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

[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.

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:

1. Some character defining moments should be backstory, because they're what made them a character to be brought into the story to begin with.
2. 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, 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