D&D (2024) Subclasses should start at 1st level

[CreamCloud0]

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

I might argue that warlock doesn’t actually need a level 1 subclass, you know you made a pact with something, you don’t actually forge a strong enough connection with it to find out what they actually were until 3rd level.

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

 

[Laurefindel]

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

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

 

[Maxperson]

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

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

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

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

 

[Maxperson]

BA? Badass? British Airways?

 

[Charlaquin]

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

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

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

 

[Xamnam]

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

 

[Charlaquin]

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

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

 

[Charlaquin]

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

Are you saying cleric is 14 classes?

 

[Charlaquin]

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

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

 

[Maxperson]

Are you saying cleric is 14 classes?

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

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

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