it classes arent in game lore and shouldn't be. They should be meta knowledge for us the playets to make decisions.

Dnd is all over the place in that regaurd. Some classee are lore driven like the sorcerer and others arent like the fighter rogie or ranger.

But i think you're right they need to degine what a level actually is and what a class actually represents.

Level 1 fighter with veteran soldier background is one of the things that annoys me the most about the disconnect between the mechanics and the fluff. Do you get to say veteran soldier with one season's series of maneuvers and battles (campaign in the non-DnD sense) under your belt or is it supposed to mean "lifer"? Pick one! Personally, I'd rather calibrate first level PCs to senior apprentices and, while using the NPC rules, experienced guards and soldiers are _not_ first level.

I follow the argument, and it's fair point, that first level should really be the easiest level in the game to ease new players in the rules and structure and that the viable challenge options should be more meaningful than cleaning rats out of a basement. However, this leads to world building inconsistencies that I just can't get work around no matter how logical the mechanics counterpoint. Why _aren't_ the very long lived races/species inherently higher level? Any middle-aged elf has had a lot longer to learn and either perfect what s/he does or try lots of different things. Why isn't the "lifer" soldier who has been following the army around the countryside for the last 20 odd years not at least the equivalent to a level 2 or 3 fighter?

Yes, the designers need to agree that either classes are just vague packages of mechanics (fighter) OR meaningful to the lore and world building like cleric. If there are ANY classes that inform how the world _has_ to work in order to exist, they all should. So which concept needs to go- fighter or cleric?

[Intregus182]

Level 1 fighter with veteran soldier background is one of the things that annoys me the most about the disconnect between the mechanics and the fluff. Do you get to say veteran soldier with one season's series of maneuvers and battles (campaign in the non-DnD sense) under your belt or is it supposed to mean "lifer"? Pick one! Personally, I'd rather calibrate first level PCs to senior apprentices and, while using the NPC rules, experienced guards and soldiers are _not_ first level.

I follow the argument, and it's fair point, that first level should really be the easiest level in the game to ease new players in the rules and structure and that the viable challenge options should be more meaningful than cleaning rats out of a basement. However, this leads to world building inconsistencies that I just can't get work around no matter how logical the mechanics counterpoint. Why _aren't_ the very long lived races/species inherently higher level? Any middle-aged elf has had a lot longer to learn and either perfect what s/he does or try lots of different things. Why isn't the "lifer" soldier who has been following the army around the countryside for the last 20 odd years not at least the equivalent to a level 2 or 3 fighter?

Yes, the designers need to agree that either classes are just vague packages of mechanics (fighter) OR meaningful to the lore and world building like cleric. If there are ANY classes that inform how the world _has_ to work in order to exist, they all should. So which concept needs to go- fighter or cleric?

For d&d and the way it's been going id say fighter. Leave the more vague approach to a different system.

One thing i really like about 5e is the different tiers. Tier 1 would be the tutorial levels IMO for new players. So experienced players should start at level 5 or tier 2 and that i think aligna more with where a character concepts basic elements should be achieved.

But i still think it makes better game design to make all subclasses come online for all classes at the level. It just opens up so many more options.

Another approach to solve the problem pf having subclasses come online from level 1 would be to make it so you delay the main class features till level 2 and the class itself is just the vehichle for the subclass. So an arcane archer on a fighter class will function a little different than on a ranger or wizard etc.

[OACSNY97]

I think D&D has always tried to hold to the zero-to-hero sort of progression, but over time has gradually shifted to competent-to-demigod. From what I can tell, the stage when someone was first exposed to the genre greatly influences which side they prefer.

Personally I can see it either way, but to accommodate both you would need to implement something to exist before level 1 or push back the level at which the character is considered 'whole' (which is what 5e does to some extent).

As someone who came in with 4e, I definitely saw competent-to-demigod, but I'm always interested in a DnD history lesson if you would please expand on what zero-to-hero meant in older additions.

One thing I liked about 4e was the three tiers of play- heroic, paragon, epic. I think one option for 6e would be to bring them back and treat the tiers almost like three separate, but linked games, which could help accommodate a wider range of tastes. Play "heroic tier" (levels 1 through X) if you want zero-to-hero, play "paragon" tier if you're already a competent hero but not looking for totally zany demi-god play, which is what epic is all about (epic is known in my group as "gravity, what gravity?"). All of these tiers should have easy access points for games start at the beginning of the tier (be that 1st, 7th, and 14th or 1st, 11th, and 21st).

[KorvinStarmast]

I think you're saying that your preference for starting at a higher level with experienced players is directly tied to the existing format of 5e.
It was a suggestion, not a stated preference. I can start at any level, depends on the group and what they want. The reason I liked my nephew's campaign and starting at level three is that I had a lot of stuff I wanted to try out, at the time, and starting with the Warlock at level 3 already allowed me to do it in that campaign. And it was a good thing too, because that campaign died a few levels later due to RL scheduling, which has a DC of about 35. :smallyuk:

Of all of the campaigns I've played in 5e, most have started at level 1. A few started higher. The bulk of my higher level play (Tier 3 and the rare Tier 4) has been in one shots.

[Kane0]

As someone who came in with 4e, I definitely saw competent-to-demigod, but I'm always interested in a DnD history lesson if you would please expand on what zero-to-hero meant in older additions.
I can't really speak for at-the-table AD&D but the Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale are an easy way to get a feel for it nowadays, enhanced editions are a couple of bucks and they're good games that will run on anything. Notice that for example mages start with something like 4-6 HP and once they use their 1-2 spells are relying on crossbows and slings until they get a full night's rest. Rogues and the like are the only ones with ANY chance to pick locks, disarm traps or hide from sight.
From there you can probably see the progression by picking up Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2, also cheap on Steam and good games. Then as you progress to 4e and 5e there is a notable trend towards starting characters being more survivable and generally capable.

Edit: Oh and recovery speed is another example. In AD&D you might have to rest for weeks to fully recover your HP, in 3rd multiple nights if you're not using wands/potions/spell slots but in 5e a long rest resets everything except a portion of your short rest healing (which doesn't really exist outside of optional rules prior to 4e).



One thing I liked about 4e was the three tiers of play- heroic, paragon, epic.
5e does sort of carry the same concept when it describes its tiers of play. The PHB outlines what is supposed to be happening between Tiers, going from local to regional to interplanar in scope.

[ZZTRaider]

I know you mean this in earnest but your examples seem like arguments the other way to me.

"I want to be an assassin at level 1" - man, assassin used to be a prestige class! Which leads to one of the benefits of starting subclasses past level 1: they're something your character develops towards and doesn't get until he's somewhat powerful.

"Taking a paladin oath should be a big important character moment, so the best thing to do is push it back into the character backstory so the DM/circumstances don't mess it up" - sounds like throwing the baby out with the bathwater! Don't you WANT your character to grow and change and make choices as they level up?

The way subclasses are set up now honestly pushes some important character development distinctions. A sorcerer (character, not player) doesn't GET to choose his bloodline - that's locked in from the first level. Same with a cleric or warlock - the source of their power is a specific entity, and without that they can't even get to square one. But all wizards start out as guys who read spell books, and only a bit later on do they begin to specialize their studies. A level 1 wizard isn't an "illusionist" any more than a first-term college freshman is a "biologist" - they have to declare a major and do a lot of studying first. A rogue is a dexterous, clever guy, but once he's established himself a little he can hatch a "scheme" to gain real power - by training as an assassin, becoming a master thief, taking to the seas as a swashbuckler, etc. And paladin is actually the most interesting to me: he's a holy warrior, but the mechanics (CHA caster, gets subclass after spells) indicate that it's actually his zeal that powers him rather than a specific deity. His oath is how he locks himself to a path, and potentially to a deity or order. That has potentially huge RP implications!

Yeah, I know assassin was a prestige class. And yet, in my experience, lots of players specifically want to play an assassin character, and unsurprisingly, they don't want to be just becoming a competent assassin around 12th level when the campaign is almost over. They want to feel like a competent, if unremarkable, assassin from the start, and then grow into the kind of assassin that people speak of in hushed tones in dark taverns because nobody seems out of their reach.

I don't see why a level 1 wizard can't be an illusionist, though. For the most part, it seems silly to me that wizards start their adventuring careers as generalists, then specialize afterwards. If anything, it feels more natural that they should be competent in one very specialized area at the start, then choose to either grow into skilled generalists or such deep specialists that they're world-renowned in that area. If we're calling a level 1 wizard a college freshman... why are they immediately dropping out of school to go adventuring, before they really learn anything? Basically, my class fantasy isn't some guy that has the potential for magic but has barely started learning it -- it's someone who's learned enough that their primary method of growth is going out and putting their knowledge to practical use. One of the things I really love about 5e casters is that damaging cantrips are viable from level 1. If I wanted to play a crossbowman, I wouldn't have made a wizard. Casting cantrips, though, makes me feel like I'm actually playing someone that can use magic. Mechanically, the difference isn't very big, but it fulfills the class's promise much better.

Paladins are really interesting, and I love that the Charisma casting suggests that the real power is the strength of their belief, too. But it also feels silly that they're a paladin that's not actually committed to anything yet. An oath doesn't have to be to any deity or anything, it can just be the Paladin's earnest conviction. So why do they need to wait until they're about halfway to graduating from being a local hero to being a regional hero before they come up with something super important to them? If they didn't already have something worth taking an oath over, why did they even go adventuring to begin with? Every time I've ever wanted to play a Paladin, I've already had an idea of what drove them to take their Oath. That's a defining trait of who this character is at the start of the story.

It also seems super weird and spotlight hogging to try to ask the DM to make sure that levels 1 and 2 bring my character to that thing that I want my character to be, and if it doesn't happen I'm by definition playing a different character than the one I wanted. And it's just awkward when we're out in the woods fighting goblins, and now I'm level 3 and it's time to take my Oath. This feels like it should be a big thing, potentially with some Paladin Order, but they're not here right now. I could wait and take the Oath when I get back to town, but then why am I able to do all this cool stuff tied to the Oath I haven't taken yet? Should I just ignore all my class features until it makes more sense for me to have them? All of that sounds unfun and counter to the class fantasy.

Ultimately, when I play D&D, I want to play a character. I don't really want to play some random person that's still becoming a character. With all the hazards of adventuring, it seems like they should already be characters by the point that they decided to leave their Background behind to be an adventurer -- not at level 3 where they're already starting to become locally known heroes. There's still plenty of room for characters to grow, learn, and make choices without requiring them to start out completely incompetent.


These are the kinds of arguments in favor of subclasses at first level that my IRL friend puts forward. I struggle to refute them because yes the Paladin should know who or what s/he is dedicated to and, as someone else mentioned, the unarmed Barbarian should work from first level if it's going to be an possible character option.

And while acknowledging that these are good points, I am vaguely dissatisfied with just having subclasses start at first level. I think part of my dissatisfaction is based on the desire to make it easy to start with new players, but another part is that I suffer from choice paralysis when presented with too many big choices at once. At no other time in the game does a player have to make as many important choices for their character than when building for first level.

Since this thread is discussing a 5.5 or 6e, what would you delay to get subclass to fit in at first level without adding even more choices to bog down character creation?

Choice paralysis is potentially an issue, sure. But another issue is giving players something that's boring and not really tied to something really recognizable as a fantasy character.

Level 1 and 2 fighters? They're mostly just guys that hit stuff. Random mooks that die immediately in fantasy media and we forget about. A Battle Master, though? Someone that's skilled at using their weapon to do cool things in battle? That feels like a cool fantasy character. Eldritch Knights are even worse. You want to be someone that mixes swords and sorcery? Great choice, very iconic fantasy trope. Unfortunately, your level 1 fighter has literally no magical capability and is basically the exact same as your buddy's Battle Master. Hope you're okay sitting through these tutorial levels before you get to do anything resembling the idea that got you interested in playing this game to begin with.

By all means, let's not just dump the whole list of maneuvers or spells on people at level 1, but letting them pick one of 3ish useful and thematic options from the start is compelling and going to make them more interested in what they can do. In my experience, that interest in their character is a great motivator for new players to actually learn mechanics.


Good point about wanting major character defining events to be moved front and center of the game play rather than regulated to back story.

Overall, I think this might factor into an even more underlying discussion of what does level mean and how competent should early game characters be? At first level, should they be basically competent "adults" who have all of the foundational skills for their chosen class, or should they grow into their class through the early game? Should a Fighter have to wait until 3rd level to get spells if the player wanted to a magic knight concept?

Your example of the level 1 wizard who's still the equivalent to a college undergrad who hasn't fully grown into or even chosen a specialty is what I like about delayed subclass access since it allows more time to let the character grow "organically." However, it is also pretty annoying if you want to play something that should be an early game option, I believe I saw mention of the unarmed Barbarian as an example, but you can't do it until later mechanically.

See above for most of my thoughts on this.

In short:

Some character defining moments should be backstory, because they're what made them a character to be brought into the story to begin with.
I think every level 1 character ought to be competent enough that becoming an adventurer doesn't sound like a creative way to get themself killed immediately.

[Hytheter]

Y
Ultimately, when I play D&D, I want to play a character. I don't really want to play some random person that's still becoming a character. With all the hazards of adventuring, it seems like they should already be characters by the point that they decided to leave their Background behind to be an adventurer -- not at level 3 where they're already starting to become locally known heroes. There's still plenty of room for characters to grow, learn, and make choices without requiring them to start out completely incompetent.

You said a lot I agree with but this is basically what it boils down to. People want to play a character with a specific archetype and subclasses enable those archetypes. Why force people to wait two levels just to play the character they actually wanted to play?

[Kane0]

Dont forget there are a number of people that want to come in from the opposite direction, starting out as some variety of nobody and becoming someone after they start.
Its a difficult plate to balance

[Asmotherion]

Dont forget there are a number of people that want to come in from the opposite direction, starting out as some variety of nobody and becoming someone after they start.
Its a difficult plate to balance

Add optional rules for level 0, like PF2e does?


You said a lot I agree with but this is basically what it boils down to. People want to play a character with a specific archetype and subclasses enable those archetypes. Why force people to wait two levels just to play the character they actually wanted to play?

I agree with this premice. Basically, if group wants to start as a nobody, or aprentice something, implement Level 0 rules for them. If group wants to start as a somebody, start at level 1, and make the character concept come online by level 1.

[Composer99]

Apropos of the original topic (more consistent subclass features across the classes, allowing for more Strixhaven-like pan-class subclasses), I think the way classes are structured in 5e makes that difficult for even a 5.5.

On the other hand, it's an interesting concept. You could have a few more-or-less generic archetypes - so you wouldn't have to reinvent, say, "this is a character fights on horseback" for several different classes if you wanted a more in-depth mounted-fighting archetype. You could take the cavalier and make it available to several classes (barbarian, fighter, paladin, ranger, most likely) and have a few options within that archetype specific to each of those classes.

Once 6e is on the way, if it retains the subclass mechanic, that might be a way to go about such a thing.

[ZZTRaider]

Dont forget there are a number of people that want to come in from the opposite direction, starting out as some variety of nobody and becoming someone after they start.
Its a difficult plate to balance

Sure. That's not a way I'd typically want to play, but even I can see the appeal of doing that occasionally, and I'm sure some people want to do it all the time. I assume that's why we already see house rules for "Level 0" play.

Currently, though, 5e doesn't really support either direction, leaving us in this weird middle ground that I think probably makes everyone unhappy. How do I play a nobody priest that becomes a cleric so dedicated to a god that he receives magic powers? How do I play a random guy that has a sorcerer bloodline that's about to start manifesting? Right now, the mechanics don't really support that. By level 1 in each of those classes, those things have clearly already happened and the character already has the benefits from that pivotal moment. Meanwhile, if I want to start a paladin at the same developmental point as the cleric/sorcerer, the group needs to skip half of Tier 1 play to make that happen.

To directly answer the thread's original question, at the very minimum, I think 5.5e/6e should have every subclass start at the same level, just to bring all classes into character development parity. We could reshuffle the levels for tiers to add in "Tier 0" at levels 1 to 3 or something, then have Tier 1 be level 4 to 6, but it becomes non-obvious that to get to the meat of playing a fantasy character instead of a bunch of regular nobodies, you have to start at a higher level. And starting at a higher level comes with its own complications of longer character creation, more choices to make, etc. That might work if we assume an experienced player is helping out, but the design should support a group of completely new players trying to figure things out, too. Thus, I think that subclasses should start at 1 so that, by default, a new player gets to start with a character that at least minimally fulfills the fantasy trope. I think that's the most likely to immediately engage and and sell the player on why they should play D&D.

[ZRN]

Yeah, I know assassin was a prestige class. And yet, in my experience, lots of players specifically want to play an assassin character, and unsurprisingly, they don't want to be just becoming a competent assassin around 12th level when the campaign is almost over. They want to feel like a competent, if unremarkable, assassin from the start, and then grow into the kind of assassin that people speak of in hushed tones in dark taverns because nobody seems out of their reach.

Assassin is a weird one because quite obviously, a level 1 rogue can assassinate people - the subclass just makes him better at it. That's why to me, this is a good example of a subclass that can phase in at level 3.


I don't see why a level 1 wizard can't be an illusionist, though. For the most part, it seems silly to me that wizards start their adventuring careers as generalists, then specialize afterwards. If anything, it feels more natural that they should be competent in one very specialized area at the start, then choose to either grow into skilled generalists or such deep specialists that they're world-renowned in that area. If we're calling a level 1 wizard a college freshman... why are they immediately dropping out of school to go adventuring, before they really learn anything? Basically, my class fantasy isn't some guy that has the potential for magic but has barely started learning it -- it's someone who's learned enough that their primary method of growth is going out and putting their knowledge to practical use.

I think that actually the current setup tells us something meaningful about the in-world mechanics of wizardry. ALL wizards are generalists. They can all learn to cast every single wizard spell there is, and they can cast it at exactly the same level as a wizard of any other subclass. Moreover, since they're prepared casters who can cram as many spells in their spell book as they can afford, you're actively sabotaging your character if you choose not to learn at least the best spells from other schools. If you want to play a guy who ONLY does illusion magic, you should pick another class - maybe sorcerer or bard - where the biggest single benefit of the class ISN'T the breadth of spells they can access. Now, wizards all do have a school or style they gravitate towards, but that's a preference, not a restriction. No need for it to come online at level 1.


Paladins are really interesting, and I love that the Charisma casting suggests that the real power is the strength of their belief, too. But it also feels silly that they're a paladin that's not actually committed to anything yet. An oath doesn't have to be to any deity or anything, it can just be the Paladin's earnest conviction. So why do they need to wait until they're about halfway to graduating from being a local hero to being a regional hero before they come up with something super important to them? If they didn't already have something worth taking an oath over, why did they even go adventuring to begin with? Every time I've ever wanted to play a Paladin, I've already had an idea of what drove them to take their Oath. That's a defining trait of who this character is at the start of the story.

Oh, I think you're clearly dedicated to something from level 1. You're just still in training - a squire, basically. Then at level 3 you swear your oath and become a full-fledged Paladin.

To me, the paladin oath-swearing seems like a clear reference to a knightly vigil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigil#Medieval_knights), the only D&D requirement for which would be that you stay up all knight praying. So it shouldn't require wild contortions to fit that in around the level-up period.


Ultimately, when I play D&D, I want to play a character. I don't really want to play some random person that's still becoming a character. With all the hazards of adventuring, it seems like they should already be characters by the point that they decided to leave their Background behind to be an adventurer -- not at level 3 where they're already starting to become locally known heroes. There's still plenty of room for characters to grow, learn, and make choices without requiring them to start out completely incompetent.

I think a level 1 5e character is quite competent! Just because a level 1 paladin hasn't sworn his oath doesn't mean he's a "random person."

[ZRN]

How do I play a nobody priest that becomes a cleric so dedicated to a god that he receives magic powers? How do I play a random guy that has a sorcerer bloodline that's about to start manifesting? Right now, the mechanics don't really support that. By level 1 in each of those classes, those things have clearly already happened and the character already has the benefits from that pivotal moment. Meanwhile, if I want to start a paladin at the same developmental point as the cleric/sorcerer, the group needs to skip half of Tier 1 play to make that happen.

A level 2 paladin can cast spells, lay on hands, detect evil, wear plate armor, and effectively cut people up with a longsword. He's hardly a level zero nobody; why would you say he's not at the same "developmental" point as a level 1 cleric until he hits level 3? A paladin oath isn't him picking his god; he doesn't even need a god! It's him swearing to a specific code of conduct in keeping with the skills and ethos he's been honing since before level 1.

[Theodoxus]

I'm of two minds. I like the 'prestige' class feel of subclasses starting at 3rd level. Especially if it's a smooth progression like 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18. So I'd be ok with that.

However, I also agree with the idea of rolling everything up at 1st level. (I'm curious Korvin, do you have the same analysis paralysis picking a domain for a Cleric?) But in doing so, I'd also want a smooth progression, say, 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16.

As for starting at level 3 for classes that currently start at 1, I like the pantheon idea for Clerics. All Clerics are generic priests with medium armor and simple weapons (maybe even limited to bludgeoning as a harken back to older editions). At 3rd level they pick their chosen God/Domain and all the rights and privilege's inherit within.

I can see something similar for Warlock. You start as a generic Warlock, 'touched' by an unknown patron and imbued with power you know not why. You gain some additional mystery power at 2nd level, maybe picking Invocations that fit your patron's theme (I'm assuming the player knows even if the character doesn't). Then the Big Reveal at 3rd level, as you've grown powerful enough/survived to garner personal attention by your patron! And you grab a pact boon at the same time, yada yada.

Sorcerer would probably play similarly to the Warlock. Untapped magical potential manifesting at 1st level. You progress in your internal studies and come to unlock the dirty little secret in your family's past: Grand-daddy played fast and loose with a silver dragon, or drank deeply from the Whimsical Well of Wonder or boned a Deva... whatever. Again, player knows, character doesn't.

Druids and Wizards and Paladins I think have been discussed enough...

Now, as for multi-class subclasses, one potential I think that is being overlooked (especially if we're going with the 1st level option) is that they could massively cut down on the number of base classes.

Fighters could easily have Barbarian and Ranger rolled into them, using multi-class subclasses to deal with rage and 'primal' casting/animal handling/ranged combat, specifically. Raging Paladin or Rogue? wut?!? There's been a few threads talking about splitting Rangers up between Druid, Fighter and Rogue. A multi-class subclass could do that perfectly. I can definitely see a place where they could be incorporated, if, as noted, it's done from the ground up.

[Dienekes]

Add optional rules for level 0, like PF2e does?


This seems functionally the same as choosing to start at level 3.

Honestly, as long as the book is clear what the levels differentiate it really should not matter.

This however...




Currently, though, 5e doesn't really support either direction, leaving us in this weird middle ground that I think probably makes everyone unhappy. How do I play a nobody priest that becomes a cleric so dedicated to a god that he receives magic powers? How do I play a random guy that has a sorcerer bloodline that's about to start manifesting? Right now, the mechanics don't really support that. By level 1 in each of those classes, those things have clearly already happened and the character already has the benefits from that pivotal moment. Meanwhile, if I want to start a paladin at the same developmental point as the cleric/sorcerer, the group needs to skip half of Tier 1 play to make that happen.

I agree with.

[KorvinStarmast]

(I'm curious Korvin, do you have the same analysis paralysis picking a domain for a Cleric?) My first one got picked from the 2014 basic rules (I didn't have the PHB yet) so it was a life Cleric. (Korvin Starmast). My second one was Tempest domain, since I liked the thunder and lightning theme.

When I discovered that the goodberry hack is legit, I went back to life cleric simply to overcome our DMs annoying habit of not getting with the short rest thing. Those boosted goodberries became the HD recovery that we should have had the chance to use.

Any cleric will do for me, though. I want to try them all and play them all, but time does not permit.

[MrStabby]

So the strixhaven UA got me thinking. In the next edition of dnd would you like it if all classes got their subclass features at the same level? (level 1 maybe?)

This would allow for things like champion and rune knight being a subclass for fighters, barbarians and monks. Or a swashbuckler that is a subclass of both fighters and rogues. Or warlocks and sorcerers both having the same celestial subclass (but fluffed differently). This would also mean a book with a few subclasses open up a lot of new character options (since a separate celestial warlock and a celestial sorcerer do not have to be introduced).

Of course there could still be subclasses unique to classes in addition to these, especially for subclasses that interact with the main class's features.

Or would such a system limit how interesting those multi-class subclasses could be since they have to be designed with multiple classes in mind?

Ok... yes... cool. But we have this already. Specifically at levels 4, 8, 12, 16, 19.

We basically change subclass features into feat chains this way. Honestly, I am OK with this but I know many people don't like fest chains.

[Kane0]

We basically change subclass features into feat chains this way. Honestly, I am OK with this but I know many people don't like fest chains.

You could argue this is already the case, just at different levels for each class.

And yeah, that would enable the whole cross-class subclass concept a lot better if it were more standardised across different classes. In fact, using your ASI to pick up a subclass feature is a neat idea we could explore while we're at it