# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 5e/Next >  Third Level is too long a wait for Subclasses

## Thunderous Mojo

If asymmetric subclass design is being replaced with subclass standardization, then subclasses should be selected at level 1.

One
    Two
         Three.



.Discuss!

----------


## stoutstien

Eh. Yes and no. Id say having the subclass spread out across the first few levels is the best bet. Alternatively having multiple subclass diversion points also works.

----------


## Oramac

Personally, I see no issue with having subclasses come on at different levels for different classes. If one is worried about a 1st level subclass being "too complicated", label it as an "advanced class" or some such and let players know up front what they're getting into.

----------


## Pixel_Kitsune

I'd actually prefer 3rd level for all.  The first two levels represent first steps in an overall outlook before you specialize your training, or fully awaken your blood or what have you.

Also, if Cleric is anything to suggest, there's still options earlier.  3rd level is when you start getting unique domain abilities, but a lot of things are essentially moved to 2nd level in terms of the type of priest you are and your abilities.

----------


## Witty Username

I personally really hate not being able to play my archetype from first level. I want to play a fighter/mage, nope you can't until 3rd level. Until then your not even a different fighter.

My only concern is frontloading problems, classes already get alot in the first 3 levels, shifting it to even more frontloaded feels wrong.

----------


## Dork_Forge

If it's going to be one level for all it should be 1st level.

----------


## Anymage

I see two reasons why third level subclasses might be good.  First because they limit the ability to leverage dipping for lots of frontloaded goodies, and second because for brand new players they allow people to get a broad understanding of their character before committing to a certain build path.  If anything, I'd prefer if the PHB openly admitted that first level was introductory, and suggested that everybody except for new players and people wanting to play rank novices start a little above.

----------


## Pixel_Kitsune

> I personally really hate not being able to play my archetype from first level. I want to play a fighter/mage, nope you can't until 3rd level. Until then your not even a different fighter.


Except there are multiple ways to play it that way.  There's how many races including Custom Origin that give access to spells from the get go that you can use until level 3.  Or on the other hand, plenty of races that give armor and weapons to go with a wizard.




> If it's going to be one level for all it should be 1st level.


Why?  You start off any skill/profession/whatever with the basics.  Plus, if things I've heard from various "Professional" DMs, the view from up there seems to be that it's nice to let a player play their character a bit and feel into what they want to be.  I agree for what little that's worth.

----------


## RogueJK

> I personally really hate not being able to play my archetype from first level. I want to play a fighter/mage, nope you can't until 3rd level. Until then your not even a different fighter.


That's where racial abilities and the 1st level feat come into play.  You can still be a Fighter with some spellcasting abilites from Level 1, independent of subclass.

----------


## elyktsorb

Just have your games start at 3rd lvl

----------


## Dork_Forge

> Why?  You start off any skill/profession/whatever with the basics.  Plus, if things I've heard from various "Professional" DMs, the view from up there seems to be that it's nice to let a player play their character a bit and feel into what they want to be.  I agree for what little that's worth.


Because often the subclass is what actually defines your character concept and waiting two levels to be what you actually mean to kinda sucks.

For what it's worth I've been a "profession" (read: paid) DM for over two years, starting at 3rd level in 5E is what I would recommend to even brand new players.

----------


## Gignere

> Just have your games start at 3rd lvl


The first two levels go by so fast anyway. Its almost like they are tutorials. Im all for level 3 subclasses. Its not like you arent a fighter at levels 1 and 2, just one without a subclass like now. Same for a wizard choose your specialization at 3 its better. I think this change would help new players joining the game. As simple as 5e is I still see newbies getting confused about subclass abilities / class abilities especially when they pick a class that gets a lot in the first 2 levels. 

One other change I like is limiting spell preparations. People complained that casters are all super versatile so WoTC is testing restricting spell preps to match spell slot levels that you can cast which would limit the versatility of casters, where we have 1000s of pages of b*tching that they can do everything.

----------


## Psyren

I waffled on this initially but now I'm in favor of subclasses at 3rd after hearing Crawfords explanation of the design decision. It makes sense to me that they're increasing the complexity of 1st level by putting a feat choice there, so the added complexity of a subclass wouldn't do as well; on top of that, his explanation of a new player getting comfortable with a class for a couple of levels makes sense to me too.

----------


## animorte

> I waffled on this initially but now I'm in favor of subclasses at 3rd


Yay, we got another one!

One *big point* I want to make that bounces off several others here already: Campaigns (and the PCs within) mostly start at level three, _probably_ because some classes having their subclasses and others not doesnt go well (whether youre new or not). Convince me otherwise.

People like having their class identity. Things like race species, class decision, background, Level 1 Feat, even Holy Order (and other early class feature decisions) greatly help to provide an identity.

However, it _would_ be nice if they attempt to publish adventures to support all levels of play.

----------


## Mastikator

From a "new to D&D" perspective...

1 is too early. It's typically a huge decision for your class, asking a completely new player to choose their race, background, class AND subclass.
2 is fine, I'm on board with setting at level 2. However it may make level 2 feel like a huge power spike, and more importantly make level 3 feel weak.
3 is just right.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> Yay, we got another one!
> 
> One *big point* I want to make that bounces off several others here already: Campaigns (and the PCs within) mostly start at level three, _probably_ because some classes having their subclasses and others not doesnt go well (whether youre new or not). Convince me otherwise.
> 
> People like having their class identity. Things like race species, class decision, background, Level 1 Feat, even Holy Order (and other early class feature decisions) greatly help to provide an identity.
> 
> However, it _would_ be nice if they attempt to publish adventures to support all levels of play.


Whilst the recommended starting point is normally 3rd level, I'm pretty sure most WotC adventures have an intro for levels 1 and 2. I have a vague memory of devs saying that level 1 and 2 were for new players to learn mechanics (ironically it's terrible for this) and once you know how to play you should start at 3rd.

Personally, I'd just rather '3rd' was 1st, levels 1 and 2 are, imo, dead weight to the game and incredibly deadly.

Side note on free feat in general: Devs saying that getting a free feat at 1st is part of the reason is them creating a problem to point to. The free feat could be at 4th level, which would also give you more to actually choose from, especially since in the grand calculus of a build a feat from a tiny list you have to choose isn't really going to be a big part of your identity.

----------


## Oramac

> However, it _would_ be nice if they attempt to publish adventures to support all levels of play.


This. Especially if they're rebalancing classes to all get a subclass at 3rd, that means that effectively half of Tier 1 play is done without a subclass. I've been saying they need more high level adventures for a long time.

----------


## Doug Lampert

> Just have your games start at 3rd lvl


Bingo. The first two levels are optional. They are intended to help introduce new players to the concepts. Just skip them if you're an experienced group with developed concepts.

There is no magic forcing anyone to start at level 1. WotC will not hire thugs to come to your house and take your books if you start at level 3 or even 4.

----------


## animorte

> Personally, I'd just rather '3rd' was 1st, levels 1 and 2 are, imo, dead weight to the game and incredibly deadly.


I dont understand this. You mean, move all of the features into the beginning and front-load everything even more? The game gets less deadly at those levels with each update, classes are getting more front-loaded anyway, and the actual threat is often reliant on the DM.

Ive started games at all manner of levels. If you want copious amounts of features, start at higher levels. Dont remove an area of simplicity that others may appreciate. I for one, enjoy a few sessions at the lowest levels because my characters identity isnt completely tied up in mechanics, and I appreciate growing into those mechanics/features/abilities.




> Side note on free feat in general: Devs saying that getting a free feat at 1st is part of the reason is them creating a problem to point to. The free feat could be at 4th level, which would also give you more to actually choose from, especially since in the grand calculus of a build a feat from a tiny list you have to choose isn't really going to be a big part of your identity.


I agree that restricting the available options even more does somewhat remove the overall customization.

----------


## Particle_Man

Wait dont only variant humans get the level one feat?

----------


## Kane0

I can see the argument either way. There are situations where level one would make more sense than level three, and vice versa

----------


## animorte

> Wait dont only variant humans get the level one feat?


Correct, 5e. Were referring to OneD&D adjusting so that all PCs get a feat at level 1.

----------


## Atranen

> Personally, I see no issue with having subclasses come on at different levels for different classes. If one is worried about a 1st level subclass being "too complicated", label it as an "advanced class" or some such and let players know up front what they're getting into.


Agreed. Not all classes need to have the same structure, or level of complexity, etc. There could be an easy subclass like champion if that's such a concern. 

Subclasses should reflect the narrative of the character, and come at 1 for clerics or paladins, later for wizards etc. 

Concerns about frontloading and multiclass should be dealt with by the multiclassing system itself.

----------


## Psyren

> I dont understand this. You mean, move all of the features into the beginning and front-load everything even more? The game gets less deadly at those levels with each update, classes are getting more front-loaded anyway, and the actual threat is often reliant on the DM.
> 
> Ive started games at all manner of levels. If you want copious amounts of features, start at higher levels. Dont remove an area of simplicity that others may appreciate. I for one, enjoy a few sessions at the lowest levels because my characters identity isnt completely tied up in mechanics, and I appreciate growing into those mechanics/features/abilities.


Agreed. And lethality at level 1 is lower than its ever been - every species has traits that might be useful in combat now, every species can pick up the exact ability score increases they want, and everyone still worried about survivability after all that can grab Tough. On top of those, of the four classes they've previewed so far, three of them gained healing abilities at first level they didn't have before (bards, clerics, and rangers).

----------


## animorte

> Subclasses should reflect the narrative of the character, and come at 1 for clerics or paladins, later for wizards etc.


Thats why I keep saying the narrative needs to support the subclass level. It _can_ work both ways.




> Concerns about frontloading and multiclass should be dealt with by the multiclassing system itself.


I agree that multi-classing does need some better fixes to it. This doesnt inherently solve front-loaded classes vs well-spaced classes though, which goes back your first point.




> Agreed. Not all classes need to have the same structure, or level of complexity, etc. There could be an easy subclass like champion if that's such a concern.


Better structure feels like a great deal of help and I like the direction theyre taking it. Complexity is entirely different and I agree with you there.

----------


## Atranen

> Thats why I keep saying the narrative needs to support the subclass level. It _can_ work both ways.
> 
> ...
> 
> Better structure feels like a great deal of help and I like the direction theyre taking it. Complexity is entirely different and I agree with you there.


Perhaps it can, but thus far it hasn't, and I haven't seen any indication that WotC cares enough to do something about it. This has been an issue with the Paladin, for example, for the entire edition. 

I could see a version of "all classes get subclasses at 3rd" working; I don't see WotC publishing that version. Instead, I think they are harming the narrative of classes like the cleric. 

I like low level play a lot and I think this will make it worse, actually, because it will take longer to make the character you envision work.

----------


## Psyren

> Thats why I keep saying the narrative needs to support the subclass level. It _can_ work both ways.


Exactly. I think they did a good job with the cleric. It makes sense that your god might want to see if you can hack it before they invest in you more fully. Same for a warlock and their patron, or a druid and their nature spirits.

The real litmus test for this desgn imo will be the sorcerer.

----------


## animorte

> Perhaps it can, but thus far it hasn't, and I haven't seen any indication that WotC cares enough to do something about it. This has been an issue with the Paladin, for example, for the entire edition. 
> 
> I could see a version of "all classes get subclasses at 3rd" working; I don't see WotC publishing that version. Instead, I think they are harming the narrative of classes like the cleric. 
> 
> I like low level play a lot and I think this will make it worse, actually, because it will take longer to make the character you envision work.


Your Paladin statement fully supports the idea that they are not afraid of publishing it as they are presenting it.

I also like low level play, and Ive been hoping they would standardize everything for a while. I rarely have a problem enjoying my concept or making it function though. Again, if they adjust the narrative properly, there shouldnt be any problem.

I quite dislike the idea that a character should be _fully_ online as soon as possible. After that, do we just pump the numbers? I dont get it. I appreciate showing the growth through levels by acquiring cool new abilities. Use all of Tier 1 to build me a reliable foundation for my class.




> Exactly. I think they did a good job with the cleric. It makes sense that your god might want to see if you can hack it before they invest in you more fully. Same for a warlock and their patron, or a druid and their nature spirits.
> 
> The real litmus test for this desgn imo will be the sorcerer.


Thanks. Yeah, Im looking forward to that.

And again, to ALL of this, we dont have any idea what the balance is really going to look like until we at least have most of the classes to look at. I, personally, hope for the modular class construction. I am aware however, unfortunately, that the more abilities/features to choose from, the less balance there will be. This is blatantly evident in spells.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> If it's going to be one level for all it should be 1st level.


 Only if Multiclassing is substantially changed. Single level dips are where the problem lies. 



> Just have your games start at 3rd lvl


 Yep. 



> I waffled on this initially but now I'm in favor of subclasses at 3rd after hearing Crawfords explanation of the design decision.


 *shrug* as regards Crawford's word salad, but I have played monks, rangers, fighters, paladins, and guess what? 
Getting sub class features at 3 did not harm me nor my fun.  
3rd level for all works for me, and that way they don't need to try and change Multiclassing (much).

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Agreed. Not all classes need to have the same structure, or level of complexity, etc. There could be an easy subclass like champion if that's such a concern. 
> 
> Subclasses should reflect the narrative of the character, and come at 1 for clerics or paladins, later for wizards etc. 
> 
> Concerns about frontloading and multiclass should be dealt with by the multiclassing system itself.


Amen. I've never had someone complain about the difficulty of picking a subclass. And front loaded is how it should be. All your key features should be in place at least in outline form as early as possible, with slower growth after that.

Issues with multiclassing should be fixed there, because that's what caused them.

----------


## animorte

> Amen. I've never had someone complain about the difficulty of picking a subclass. And front loaded is how it should be. All your key features should be in place at least in outline form as early as possible, with slower growth after that.
> 
> Issues with multiclassing should be fixed there, because that's what caused them.


If by, as soon as possible, you mean throughout Tier 1, sure. I like this area during which to build a reliable foundation. If you mean all in level 1-2, I still dont get it.

Make minimum ability score for multi-classing a 15 instead!

----------


## Atranen

> Your Paladin statement fully supports the idea that they are not afraid of publishing it as they are presenting it.


Unfortunately right. 




> I also like low level play, and Ive been hoping they would standardize everything for a while. I rarely have a problem enjoying my concept or making it function though. Again, if they adjust the narrative properly, there shouldnt be any problem.
> 
> I quite dislike the idea that a character should be _fully_ online as soon as possible. After that, do we just pump the numbers? I dont get it. I appreciate showing the growth through levels by acquiring cool new abilities. Use all of Tier 1 to build me a reliable foundation for my class.


What if I want to play a tier 1 game that maxes out at level 4? If I'm not even getting my abilities until level 4, it permanently relegates these characters and these games to a "less than", not a full realization. 

What "fully" online means is hard to pin down. But for me, it means that they have base class abilities and additional subclass abilities that help the character mechanically to realize its narrative archetype. So, for example, having thematic domain spells and/or channel divinity options as a cleric. I don't like the idea of playing an ill defined "generic" cleric (frankly, I think the idea of a generic cleric as Crawford describes it is nonsensical. A cleric of what?) 

That doesn't mean a character has to have all of their abilities at that level or that just the numbers go up. There are more thematic (and character defining) domain spells at higher levels of cleric. It's not about having all of the thematic abilities; it's about having enough to make the character mechanically fit the theme. 




> Amen. I've never had someone complain about the difficulty of picking a subclass. And front loaded is how it should be. All your key features should be in place at least in outline form as early as possible, with slower growth after that.


This matches my experience. And at least for cleric, the subclasses are thematic enough that most people aren't simultaneously weighing each set of mechanical options; they narrow it down to the one or two that feel right, then choose.

----------


## animorte

> What if I want to play a tier 1 game that maxes out at level 4? If I'm not even getting my abilities until level 4, it permanently relegates these characters and these games to a "less than", not a full realization.


Isnt that the way people feel when they get to play one session at level 17 for that one 9th level spell? I guess it would depend how long you get to play at level 4. Ive played a few of these and it was still great, at least with the knowledge that it wouldnt be a fully fleshed out character. That level 4 feat is chosen very differently as opposed to knowing you would still level the character for a while.  :Small Tongue: 




> What "fully" online means is hard to pin down. But for me, it means that they have base class abilities and additional subclass abilities that help the character mechanically to realize its narrative archetype. So, for example, having thematic domain spells and/or channel divinity options as a cleric. I don't like the idea of playing an ill defined "generic" cleric (frankly, I think the idea of a generic cleric as Crawford describes it is nonsensical. A cleric of what?)


A Cleric of hasnt proven himself yet or just needs more experience to even know there is a whole world of domains out there to dedicate oneself to. However, I think pushing the Channel Divinity back to level 6 was certainly not the best move, if Im being honest.




> This matches my experience. And at least for cleric, the subclasses are thematic enough that most people aren't simultaneously weighing each set of mechanical options; they narrow it down to the one or two that feel right, then choose.


I follow this as well.

----------


## False God

No.

The first two levels are clearly being set up as introductory levels on playing the basic game, therefore the fewer decision points the better.

Secondly, subclasses at first level frontloads the classes far too much.  

Frankly, they should be even later, about 5th level.  And there should be sub-sub class specializations that make characters even more specific at 10th and sub-sub-sub class specializations at 15th.  More potent, more thematic and more interesting abilities could be granted that really define that specialization within the class itself.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> If by, as soon as possible, you mean throughout Tier 1, sure. I like this area during which to build a reliable foundation. If you mean all in level 1-2, I still dont get it.
> 
> Make minimum ability score for multi-classing a 15 instead!


IMO:

Level 1: Anything that changes what the prime ability scores are for the class. Including armor, weapons, and spell modifier _if_ it's primarily a caster.
Levels 2 and 3: subclasses and the "one big thing" (where "one" could be "two or three", but the central mechanical and thematic element around which the rest of the class pivots).[1]
By level 5: Identity fully fleshed out and playable. No main-line "build" should come online any later than level 5. Level 4 should grant at least the _thematic_ basis for whatever "smaller things" or "upgrades" the class will build on.

Levels 1-4 should be packed with features. Levels 5-10 should still have meaningful features, but in many ways they're just reinforcements on the same theme. Levels 11-16 should mostly be _horizontal_ growth--secondary themes, different ways of accomplishing things, but most of the vertical power growth should be over by this point. No sharp left turns in capabilities. Levels 17+ should be a victory lap--one or two big capstone features that are designed to _actually be capstones_. That is, they cap off, finish off, hold in place the rest of the structure. Not be completely different, out-of-left-field growth. No "levels 1-16 you suck, level 17 you can cast Gate at will" 3e truenamer BS. Not that there's anything that bad in 5e, thankfully.

As for multiclassing...I don't think that level-by-level multiclassing is inherently salvageable, but since I am a strong minority there... at minimum there should be a very strong "you can't cast spells in any armor that the class itself didn't give you" rule. Multiclassing should always slow casting progression, both slots and spell access. No multiclass build should be more powerful than a straight-class build in the same niche. Multiclassing should only ever give breadth at the substantial cost of depth.

[1] and yes, every class should have one of those. Something that is both mechanically cool and thematically relevant. Everything else should either tie into that core mechanic or weave around it in support. I'd say 1-2 Big Cool Things and then 3-5 Smaller Supporting Things is about right. Any more and the thematics get really hard to juggle. Fewer and it just feels one-note. And *no*, "Spellcasting" should never be the Big Cool Thing. Because it's just too darn generic. Spells and spell lists should be one of the SSTs.

----

As for starting at higher levels, my last two campaigns have started at 3. And personally--I think they're worse off for it, both narratively and game-ist. By the end of T1, the characters are less fleshed out narratively, with weaker places in the world and less shared history. Players are less familiar with their abilities and haven't "grown into" the characters as much. It also makes a mockery of the tier structure--you have to cram all the "local hero" stuff, setting up themes, larger narratives, dramatis personae into a lot less time. Which inevitably means the arcs spill into the next tier and end up disjointed due to the massive power spike at level 5.

It's not a _huge_ issue, but it's annoying as a narrative and setting-focused DM.

----------


## diplomancer

> As for starting at higher levels, my last two campaigns have started at 3. And personally--I think they're worse off for it, both narratively and game-ist. By the end of T1, the characters are less fleshed out narratively, with weaker places in the world and less shared history. Players are less familiar with their abilities and haven't "grown into" the characters as much. It also makes a mockery of the tier structure--you have to cram all the "local hero" stuff, setting up themes, larger narratives, dramatis personae into a lot less time. Which inevitably means the arcs spill into the next tier and end up disjointed due to the massive power spike at level 5.
> 
> It's not a _huge_ issue, but it's annoying as a narrative and setting-focused DM.


But what's stopping you from staying longer in levels 3 and 4? Levels 1 and 2 are supposed to be about 3-4 sessions total. Add a couple of extra sessions to levels 3 and 4 and you're good to go (or at least as good to go as "vanilla 5e", which is designed to advance very fast on tiers 1 and 4)

Even if you use XPs, nothing stops you from saying "you're level 3 with 0 XPs". That should suffice to add more 2 or 3 sessions.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> But what's stopping you from staying longer in levels 3 and 4? Levels 1 and 2 are supposed to be about 3-4 sessions total. Add a couple of extra sessions to levels 3 and 4 and you're good to go (or at least as good to go as "vanilla 5e", which is designed to advance very fast on tiers 1 and 4)
> 
> Even if you use XPs, nothing stops you from saying "you're level 3 with 0 XPs". That should suffice to add more 2 or 3 sessions.


That is possible, it's just a slog that leaves things disjointed (but less so). Especially since I use a very structured leveling system that works _wonderfully_...except in this one case. Basically, it takes MIN(4, your current level) sessions to go up a level. So 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, ...

I personally _like_ levels 1 and 2. The idea of starting out as fresh-faced no-bodies. Or at least _less-bodies_. Apprentice-adventurers, not established people. In part, this is due to the need to keep the level-equivalence of the world sane. My world (and any sane world IMO) has to have exponential fall-off of power, with it really biting around level 5-6. Level-equivalents of 7+ should be rare. Not _unknown_, but rare. 11+ should be extremely rare to legendary.

----------


## False God

> I personally _like_ levels 1 and 2. The idea of starting out as fresh-faced no-bodies. Or at least _less-bodies_. Apprentice-adventurers, not established people. In part, this is due to the need to keep the level-equivalence of the world sane. My world (and any sane world IMO) has to have exponential fall-off of power, with it really biting around level 5-6. Level-equivalents of 7+ should be rare. Not _unknown_, but rare. 11+ should be extremely rare to legendary.


I had a DM who ran games like this.  Most boring DM I ever played with.  He always wanted to start at level 1.  It was always the same sort of "intro quests" to get us into the gameworld, it was always the same gameworld.  You died?  Back to level 1.  He turned XP down to about 1% of what you'd normally get (I mean, we(1st level party of 4) killed like 14 cr 1/2 creatures one session and got 14XP).  

It didn't matter what you played, after 2 rounds you were hitting something with your sword.  Fighter?  Hit it with a sword.  Wizard?  Sword.  Cleric?  Mace, ooo, different!  We had one, ONE successful game with this DM, where for _once_ he started us at level 5 and handed out normal XP.  Everyone enjoyed it, characters completed quests, explored the world, fought monsters, delved through dungeons.  

Every other game was a boring slog where you probably died first session stepping on a pine-cone.  It didn't matter how hard you fought, how well you did, he did everything he could to keep the game under level 5.  You had the same suite of options, which weren't very different from what anyone else had.  The players all had to play stupid like we had no bloody idea what monsters were or what was going on in his world, even though this was like our 5th attempt at it.

Anyway, I don't care about world sanity.  I care about a fun game.  I care about not being stuck playing 1/10th of a game for months.  I care about getting to actually _play_ the character I came to the table with, and not watching them die every 4 hours.  I care about not having to pretend I'm an _idiot_ about adventuring.

/sorry, rant over.  I just absolutely can't stand this obsession with low-level gameplay.

----------


## animorte

> lNo main-line "build" should come online any later than level 5. Level 4 should grant at least the _thematic_ basis for whatever "smaller things" or "upgrades" the class will build on.


Yeah, that sounds good to me!

_Thank you, by the way, for going into such detail for a greater understanding._




> As for multiclassing...I don't think that level-by-level multiclassing is inherently salvageable, but since I am a strong minority there... at minimum there should be a very strong "you can't cast spells in any armor that the class itself didn't give you" rule. Multiclassing should always slow casting progression, both slots and spell access. No multiclass build should be more powerful than a straight-class build in the same niche. Multiclassing should only ever give breadth at the substantial cost of depth.


In the minority or not, I completely agree.




> As for starting at higher levels, my last two campaigns have started at 3. And personally--I think they're worse off for it, both narratively and game-ist. By the end of T1, the characters are less fleshed out narratively, with weaker places in the world and less shared history. Players are less familiar with their abilities and haven't "grown into" the characters as much. It also makes a mockery of the tier structure--you have to cram all the "local hero" stuff, setting up themes, larger narratives, dramatis personae into a lot less time. Which inevitably means the arcs spill into the next tier and end up disjointed due to the massive power spike at level 5.
> 
> It's not a _huge_ issue, but it's annoying as a narrative and setting-focused DM.





> I personally _like_ levels 1 and 2. The idea of starting out as fresh-faced no-bodies. Or at least _less-bodies_. Apprentice-adventurers, not established people. In part, this is due to the need to keep the level-equivalence of the world sane.


Lumping those two in together.

I agree with this. I think this concept is clouded by the lack of being able to play very much. For a few years, it was difficult to get anything going, but when it did, we usually started at a higher level. We had a lot of one-shots. It was just difficult to maintain for a while, so I understand sometimes not being able to progress naturally.

I genuinely appreciate the early levels and experiencing the growth. Everybody feels more invested in their own character and in the story/world/etc.




> That is possible, it's just a slog that leaves things disjointed (but less so). Especially since I use a very structured leveling system that works _wonderfully_...except in this one case. Basically, it takes MIN(4, your current level) sessions to go up a level. So 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, ...


This is interesting. I have structured in a similar fashion. Its never chiseled in stone because I think that can break the immersion, but I would say that definitely aligned with my average.




> - snip -


I am so sorry for your experiences. It sounds like youve been beaten into submission by crap game philosophy and power-trips. I cant hold that against you.

Im not _obsessed_ (rather appreciative) with the low level playing, but I understand why some people may not be fond of it, for various reasons. I just previously above mentioned some of that. Its like many other parts of this same game: Not everything is for everybody, but its vast enough that there is something for everybody.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> /sorry, rant over.  I just absolutely can't stand this obsession with low-level gameplay.


I enjoy play at character levels 1 and 2 myself.  Telling people to skip it is silly to me.

As to the topic, one of the benefits of starting subclass class acquisition earlier, is one can have a gentler power curve, as one is now allotted an extra platform to place powers.

I do not think a flavorful subclass power, at level 1  is too overwhelming for new players.

Hell, I have a sample of the Billy Joel song, Only Human saved, because Fighters tend to forget their Second Wind, and Billy, presciently advises against that.

Players do not forget the abilities their PC has, that matter to the player.
People tend to identify with their subclass, in my opinion.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I had a DM who ran games like this.  Most boring DM I ever played with.  He always wanted to start at level 1.  It was always the same sort of "intro quests" to get us into the gameworld, it was always the same gameworld.  You died?  Back to level 1.  He turned XP down to about 1% of what you'd normally get (I mean, we(1st level party of 4) killed like 14 cr 1/2 creatures one session and got 14XP).  
> 
> It didn't matter what you played, after 2 rounds you were hitting something with your sword.  Fighter?  Hit it with a sword.  Wizard?  Sword.  Cleric?  Mace, ooo, different!  We had one, ONE successful game with this DM, where for _once_ he started us at level 5 and handed out normal XP.  Everyone enjoyed it, characters completed quests, explored the world, fought monsters, delved through dungeons.  
> 
> Every other game was a boring slog where you probably died first session stepping on a pine-cone.  It didn't matter how hard you fought, how well you did, he did everything he could to keep the game under level 5.  You had the same suite of options, which weren't very different from what anyone else had.  The players all had to play stupid like we had no bloody idea what monsters were or what was going on in his world, even though this was like our 5th attempt at it.
> 
> Anyway, I don't care about world sanity.  I care about a fun game.  I care about not being stuck playing 1/10th of a game for months.  I care about getting to actually _play_ the character I came to the table with, and not watching them die every 4 hours.  I care about not having to pretend I'm an _idiot_ about adventuring.
> 
> /sorry, rant over.  I just absolutely can't stand this obsession with low-level gameplay.


Those are two entirely separate things. You can have low level play without grind or grinders. You can start at low levels and then progress normally. I know, I've done it for every campaign I've ever run. Including lots that ended by level 7 or 8 because they were inherently time boxed and others that went 1-20.

I've literally never killed a t1 character. Except the idiot who thought that soloing a dire yeti at level 2, despite ample opportunities to avoid it, was a good idea.I've only hard killed about 3 characters ever, not counting the ones that were revivified. And those were all t2 or higher.

----------


## Psyren

> No.
> 
> The first two levels are clearly being set up as introductory levels on playing the basic game, therefore the fewer decision points the better.
> 
> Secondly, subclasses at first level frontloads the classes far too much.


Agreed.




> But what's stopping you from staying longer in levels 3 and 4? Levels 1 and 2 are supposed to be about 3-4 sessions total. Add a couple of extra sessions to levels 3 and 4 and you're good to go (or at least as good to go as "vanilla 5e", which is designed to advance very fast on tiers 1 and 4)


Not even. In the latest starter set, you can hit 2 in the first session if your group powers through 2-3 encounters.

----------


## animorte

> As to the topic, one of the benefits of starting subclass class acquisition earlier, is one can have a gentler power curve, as one is now allotted an extra platform to place powers.


Gentler power curve, as in stretching the features out farther? They already struggled enough turning each Cleric Domain into its own subclass.

The extra platform for those powers still exists, but throwing it on too early removes (an extra opportunity to) modify base class feature to suit new subclass idea that I _really_ hope they embrace.




> The first two levels are clearly being set up as introductory levels on playing the basic game, therefore the fewer decision points the better.
> 
> Secondly, subclasses at first level frontloads the classes far too much.


Hey, I meant to throw my +1 on this as well.



> Agreed.


Thanks for the reminder.  :Small Big Grin:

----------


## sambojin

The only way to really make "start at lvl1" games in 5e interesting for more experienced players is "you start with a Feat and 2HD". First HD is maximum+ Conmod, second is normal (we use roll for HP, if it's under average, it's average-rounded-up + Conmod).

So a 12 Constitution Bard starts with 8+1+5+1= 15HP minimum. A 14Con Barbarian, 23HP minimum. A 13Con Wizard (that will probably take resilient-con later on), 12HP.

There's still plenty of class variance, but it just kicks the floor up a notch. Which is a good thing at lvl1. And it does push a big stat in a nicer way. And makes things like Moon druids look less bombastic.

I actually hope 1dnd does "you start with 2HD as well as your free feat". It's less swingy, less TPK'y, and you can make some actually interesting encounters without accidentally killing people off all the time, due to d20 variance. More total cap of HD, thus better healing potential, and a bit more self-heal during rests as well so you might not need to use resources that way as much too. But you can. Just change the Tough feat to be 2*lvl+2HP, and it's still a good recommendation. Maybe make it 2xlvl +4HP, it is a feat, after-all.

I also think that blowing a HD as a bonus action for Inspiration wouldn't be bad either, to let skillers and martials shine. Just experts and warriors, no-one else, maybe one for skills, the other for attacks.

It encourages "interesting/ condition inducing" combat encounters, where you do die due to the HP loss or lack-of-party-coordination, but it was for "reasons" not just "big attacks went boom!".

(Honestly, the entire bloody game could do with being a 2d10 game, so you get a curve, rather than d20 linear random chance, but that ain't going to happen)

----------


## False God

> I am so sorry for your experiences. It sounds like youve been beaten into submission by crap game philosophy and power-trips. I cant hold that against you.
> 
> Im not _obsessed_ (rather appreciative) with the low level playing, but I understand why some people may not be fond of it, for various reasons. I just previously above mentioned some of that. Its like many other parts of this same game: Not everything is for everybody, but its vast enough that there is something for everybody.





> Those are two entirely separate things. You can have low level play without grind or grinders. You can start at low levels and then progress normally. I know, I've done it for every campaign I've ever run. Including lots that ended by level 7 or 8 because they were inherently time boxed and others that went 1-20.
> 
> I've literally never killed a t1 character. Except the idiot who thought that soloing a dire yeti at level 2, despite ample opportunities to avoid it, was a good idea.I've only hard killed about 3 characters ever, not counting the ones that were revivified. And those were all t2 or higher.


I think "low level play" works fine in other games.  Games with heavier emphasis on skills and a wider suite of ability scores and a smaller die work well with low level play, and reward both specialists and generalists.  

My biggest gripe with it in D&D (with the exception of 4E) is that the overwhelming majority of play comes down to whatever you roll on the die.  Your modifiers, your skills, it's all very low-impact given the relatively large size of the d20 in comparison to your number (which will usually be in the 3-6 range).  It doesn't matter if you're a specialist or a generalist, the game doesn't reward one style or the other, in fact it punishes both.

Approach to play at low level just plain _doesn't matter_.  It's why I find everything so samey.  Cleric, Druid, Fighter, doesn't matter. The d20 determined everything.  More often than not, I feel like slagging the game and just playing "TV D&D" where you roll a d20 and success or failure entirely what you roll vs the difficulty of the task.  It's partly why I don't play 5E much, because _a lot_ of the game is pure random chance.  And I find that entirely _un_enjoyable.




> I enjoy play at character levels 1 and 2 myself.  Telling people to skip it is silly to me.
> 
> As to the topic, one of the benefits of starting subclass class acquisition earlier, is one can have a gentler power curve, as one is now allotted an extra platform to place powers.
> 
> I do not think a flavorful subclass power, at level 1  is too overwhelming for new players.
> 
> Hell, I have a sample of the Billy Joel song, Only Human saved, because Fighters tend to forget their Second Wind, and Billy, presciently advises against that.
> 
> Players do not forget the abilities their PC has, that matter to the player.
> People tend to identify with their subclass, in my opinion.


Don't get me wrong, I don't think people should _skip_ the intro levels.  I think they're worth playing _for what they are_: *intro levels*.  D&D does not produce by nature a low-magic or very versimilitudinous world.  You can produce that by doing as PhoenixPhyre suggests and dramatically restricting the number of high-level characters, but it should be clear this is an _artificial_ limitation on the game as it is presented.  Which isn't to say the Devs aren't trying their hardest to pretend that it really totally is, but looking at the fantasy worlds D&D has produced, it's clearly not the outcome of whats written.

"Subclasses" are something that came back to D&D out of video games, and they actually _help_ the power curve.  The initial levels provide basic class features and some simple thematic elements to give you a general idea of a "Warrior" or a "Paladin" or a "Mage" or whatever.  This guy hits things, that guy is backed by the gods, and that other guy casts spells.

Allowing them to be selected _later_ allows people time to see if those general themes are what they want to play.  It also gives them time to adjust their expectations of a "Cleric" or a "Druid" from looking at the picture on the box to the actual play of the class.  These things combined may result in a player going a different route or going with an entirely different class.

Later-game selection also allows us to differentiate generalists from specialists and helps emphasize the low level "new to adventuring" concepts that folks like PhoenixPhyre mention.  These are _brand new_ people setting out for the _first time_.  Starting them off with difninitive class features, IMO, takes away from that.  Instead of a band of noobs heading into the wild, you're a band of low-level Seal Team members, decked out with powers and skills and special features.  

I like low level, I just have no desire to be trapped there.  Going back to "why I don't play 5E much" the total lack of support for high-level gameplay and the general focus on campaigns from 1-9 mean I'm just not interested.  This game will either be short, or the levels will be obnoxiously drawn out.  It doesn't really matter to me if the subclass selection if at level 1 or level 3, they're functionally the same in my brain, and none of the features that I consider interesting or defining will ever get to see play.  But at least at level 3, I've had some time to decide if my investment in this campaign is worth putting in the extra work of bothering to remember any of my subclass features.  The more energy I have to invest in a character that I have generally been taught is going to die by next session, the _less_ energy the campaign is going to get from me.




> The only way to really make "start at lvl1" games in 5e interesting for more experienced players is "you start with a Feat and 2HD". First HD is maximum+ Conmod, second is normal (we use roll for HP, if it's under average, it's average-rounded-up + Conmod).
> 
> So a 12 Constitution Bard starts with 8+1+5+1= 15HP minimum. A 14Con Barbarian, 23HP minimum. A 13Con Wizard (that will probably take resilient-con later on), 12HP.
> 
> There's still plenty of class variance, but it just kicks the floor up a notch. Which is a good thing at lvl1. And it does push a big stat in a nicer way. And makes things like Moon druids look less bombastic.
> 
> I actually hope 1dnd does "you start with 2HD as well as your free feat". It's less swingy, less TPK'y, and you can make some actually interesting encounters without accidentally killing people off all the time, due to d20 variance. More total cap of HD, thus better healing potential, and a bit more self-heal during rests as well so you might not need to use resources that way as much too. But you can. I also think that blowing a HD as a bonus action for Inspiration wouldn't be bad either, to let skillers and martials shine.
> 
> (Honestly, the entire bloody game could do with being a 2d10 game, so you get a curve, rather than d20 linear random chance, but that ain't going to happen)


*knock knock*

Hi, I'm False God, and I'd like to talk to you about 4E.

In 4E, 1st level HP was always maxed.  It's the only edition where I wasn't worried that my character was going to _die_ from a stiff breeze.  Wizard, Cleric, Paladin, they were all hearty.  Rarely did you start with less than 8HP.  You were also able to access fairly good, if standard, armor right off the bat, no more of this "Well, Fighters and Paladins work best in plate(+8), but we're gonna give them mail(+5) because 1st level characters should be poor and weak."  You were also allowed to choose your Non-Armor Defenses from two different stats so that you could lean on your good scores and not be walking around with a giant dump-save.

Likewise, you received several unique features in the form of racial, background and class AEDU "powers".  You had 2 "generic" attacks but both had interesting riders on them.  You had at least one encounter and one daily power, both of which were decidedly more powerful and more interesting than your standard "basic attacks".  They almost always keyed off your primary score or your secondary score, so you were never worried that their effects would be lackluster because you had to use strength to swing a sword and you build a charismatic paladin before you realized that D&D has almost zero social pillar.

Your modifiers for almost anything you did were generally in the 5-10 range, even at low levels.  "Training" made a huge difference between someone with a high mod, and someone with training in a skill.  

Generally speaking the game felt like the player determined what their character succeeded or failed at, rather than the dice.  

Every level or so you got decision points!  This power, that power, switch some out, mix things up.  And at 11th and 21st you got specializations.  There were lots of decision points, for _everybody_.  And they came at regular, predictable intervals so everyone knew when there would be a power up.  

And that's _exactly_ what both 3.5 and it's love-child 5E lack, decision points.  Aside from subclass, there really aren't any.  You get the class features your level-up path says you get.  No variation, no decision, just you get them and you either use them or you don't.

Going back to Thunderous Mojo's point about people forgetting their class abilities, _this is why_.  You don't have any say in what you get or didn't get.  You picked apple pie and you got an apple pie.  When they added whipped cream and sprinkles, you didn't have any choice in that, but you had to take it back to the table.  When they came around with a cup of coffee, it didn't matter if you don't like coffee, you got coffee.  You weren't involved in the decision making, so _it doesn't matter_, your mind forgets because thats what brains do.  Things we weren't involved in and things we didn't have a say in are things that we don't retain well.

----------


## sambojin

Meh, a simple 2HD lvl1 start and 2xConmod works. Normal levelling after that, rolled and/or avg+.

D6 (wiz): 10HP + 2*Conmod
D8 (virtually everyone else): 13HP + 2*Conmod
D10 (fighter/ranger/pally): 16HP + 2*Conmod
D12 (barbs): 19HP + 2*Conmod

Chuck in a Feat and you're good to go. You could roll for the second HD, but I honestly wouldn't even bother. 1 max, 1 avg, +2*conmod for variance of characters. Keep it simple.

Then you can throw what you want at them, fully knowing how Tough they are. Especially with the Tough Feat giving +6HP at lvl1 (lvl*2+4HP). There's still a huge opportunity cost of what you "can't do", now and later, for choosing it, which is nice. But, you *can* tank, if you want, gishy or martial or caster or not.

Blowing a HD as a martial for advantage on hitting as a bonus action, or as an expert on skilling yourself for same, makes sense too. And maybe Bards can inspire anyone from HD. And Rogues can use them on sneak attack damage. Gives them useful uses, with a good platform to work from, on where and why adventurers are in these categories (pallies are divine, not martial). It's just +1 uses per day of an advantage granting "spell", that isn't magical, yet has a use, and scales on uses with your level (almost like spells do). So 2HD lvl1 starts work that way in 1dnd, I hope, but it'd work fine in 5e too.

----------


## Frogreaver

Going back to subclasses at 3rd level.  It's too long for me but not for every concept.  Some subclasses can get by with it fine.  I can play my fighter as a Samari without any mechanical help and then take the Samari subclass at level 3.  No biggy.  I cannot play my fighter as an Eldritch Knight without something magical to do (and i shouldn't need to rely on race or feats for this, IMO I should be able to play a standard human eldritch knight concept from level 1).

Now they could make subclasses at 3 work great if they just add in more classes to cover those early game missing thematics.  But if they continue to force those impossible to play before subclass level thematics into a level 3 subclass that's going to continue to be a problematic design decision for quite a few people.

I get their concern about not overloading new players.  

Which to me means get rid of subclasses where the class itself lacks a mechanical implementation that allows you to play thematically as the thing you want to be.  Those subclasses then should have classes created around them so new players can start playing in the thematics they want right out of the gate.

I don't think this will happen, but it's what should happen.

----------


## sambojin

(what could divines, clerics and pallies have, in this system above? Cast absorb elements as a reaction on someone else within 20' for a HD? Or is that the druid's one?)

Mages/ wiz/ whatever get nothing. Ever. They are way too OP already, even with changes to spell preps. They can only try and keep their HP above zero with HD. That's what the best spell list gives you. Nothing and everything. And someone else in the party could heal you, if they wanted. But you only get basic HD uses, because you are f'ing broken still.

----------


## Witty Username

> As for multiclassing...I don't think that level-by-level multiclassing is inherently salvageable, but since I am a strong minority there... at minimum there should be a very strong "you can't cast spells in any armor that the class itself didn't give you" rule. Multiclassing should always slow casting progression, both slots and spell access. No multiclass build should be more powerful than a straight-class build in the same niche. Multiclassing should only ever give breadth at the substantial cost of depth.


And not have those awkward break points that you have to hit if you want your character to have basic functions but serve to delay your character feeling like they are pursuing the the things they are actually interested in/ motivated by.

I think in terms of mechanics level by level is fine, I agree that, can't cast spells in any armor that the class itself didn't give, is a fair rule, I don't think it is too powerful so much as things like fighter 1/ wizard 17 looks very stupid.
But in terms of verisimilitude it frustrates the heck out of me, I think it does well in the model of dual-classing (switch at one point and never look back) so you don't have to worry about your character having an incoherent origin (I want to be a mage knight but I am no different from any other gnome fighter for x levels becomes instead, my gnome feels unfulfilled devoting themselves to personal combat and so has begun studying magic), but outside of that it encourages a very gammy outlook of abilities. Like that fighter 1/wizard X, I took this for armor and I think we all know why as the player I would pick fighter but I don't want to delay my spellcasting further, so I take wizard to 17,  and with my spellcasting sorted, my character is suddenly interested in improving the martial skill they abandoned years ago (because then I get that nice trick with spellcasting and action surge).
I personally prefer AD&D multi-classing and gestalt methods, where I pick my 2 classes (or 3 but that way lies madness) at 1st level and get a mix of them throughout the characters run. Give me both classes and a 50% XP penalty or something.

Edit: I realize I have some to say about this bit,



> IMO:
> 
> Level 1: Anything that changes what the prime ability scores are for the class. Including armor, weapons, and spell modifier _if_ it's primarily a caster.
> Levels 2 and 3: subclasses and the "one big thing" (where "one" could be "two or three", but the central mechanical and thematic element around which the rest of the class pivots).[1]
> By level 5: Identity fully fleshed out and playable. No main-line "build" should come online any later than level 5. Level 4 should grant at least the _thematic_ basis for whatever "smaller things" or "upgrades" the class will build on.
> 
> Levels 1-4 should be packed with features. Levels 5-10 should still have meaningful features, but in many ways they're just reinforcements on the same theme. Levels 11-16 should mostly be _horizontal_ growth--secondary themes, different ways of accomplishing things, but most of the vertical power growth should be over by this point. No sharp left turns in capabilities. Levels 17+ should be a victory lap--one or two big capstone features that are designed to _actually be capstones_. That is, they cap off, finish off, hold in place the rest of the structure. Not be completely different, out-of-left-field growth. No "levels 1-16 you suck, level 17 you can cast Gate at will" 3e truenamer BS. Not that there's anything that bad in 5e, thankfully.


I actually agree with most of this, with a couple caveats:
I think at the point of tier shift, 1-2 ~ 5th level, 2-3 ~11th, 3-4~17 should be a significant increase in vertical power, essentially marking the tier shift
and leaning towards new or unique abilities,
I think paladin mostly fits this
5th - extra attack, 11th - imp. divine smite, 17th - 5th level spell casting with several good exclusives

The goal of this is to avoid things like the barbarian, which feels like it stops dead a 5th level in terms of growth, and the general sense of the game feeling like it is over after tier 2. I was playing FF14, and noted that every 10 levels after 50, each class has a bit of signature features near the beginning and builds on them until the end of the 10, then begins again with the next 10 levels, forming something of a cycle. D&D isn't the same, tier 3 isn't part of the next expansion that Wotc wants us to buy, but it got me thinking that several of the classes (mostly martials) don't have any grip on sticking with the class with any interest.

----------


## sithlordnergal

I rather like subclasses being at 3rd level. Yes, its annoying for us old hats, but its extremely useful for new players. I have a group of 7 players, 5 of them have never played or watched a TTRPG before. They hadn't even seen/listened to Critical Role before now. None of those 5 players have any of the books, didn't have any dice when we first started, and were neurodivergent. They had a hard enough time figuring out what was going on with basic level 1 characters.

The first two levels were a perfect way to introduce them to the mechanics of the game. How spells, attacks, and actions worked, how to interact with the game, ect. Then, when Subclasses hit at level three, we basically skipped an entire session in order to level them up and deal with subclasses. They were overwhelmed by the basic PHB choices.

I'm 100% sure that if they had gotten to choose their class and subclass at level 1, they would have been way too overwhelmed to deal with it, and they wouldn't have gone past session 0.


EDIT: Also, this is coming from someone who _LOATHS_ low level game play. I'm so damn limited by what I can throw at a level 4 party, or even a level 8. Don't get me wrong, I can still make fun, interesting, and varied challenges. But my fun starts when I can throw crazy encounters at the party. I'm talking things like a Marut, backed up by a Lich with a spell list that's been modified to be deadlier and capable of shutting down the party, with maybe a pair of permanently invisible Star Spawn Manglers thrown in. Not as a boss fight, but as a lead up to a boss fight. I throw something like that at _anything_ less than a skilled T3 party, and they will die. The Marut alone deals 120 force damage automatically each turn with its multiattack after all.

And as a player? Low levels are boring too. I'm bored with characters that are below T3 cause I've played so many of them. I have literally played every single class in the game up to level 10 at least once, outside of Ranger. But despite that, I'll still say we need those low levels, especially for new players.

----------


## Aimeryan

> Bingo. The first two levels are optional. They are intended to help introduce new players to the concepts. Just skip them if you're an experienced group with developed concepts.
> 
> There is no magic forcing anyone to start at level 1. WotC will not hire thugs to come to your house and take your books if you start at level 3 or even 4.


Yup. For single classes it actually makes no difference. There could be 30 levels with level 1-10 doing nothing and level 11-30 being the current level 1-20; as long as you started at level 11.

The real difference is for multiclassing, which in my theorectical scenario would now give you nothing until you invested 11 levels into one. Back to D&D One, this would now require a 3 level investments to get all the features previously obtained with a 1 level investment. Honestly, I admire the inventiveness of this solution to multiclassing, however, I dislike the actual effect.

My preferred method for making multiclassing not just obviously preferable at certain points (usually an immediate 1 or 2 level dip, or tier 3+) would be to make going straight class more interesting and less flawed. The reason for multiclassing tends to be because there are obvious flaws that can remedied by doing so. Paladin grabbing Hexblade to fix the MADness. Wizards grabbing Cleric to fix the lack of armor proficiency. Most martials encountering the feature desert in tier 3 and having no good reason to stay straight classed.

Most multiclassing doesn't make a character more powerful, but more interesting and covers obvious weak points. Less multiclassing means less interesting characters. Make straight classing more interesting and with alternative ways to deal with flaws, then it becomes more of a choice to multiclass. Mage Armor is a good example of an interesting possible implementation, but sadly quite weak and very costly for what it does.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Make minimum ability score for multi-classing a 15 instead!


 Sounds like something AD&D had as a feature ...  :Small Cool: 



> He turned XP down to about 1% of what you'd normally get (I mean, we(1st level party of 4) killed like 14 cr 1/2 creatures one session and got 14XP).


 You have DM issues, not low level play issues.     1. Get a new DM, 2. volunteer to DM, or 3. play a different game if this is what you are running into.  



> My biggest gripe with it in D&D (with the exception of 4E) is that the overwhelming majority of play comes down to whatever you roll on the die.  Your modifiers, your skills, it's all very low-impact given the relatively large size of the d20 in comparison to your number (which will usually be in the 3-6 range).  It doesn't matter if you're a specialist or a generalist, the game doesn't reward one style or the other, in fact it punishes both.


 Power tripping as a gaming style: maybe _your approach_ is what is causing you this frustration with this game.  

Sub classes IMO are a better idea than Prestige Classes, and far better than having dozens and dozens of classes. 




> I like low level, I just have no desire to be trapped there.  Going back to "why I don't play 5E much" the total lack of support for high-level gameplay and the general focus on campaigns from 1-9 mean I'm just not interested.


 Yeah, if power and power tripping is where you are at...

I am beginning to have a few issues with tier 3 play with my thursday group, partly because I can't rely on them all to show up.  The lack of continuity has me using pre packaged adventures as often as not.  Your point on lack of support for high level play seems to me to be an accurate one; my experience with high level play is that it's swingy.

----------


## Chronos

Since the start of the game, players have looked at first level, and realized that it sucks.  And lately, WotC have been trying to fix that.  But that's a mistake, because they don't realize that first level sucking is a feature, not a bug.  First level is _supposed_ to suck, and when it doesn't, that's a problem.  It's all about progression and advancement:  Higher levels are supposed to feel good, because those things you used to have to worry about at low levels, you don't have to worry about any more.  Think of that moment in Order of the Stick, when Haley and Belkar are, like so many times before, being chased by a bunch of goblins...  when suddenly Haley realizes, wait, we're only being chased by a bunch of goblins.  And then proceeds to take all of them out without breaking a sweat.

Bounded accuracy made that much less of a thing, and that was the biggest mistake WotC has made.  And now they're trying to make it even less of a thing.

----------


## Xihirli

Honestly I would just get rid of multiclassing and go all in on subclasses giving you that customization.
I mean look at a few of the subclasses we have now.

Eldritch Knight  Wizardy Fighter.
Arcane Trickster  Wizardy Rogue
Scout  Rangery Rogue

A few more that are debatable, like Cavalier being a Paladiny Fighter. 
I think they should release (a few at a time) subclasses that give you the multiclassing flavor and feel and customization and just get rid of actual multiclassing, because it's clear that they don't actually know how to balance the game around it. 
I mean, recent interview JC said the designers wanted to avoid first level dips. But really? You wanted to avoid them when you MADE THE HEXBLADE? The twilight cleric? It seems more like the game just isn't designed with multiclassing in mind, and if the new cleric's anything to go by, you still don't account for it. I genuinely think a Cleric 1 / Thief Rogue 19 will heal faster than they do damage for the entire game. 

So just get rid of it and maybe make one book entirely focused on subclasses that let you step on a few toes. Boom, much easier to balance the game around.

----------


## False God

> Honestly I would just get rid of multiclassing and go all in on subclasses giving you that customization.
> I mean look at a few of the subclasses we have now.
> 
> Eldritch Knight  Wizardy Fighter.
> Arcane Trickster  Wizardy Rogue
> Scout  Rangery Rogue
> 
> A few more that are debatable, like Cavalier being a Paladiny Fighter. 
> I think they should release (a few at a time) subclasses that give you the multiclassing flavor and feel and customization and just get rid of actual multiclassing, because it's clear that they don't actually know how to balance the game around it. 
> ...


Wouldn't you need like, 11 subclasses for each class, to represent all possible combinations?

----------


## animorte

> Sounds like something AD&D had as a feature ...


Bring it baaack! Of course, I wasnt there so whatever it was is probably a better option  certainly different!  :Small Confused:  



> You have DM issues, not low level play issues.     1. Get a new DM, 2. volunteer to DM, or 3. play a different game if this is what you are running into.


Thats exactly what I was getting at too.



> Sub classes IMO are a better idea than Prestige Classes, and far better than having dozens and dozens of classes
> 
> Your point on lack of support for high level play seems to me to be an accurate one; my experience with high level play is that it's swingy.


Agreed on both of those.




> First level is _supposed_ to suck, and when it doesn't, that's a problem.  It's all about progression and advancement:


Absolutely. Well said to all of this.




> Honestly I would just get rid of multiclassing and go all in on subclasses giving you that customization.


I think they tried with 5e, but at the last minute decided that they would throw in a couple base rules to still leave it open.

This game is not balanced around multi-classing whatsoever. We need more limitations, as were listed upthread.




> Wouldn't you need like, 11 subclasses for each class, to represent all possible combinations?


No, unless youre literally trying to steal the core mechanic of each base class: Barbarian Rage, Druid Wild Shape, etc.

I believe theyre just trying to simulate the other basic roles. For example, giving a martial class spells covers _the mage_ while giving a full caster armor/weapons/extra attack covers _the martial_. Throw in another something else to make a non-healer a healer (Mercy Monk, Celestial Warlock).

----------


## False God

> I believe theyre just trying to simulate the other basic roles. For example, giving a martial class spells covers _the mage_ while giving a full caster armor/weapons/extra attack covers _the martial_. Throw in another something else to make a non-healer a healer (Mercy Monk, Celestial Warlock).


What "roles"?  

See, _this_ is why I don't like subclasses.  Subclasses are MMO/video-game design because the game _need_ a certain set of roles in order to function: Tank, Healer/Support, DPS.  Because the game can't adjust, its designed to deal with a certain number of people with a certain set of roles.  

D&D doesn't need that, because the game _can_ adjust.  DMs can make adjustments every second of the game in order to better tune the game they're running for the party thats playing, regardless of if that party is 5 Champion Fighters or 2 AT Rogues and 3 Four Elements Monks.  Because D&D doesn't need a 5-man party with a specific Tank, Healer and 3 DPS.  Because D&D isn't being run by a mindless machine that can't account for what people are playing.

----------


## Rukelnikov

For the most classes, 3rd is a good spot, however the externally empowered classes make some narrative noise, Clerics should still pick their god at 1st, then decide domain (at least in settings where they are empowered by gods, which are most published ones), same for Paladins.

But Warlocks are the greatest offenders, If I haven't signed a pact yet, where's this magic coming from? Still have to see how the new Lock looks, but I hope you don't get magic before making a pact with whichever force is granting you powers.

----------


## animorte

> What "roles"?  
> 
> See, _this_ is why I don't like subclasses.  Subclasses are MMO/video-game design because the game _need_ a certain set of roles in order to function: Tank, Healer/Support, DPS.  Because the game can't adjust, its designed to deal with a certain number of people with a certain set of roles.


I agree, its taken more steps toward the MMO approach, which is kind of silly. Have a look at the ChatGPT thread here and see how people are trying to get more ideas for DM and even _replace DM entirely_.

I honestly think its less about the specific roles and more about approaching a style of the game from a different perspective. Warlock is my favorite class and I like having the option to heal from that class in an entirely different way. It adds more depth to the game without being a blatant copy of the the better healers.




> D&D doesn't need that, because the game _can_ adjust.  DMs can make adjustments every second of the game in order to better tune the game they're running for the party thats playing, regardless of if that party is 5 Champion Fighters or 2 AT Rogues and 3 Four Elements Monks.  Because D&D doesn't need a 5-man party with a specific Tank, Healer and 3 DPS.  Because D&D isn't being run by a mindless machine that can't account for what people are playing.


Interesting that you say this while having the complaint upthread about obvious accounts of the DM specifically *not* adjusting the game to suit the PCs.

However, I do agree with you. It should be on the DM to adjust the game so that everybody can have fun. I think in official published adventures (anything not homebrew) can be a little more difficult to adjust in that manner though.




> But Warlocks are the greatest offenders, If I haven't signed a pact yet, where's this magic coming from? Still have to see how the new Lock looks, but I hope you don't get magic before making a pact with whichever force is granting you powers.


Somebody had the idea of selecting your pact boon at level 1 and then you gain some magical powers from it. Suddenly after gaining some experience with it, an entity presents itself to you (as you are carrying their artifact) and will further empower you, should you chose to make a pact with them directly.

----------


## Psyren

> Honestly I would just get rid of multiclassing and go all in on subclasses giving you that customization.


Absolutely not. Ban it at your table if you want, but we enjoy it greatly.




> For the most classes, 3rd is a good spot, however the externally empowered classes make some narrative noise, Clerics should still pick their god at 1st, then decide domain (at least in settings where they are empowered by gods, which are most published ones), same for Paladins.
> 
> But Warlocks are the greatest offenders, If I haven't signed a pact yet, where's this magic coming from? Still have to see how the new Lock looks, but I hope you don't get magic before making a pact with whichever force is granting you powers.


I'd say you can sign a pact and get basic powers before the true benefit of that pact is revealed via the subclass. At least, that's what I think they'll do. I do agree that any character choices that narratively lead to the class, such as picking a deity or patron, should be made at 1st level even if you're only getting rudimentary powers then.

----------


## Rukelnikov

> I'd say you can sign a pact and get basic powers before the true benefit of that pact is revealed via the subclass. At least, that's what I think they'll do. I do agree that any character choices that narratively lead to the class, such as picking a deity or patron, should be made at 1st level even if you're only getting rudimentary powers then.


Yeah, that's why Cleric and Paladin work for me, because while narratively your devotion reached a certain point at the time you get your subclass, you can't generally do that in an instant, its something that probably took years of dedication. But the Warlock's power is instant, having thing like lesser pact at 1, then boon pact at 3, greater pact 11, etc could fix that, but then you would have to be doing multiple pacts, which wouldn't be out of flavor either, since to become a really powerful warlock you would need to have signed multiple pacts.

To be completely honest I'm a bit wary of the narrative implications of the mechanical choices they do, and have been this way for a while which was a bit shocking at first given 5e originally felt like the most narrative aware edition since 2e. I'm very eager to see the rest of the classes to be able to make a more informed analysis of how this looks.

----------


## False God

> I agree, its taken more steps toward the MMO approach, which is kind of silly. Have a look at the ChatGPT thread here and see how people are trying to get more ideas for DM and even _replace DM entirely_.


Yeah I've seen some of that.  But ya know, I don't have much of a desire to play an MMO on paper.  Don't get me wrong I _get it_.  I enjoyed the HECK out of 4E.  But even with roles far stronger than 5E will ever dare to dream, I still feel like 4E had more _choice_ than 5E.  Not more _options_, but more points where player decision-making for their character's build came up.  




> I honestly think its less about the specific roles and more about approaching a style of the game from a different perspective. Warlock is my favorite class and I like having the option to heal from that class in an entirely different way. It adds more depth to the game without being a blatant copy of the the better healers.


I think more to the point, my issue with "what level should the subclass decision point be?" is that its a question that misses two important points:
1: You MUST make a choice.  There's no option to be a dabbler.  
2: Every other choice after that (except spells, but lets not get into how spellcasters have an inherently larger choice-pool than everyone else) is fixed.

So the level really doesn't matter, because the choice doesn't really matter.  You can't progress without making it, and you don't get any further say in how it works.  I mean, at least in MMOs you get talent trees with at least _some_ variety of choice, even if some are clearly better for your "role" than others.




> Interesting that you say this while having the complaint upthread about obvious accounts of the DM specifically *not* adjusting the game to suit the PCs.


Keep in mind, this is ONE DM I've played with.  That's what they wanted to run and how they wanted to run it, player enjoyment be darned.  I'm sure they'll find folks who are into that sort of thing eventually.  But yes, and I've certainly seen it in other forms, an unwillingness to deviate from some established line.  The story, the level range, the area, a certain general playstyle.  A DM, unlike a computer, _can_ adjust, but as they are human, like a lot of humans, they often don't want to.




> However, I do agree with you. It should be on the DM to adjust the game so that everybody can have fun. I think in official published adventures (anything not homebrew) can be a little more difficult to adjust in that manner though.


I agree, which is why I almost never play them unless they're with a DM who prioritizes player fun over whatever the module says to do.  (There's like, 1 DM in town I know who does this).  And I'm more fine with a DM who won't deviate from a written module than a DM with their own campaign and own campaign world who won't deviate.  

To _deviate_ from this thread a little bit, one of my running issues with 5E is that the game feels _delicate_, which may be what some other DMs I've played with also picked up, perhaps subconsciously.  The ability for 5E to handle deviation from the rules is very low and the game can quite quickly fall apart if you play outside its bounds, and you don't even have to go very far.

----------


## CTurbo

I personally think that every class should get it's subclass at level 1 and then you should gain new subclass features more frequently throughout leveling. 

Like right now most classes gain new subclass features 3 or 5 times over 20 levels. I'd rather gain new subclass features every 2-3 levels from 1-20.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> To _deviate_ from this thread a little bit, one of my running issues with 5E is that the game feels _delicate_, which may be what some other DMs I've played with also picked up, perhaps subconsciously.  The ability for 5E to handle deviation from the rules is very low and the game can quite quickly fall apart if you play outside its bounds, and you don't even have to go very far.


That's odd. I find it extraordinarily robust. I play fast and loose all the time and nothing falls apart.

----------


## animorte

> Yeah I've seen some of that.  But ya know, I don't have much of a desire to play an MMO on paper.  Don't get me wrong I _get it_.  I enjoyed the HECK out of 4E.  But even with roles far stronger than 5E will ever dare to dream, I still feel like 4E had more _choice_ than 5E.  Not more _options_, but more points where player decision-making for their character's build came up.


Thats exactly why Ive been stating the hopes for a _slightly_ more modular game design. You get to make more choices to really build the character you want, within reason.




> I think more to the point, my issue with "what level should the subclass decision point be?" is that its a question that misses two important points:
> 1: You MUST make a choice.  There's no option to be a dabbler.  
> 2: Every other choice after that (except spells, but lets not get into how spellcasters have an inherently larger choice-pool than everyone else) is fixed.


Those questions should be answered by the subclass itself, yes. The path you have chosen should be clear and defined, separate from the other paths. Ive also mentioned fewer overall classes could essentially accomplish this much better, allowing more space for well-defined subclasses. Were getting into the territory of find a different game though.




> That's odd. I find it extraordinarily robust. I play fast and loose all the time and nothing falls apart.


I find this to be closer to my experience as well. I believe it is determined by a combination of experience, improv, and familiarity with other players.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I find this to be closer to my experience as well. I believe it is determined by a combination of experience, improv, and familiarity with other players.


For me, a large part of it is that I'm not looking for a system to tell me what to do. Or even what's possible. Or to simulate stuff. I want a system that acts as a toolkit of content and resolution mechanics to be invoked when and where we decide. Not to insist or demand. The rules exist for the table's convenience, they don't define the game.

The other thing is that most of what I want done is what it does best--heroic, somewhat cinematic fantasy exploring new and different things. Not ultra-high power levels, not gritty, not super tactical, not "realistic" (heavens forfend). I'm not looking to push the boundaries or make parties walk the razor edge of challenge. Or trying to wring every drop of mechanical sophistication and variety. I'm totally happy playing a fairly plain-vanilla fighter who, in combat, mostly attacks. I'm fine with my concepts not having anything to do with "the best X in the world." Sure, by level 20, I'm going to _be_ one of the best at particular things. But demigods? Nah.

Also, only asking it to resolve situations where either of the two major answers are acceptable. If only one answer is acceptable based on narrative and the needs of the table...the rules can go hang.

----------


## Pex

> I see two reasons why third level subclasses might be good.  First because they limit the ability to leverage dipping for lots of frontloaded goodies, and second because for brand new players they allow people to get a broad understanding of their character before committing to a certain build path.  If anything, I'd prefer if the PHB openly admitted that first level was introductory, and suggested that everybody except for new players and people wanting to play rank novices start a little above.


Nice of the game to suggest experienced players start at 3rd level, but alas there will be DMs who insist on starting at 1st level regardless. They're sticklers players must earn their levels. That would be a DM thing not a D&D thing, but the difference means nothing to the players stuck having to start at 1st level despite playing since last millenium.

Making it worse are DMs who will start at 3rd level but insist you remain dirt poor and start with only 1st level equipment.

Oh, is my bias rant showing?
 :Small Yuk:

----------


## Psyren

> That's odd. I find it extraordinarily robust. I play fast and loose all the time and nothing falls apart.


Likewise. 5e especially is much sturdier in this regard than my memories of 3e and brief stint with 4e were.




> I personally think that every class should get it's subclass at level 1 and then you should gain new subclass features more frequently throughout leveling. 
> 
> Like right now most classes gain new subclass features 3 or 5 times over 20 levels. I'd rather gain new subclass features every 2-3 levels from 1-20.


I don't know about that... it seems to me that frequent features in this mold would either require ballooning the design time for each subclass, subclasses ending up with a lot of samey features to one another, or introducing a lot of chaff/ribbons so that this rapid acquisition of features wouldn't imbalance the game. I wouldn't be enthused about any of these consequences.

----------


## JNAProductions

> Nice of the game to suggest experienced players start at 3rd level, but alas there will be DMs who insist on starting at 1st level regardless. They're sticklers players must earn their levels. That would be a DM thing not a D&D thing, but the difference means nothing to the players stuck having to start at 1st level despite playing since last millenium.
> 
> Making it worse are DMs who will start at 3rd level but insist you remain dirt poor and start with only 1st level equipment.
> 
> Oh, is my bias rant showing?


First level gear is fine for 3rd level.
Id generally upgrade the PCs armor, but its still early enough that magic items might not have appeared at all.

This isnt 3.P or 4th, where expensive gear is mandatory.

----------


## animorte

> For me, a large part of it is that I'm not looking for a system to tell me what to do. Or even what's possible. Or to simulate stuff. I want a system that acts as a toolkit of content and resolution mechanics to be invoked when and where we decide. Not to insist or demand. The rules exist for the table's convenience, they don't define the game.


Because of this, Ive sat around the table several times with friends and minimal resources. We still had a wonderful time of what is, by default, referred to as D&D.




> Also, only asking it to resolve situations where either of the two major answers are acceptable. If only one answer is acceptable based on narrative and the needs of the table...the rules can go hang.


Weve discussed this in several threads lately (on the d20 test concept). We only call for the rolls when the narrative outcome itself is equally ambiguous. For the people that like rolling dice just for the sake of rolling dice, Im sure theres a group for that.




> I don't know about that... it seems to me that frequent features in this mold would either require ballooning the design time for each subclass, subclasses ending up with a lot of samey features to one another, or introducing a lot of chaff/ribbons so that this rapid acquisition of features wouldn't imbalance the game. I wouldn't be enthused about any of these consequences.


*IF* the base classes were robbed of some of their features, and those same features distributed in various ways throughout the subclasses, I could see it working.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> First level gear is fine for 3rd level.
> Id generally upgrade the PCs armor, but its still early enough that magic items might not have appeared at all.
> 
> This isnt 3.P or 4th, where expensive gear is mandatory.


Agree. At most, by 3rd level you might have some consumables and _maybe_ a common permanent item. Maybe studded leather for the light-armor folks. I'd be shocked if someone had plate or a significant combat-altering permanent item.

----------


## Psyren

> First level gear is fine for 3rd level.
> Id generally upgrade the PCs armor, but its still early enough that magic items might not have appeared at all.
> 
> This isnt 3.P or 4th, where expensive gear is mandatory.


Yeah I'm not seeing the issue here either.




> *IF* the base classes were robbed of some of their features, and those same features distributed in various ways throughout the subclasses, I could see it working.


I wouldn't; that would require each subclass to gain a comparable yet different feature at each of those levels. Say for example you took away the 1DD Ranger's Nature's Veil feature and put that behind a subclass - now every other subclass they get would need to get different features that are all on par with that one, or else risk feeling like there's a clear "wrong" choice of subclass if they don't.

I think subclass features at 3 / 6 / 10 / 14, and feats at 1 / 4 / 8 / 12 / 16, are more than enough power steps / customization points for most characters/games. And all of those are before bonus feats, spellcasting etc.

----------


## Pex

> For the most classes, 3rd is a good spot, however the externally empowered classes make some narrative noise, Clerics should still pick their god at 1st, then decide domain (at least in settings where they are empowered by gods, which are most published ones), same for Paladins.
> 
> But Warlocks are the greatest offenders, If I haven't signed a pact yet, where's this magic coming from? Still have to see how the new Lock looks, but I hope you don't get magic before making a pact with whichever force is granting you powers.


This is where it is said the Pact is the base class - your Patron. The subclass is your Boon - Tome, Chain, Blade, Talisman

----------


## Pex

> First level gear is fine for 3rd level.
> Id generally upgrade the PCs armor, but its still early enough that magic items might not have appeared at all.
> 
> This isnt 3.P or 4th, where expensive gear is mandatory.


I'm not asking for magic items, but I'd like my single class always will be hexblade blade pact warlock not be stuck with leather armor and no shield at 3rd level thanks.

----------


## Rukelnikov

> This is where it is said the Pact is the base class - your Patron. The subclass is your Boon - Tome, Chain, Blade, Talisman


Great, but then they will have to choose their patron at level 1.




> *IF* the base classes were robbed of some of their features, and those same features distributed in various ways throughout the subclasses, I could see it working.


I hoped those base class features were distributed amongst feats requiring the class group, but from what has been shown that doesn't seem to be the case.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I hoped those base class features were distributed amongst feats requiring the class group, but from what has been shown that doesn't seem to be the case.


Ick. Turning features into feats is exactly the wrong thing to do. It neuters class identity while making traps appear. If you want a "buy your features with points" system, go play GURPS or another one designed around that from the bottom up. Don't try to graft one onto a class/level system--that just makes a mess of both sides.

----------


## False God

> Ick. Turning features into feats is exactly the wrong thing to do. It neuters class identity while making traps appear. If you want a "buy your features with points" system, go play GURPS or another one designed around that from the bottom up. Don't try to graft one onto a class/level system--that just makes a mess of both sides.


Realistically though there should be choice points within subclasses.  Different abilities that all keep within the class and subclasses theme, but provide different approaches or different special abilities or unique thematic flavor.

Being on a class railroad isn't any more fun than being on an adventure railroad.

----------


## Arkhios

Is it, though? If XP requirements aren't changed (and I doubt they are), 2nd level is reached at 300 XP, and 3rd level at 1000 XP. That's roughly a session per level played, unless your DM just doesn't know what they're doing. That is to say, really, really, soon.

The first three levels are introductory levels at best, and plenty of tables of more experienced players already start at 3rd level anyway, for plenty of reasons (one of which I like to believe is the legacy of 4th edition, where you started the game with hp totals somewhere between the 20-30 ish).

----------


## Rukelnikov

> Ick. Turning features into feats is exactly the wrong thing to do. It neuters class identity while making traps appear. If you want a "buy your features with points" system, go play GURPS or another one designed around that from the bottom up. Don't try to graft one onto a class/level system--that just makes a mess of both sides.





> Realistically though there should be choice points within subclasses.  Different abilities that all keep within the class and subclasses theme, but provide different approaches or different special abilities or unique thematic flavor.


Would Reliable Talent be out of place in any of the expert classes? But its gated Rogue only.




> Being on a class railroad isn't any more fun than being on an adventure railroad.


A bit of this, while I do believe that adventure railroad is much worse than class railroad, I also think class railroad often means system and narrative clash 

"Nope, even though the monks of this temple are willing to teach you their secret arts, you cannot learn them, you already learnt about a different temple's secret arts".

Feats and prereqs could fix many of those.

----------


## animorte

> I wouldn't; that would require each subclass to gain a comparable yet different feature at each of those levels. Say for example you took away the 1DD Ranger's Nature's Veil feature and put that behind a subclass - now every other subclass they get would need to get different features that are all on par with that one, or else risk feeling like there's a clear "wrong" choice of subclass if they don't.


Like I said, I _could_ see it working. Youve just stated the biggest problem with it. The more options there are, the harder it is to maintain balance. I said this exactly earlier. Spells are an obvious example of this. Some options are always good while others never see the light of day.




> I think subclass features at 3 / 6 / 10 / 14, and feats at 1 / 4 / 8 / 12 / 16, are more than enough power steps / customization points for most characters/games. And all of those are before bonus feats, spellcasting etc.


I agree.




> Realistically though there should be choice points within subclasses.  Different abilities that all keep within the class and subclasses theme, but provide different approaches or different special abilities or unique thematic flavor.


Admittedly, its very difficult to have the multiple points at every option all staying within the same theme [u]and[u] without just overlapping with other subclasses entirely.




> I hoped those base class features were distributed amongst feats requiring the class group, but from what has been shown that doesn't seem to be the case.


I dont necessarily think this is the right way to go. I desperately want *not* to go back to pile-of-hot-garbage feat chains, please.

----------


## False God

> Admittedly, its very difficult to have the multiple points at every option all staying within the same theme [u]and[u] without just overlapping with other subclasses entirely.


A little overlap within subclasses is good.  It promotes a common theme, rather than simply being 3 distinct classes.  And it doesn't have to be at every option, subclasses should have distinct features that are all their own as well.

Putting decision points and not necessarily branching ones, at each of the power shifts, 6, 11, 16 would be a good way to do this.  You don't need sub-sub-sub classes.  

The Talent Trees that WoW used for several expansions until now is a good example.

In between here are the "standard" abilities that define your class.

And yes, there do tend to end up being "best" options, at least in the context of an MMO where you're supposed to build the best in order to do the most whatever, but thats not really necessary in D&D.  So it shouldn't matter if some of these are "interesting, but not the best".

----------


## animorte

> The Talent Trees that WoW used for several expansions until now is a good example.
> 
> In between here are the "standard" abilities that define your class.


I remember that in WoW (though its been over 20 years since I played. League of Legends (also long ago) had the mastery trees that _very_ much resembled WoW talents. Of course that was exactly the same for everybody, no matter who youre playing.




> And yes, there do tend to end up being "best" options, at least in the context of an MMO where you're supposed to build the best in order to do the most whatever, but thats not really necessary in D&D.


Convince the whole D&D community that _the best option_ isnt necessary!  :Small Tongue: 

I think they both function in a similar way. You can deal solid damage, tank reliably, or heal well enough - in a casual group (WoW). But if youre trying to optimize for ultimate effectiveness, just like a high level 25-man raid in WoW, you _better_ be optimized and pulling your weight, or get kicked.

Just for the record, I have never seen a table full of optimizers punishing each other for not being top tier, but I have seen a few of those people. In D&D its far more often Fun > Optimization.

----------


## Rukelnikov

> I dont necessarily think this is the right way to go. I desperately want *not* to go back to pile-of-hot-garbage feat chains, please.


3.x chains were hot garbage but mostly because 90% of those feats were just numbers or reqs for what you actually wanted, and because the ammount of bloat of that edition was mind-numbing.

----------


## Xihirli

> Wouldn't you need like, 11 subclasses for each class, to represent all possible combinations?


Not all at once, and possibly not every combination.
But considering that the Wizard had 8 in the 5e PHB, it doesnt seem out of the realm of possibility. 

But there are some combos you basically never see that you could at the very least wait on  wizard/bard (though KINDA bladesinger) and sorcerer/barbarian come to mind.

----------


## Psyren

> Realistically though there should be choice points within subclasses.  Different abilities that all keep within the class and subclasses theme, but provide different approaches or different special abilities or unique thematic flavor.
> 
> Being on a class railroad isn't any more fun than being on an adventure railroad.


That should be on a subclass by subclass basis. Yes, sometimes it's fun to go with a more involved subclass like Genielock or Rune Knight or Moon Druid, and have a boatload of sub-choices spring from that initial one. But sometimes, grabbing something straightforward like Fiendlock, Echo Knight or Wildfire Druid where your class advances more or less by itself is fun too. That keeps the game fun for both groups, never mind the fact that people can move between those two groups throughout their gaming career.

----------


## 5eNeedsDarksun

I'm somewhat of 2 minds on this.  It does seem odd, particularly if you're playing any significant time at level 1 and 2 to have no subclass.  This is particularly true of Paladins where it should be pretty clear what your beliefs are from the get go.  On the other hand, for Paladins if you move even one feature earlier, say 1 CD option or the bonus spells from level 3 to level 2 then multi-classing just 2 levels becomes even more attractive.

I personally dislike that the 'dip' method of multiclassing 5e is the norm, but perhaps this is more of a multiclassing issue than an issue around when subclasses should come online. My next campaign I'm telling the players that once they have a 2nd (or 3rd) class then levels must be taken immediately that the lower class(es) are less than 1/3 rounded down than the primary class.  So, once players hit 6 in the main class then any other classes must be bumped to level 2 before the primary class can continue to level.  The same is true at 9, 12, and 15.  We'll see how it goes.  I do think some mechanic like this would enable classes to give subclass in level 1 or 2 without creating overpowered dips.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

If you want to reduce 1-2 level dips while keeping multiclassing mostly the same, there are a couple possible options.

1. Change how class features scale. Specifically, two sub-types cause issues:
a. Binary features. Especially weapon/armor proficiencies--either you have them or you don't. These need case-by-case "if you multiclass, you get XYZ" wording. They did this for skill proficiencies and _most_ weapon/armor ones. They just forgot (or half-baked) things that come from 1st level subclasses.
b. Things that scale based on _character_ level (ie proficiency), not _class_ level. Personally, I think the current trend of "proficiency bonus/long rest" features and "add proficiency bonus to X" (etc) features is a bad one--it _encourages_ dipping around for a bunch of these auto-leveling features.

2. Actually make multiclassing a first-class citizen. That means each class should have a "multiclassing sidebar" where it details exactly what you get if this class isn't your first one. Instead of trying to have broad general rules that will inevitably cause issues, let each class specify things individually. That allows both much more flexibility as well as less broken-ness. One-size-fits-all rules...don't. So instead of breaking everyone on the bed of a general rule...fix the issues for each class independently. That's also much more future-proof (cf spell-casting, where you already need such a sidebar, since the general rules call out specific PHB classes by name and thus don't include any new classes).

----------


## sithlordnergal

> I'm fine with it either way, just like I'm fine with starting at level 1, or 3, or whatever depending on campaign needs. 
> 
> I do think it's a stretch to think new players need extra levels to decide their subclass however. They already had to choose a species (more of them now), choose their class (now with groups), their backgrounds or make one so more choices (and now with feats for even more choices), and so on. But nope, choosing a subclass is just too much that it impedes the onramp for new players? Not really buying into that line of reasoning. I understand the making subclasses play by the same structure, but the game has been going down this road of standardization with each subsequent edition with things like XP, point buy, ability score modifiers, and whatnot. 
> 
> There is this thing called pregenerated characters that can get new players into the game just as easily.  And I don't see them eliminating a variety of Starter sets for OneD&D, which I think besides Essentials, doesn't give you but one subclass to choose anyway. 
> 
> So yeah, if delaying the subclass choice to level 3 is because new players can't handle choices, then OneD&D might not be the best choice for them anyway since D&D has a multitude of choices and options from the start.


Run a game with players who:

A) Have 0 experience with TTRPGs. I do mean 0 experience. As in "This is their first time ever playing _any_ form of TTRPG, ever"

B) Who all want really unique characters and would loath using pregens

C) The only ones with _any_ books are you and one other person

Now, go teach those players how to make a first level character. Luckily racial stuff is easy, cause most people have an idea of what Elves, Orcs, and Humans are. If they've watched Lord of the Rings, they pick up what a Hobbit is pretty quickly enough. They'll have a general idea of "I kinda wanna play an Elf that does X". 

Now, run them through how ability score generation works, what ability scores do, how the classes interact with ability scores, how the different classes work and a basic over view of what each class does so they can find the right one, what backgrounds are, how the Proficiency Bonus works, how skills work...Everything. And heaven help you if a player decides to play a spell caster as their first class.

That's a ton of stuff to teach and learn in Session 0. Subclasses add onto that mental load, and would absolutely be a breaking point for super new players. Breaking it up is the best way to deal with that much information. Its all about creating a learning curve. Think of levels 1 to 3 as a tutorial for new players. The good tutorials introduce new things a bit slowly, bad tutorials toss everything at you in the beginning. We want DnD to have a good tutorial in order to bring in new players.


EDIT: As for multiclassing, I say leave multiclassing be, maybe remove the minimum ability score requirements entirely. Cause it encourages more varied and interesting class combos that would normally work poorly together. Like a Barbarian/Monk would be cool, but is a nightmare to make cause you need a 13 in Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom. And unless you're rolling for stats, that's a nightmare to do.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Run a game with players who:
> 
> A) Have 0 experience with TTRPGs. I do mean 0 experience. As in "This is their first time ever playing _any_ form of TTRPG, ever"
> 
> B) Who all want really unique characters and would loath using pregens
> 
> C) The only ones with _any_ books are you and one other person
> 
> Now, go teach those players how to make a first level character. Luckily racial stuff is easy, cause most people have an idea of what Elves, Orcs, and Humans are. If they've watched Lord of the Rings, they pick up what a Hobbit is pretty quickly enough. They'll have a general idea of "I kinda wanna play an Elf that does X". 
> ...


Honestly--I've done that a lot. I used to run a TTRPG club at a school. Most of the players had not only never played a TTRPG, but never played _any form of RPG_. It took...one 1hr session. For me to do it for everyone (4-7 players). And most of that was describing the options. Of course I also allowed the "until level 5, you can retcon anything about your character as you choose" option, although few took it up.

It's actually not that hard, at least as long as you're not expecting forum-optimization levels. But the game itself doesn't expect that...nor does it actually handle those optimization levels gracefully. So that's something I don't worry about at all.

----------


## sithlordnergal

> Honestly--I've done that a lot. I used to run a TTRPG club at a school. Most of the players had not only never played a TTRPG, but never played _any form of RPG_. It took...one 1hr session. For me to do it for everyone (4-7 players). And most of that was describing the options. Of course I also allowed the "until level 5, you can retcon anything about your character as you choose" option, although few took it up.
> 
> It's actually not that hard, at least as long as you're not expecting forum-optimization levels. But the game itself doesn't expect that...nor does it actually handle those optimization levels gracefully. So that's something I don't worry about at all.


I envy your one hour sessions. X_X That said, even if it only takes an hour, having the subclass occur later is still a major boon for the players. It gives them time to get adjusted to how the system works, along with getting a basic grasp of how the class they chose works. They don't have to choose their class, and then immediately choose the path that will determine how their character plays for the entire game at once.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I envy your one hour sessions. X_X That said, even if it only takes an hour, having the subclass occur later is still a major boon for the players. It gives them time to get adjusted to how the system works, along with getting a basic grasp of how the class they chose works. They don't have to choose their class, and then immediately choose the path that will determine how their character plays for the entire game at once.


Meh. The warlocks and clerics I've played with already came in with a strong idea of what they wanted to do. They weren't picking "warlock, then pact", they were picking "<X> warlock" as an atomic unit. As if instead of being 12 classes (I stopped doing that well before artificer was a thing, back when the PHB was all there was), there were really 10 + 3 warlocks + N clerics.

I've never seen an issue with picking subclasses. Heck, I'd say that most of the time on those sessions was picking the race, because visuals matter a lot for new players. Way more than mechanics or synergy or styles. And that only got better once I stopped trying to lay out all the options ahead of time--I just started passing out a box of minis and saying "pick one that speaks to you. We'll build a character around it." Generally, that narrowed things down to 2-3 options and produced _way_ more interesting results. Like the tiny little soft-spoken girl who immediately went for the big honking barbarian. And played it to the hilt. One of the more bloodthirsty characters I've ever seen. Not _murderhobo_--she kept it pointed at the bad guys. Was both hilarious and slightly disturbing coming from someone who was under 5' tall with her hair up and wearing heels and _maybe_ 80 lbs and never spoke above a whisper normally (and rarely spoke at that). But she knew _exactly_ what she wanted. Someone big and strong with a big murder-death-weapon and no complications.

----------


## sithlordnergal

> Meh. The warlocks and clerics I've played with already came in with a strong idea of what they wanted to do. They weren't picking "warlock, then pact", they were picking "<X> warlock" as an atomic unit. As if instead of being 12 classes (I stopped doing that well before artificer was a thing, back when the PHB was all there was), there were really 10 + 3 warlocks + N clerics.
> 
> I've never seen an issue with picking subclasses. Heck, I'd say that most of the time on those sessions was picking the race, because visuals matter a lot for new players. Way more than mechanics or synergy or styles. And that only got better once I stopped trying to lay out all the options ahead of time--I just started passing out a box of minis and saying "pick one that speaks to you. We'll build a character around it." Generally, that narrowed things down to 2-3 options and produced _way_ more interesting results. Like the tiny little soft-spoken girl who immediately went for the big honking barbarian. And played it to the hilt. One of the more bloodthirsty characters I've ever seen. Not _murderhobo_--she kept it pointed at the bad guys. Was both hilarious and slightly disturbing coming from someone who was under 5' tall with her hair up and wearing heels and _maybe_ 80 lbs and never spoke above a whisper normally (and rarely spoke at that). But she knew _exactly_ what she wanted. Someone big and strong with a big murder-death-weapon and no complications.


Funny, my groups tend to be a bit different. They basically knew which race they wanted to be almost immediately, as they based their new characters off of old OCs. Though one wanted to play a werewolf...so I decided to homebrew a werewolf race in that was reasonable XD The only player that didn't have an OC with a race looked over the races, and decided on Halfling pretty quickly. After that we spent ages on choosing classes, with them learning about the different classes, and the mechanics of the classes that would best fit what they were after.

----------


## Cheesegear

1. Subclasses at Level 3 give newer players the ability to play their class and "Have a go" at their class before committing.

2. Subclasses at Level 3 gives players the ability to learn where they fit in with a group so that they can pick the best subclass that benefits the group most.


If you have experienced players with a very strong Session 0 - neither of which apply to me - you may as well just start the game at Level 3 so everyone has their toys and knows what to do.

----------


## sithlordnergal

> 1. Subclasses at Level 3 give newer players the ability to play their class and "Have a go" at their class before committing.
> 
> 2. Subclasses at Level 3 gives players the ability to learn where they fit in with a group so that they can pick the best subclass that benefits the group most.
> 
> 
> If you have experienced players with a very strong Session 0 - neither of which apply to me - you may as well just start the game at Level 3 so everyone has their toys and knows what to do.


Yup, you basically summed up my argument for why Subclasses at level 3 is a good thing.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

I should be clear that, unlike the OP, I don't particularly mind 3rd level subclasses. But I also don't mind 2nd or 1st level ones if it fits the flow of the class better. I _do_ mind shoving every class into the same box out of misguided attempts at killing dips or "simplifying" things that don't actually provide much complexity. WotC has gotten really formulaic about things. Which feels like lazy design, stamping out abilities based on a template.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> I should be clear that, unlike the OP, I don't particularly mind 3rd level subclasses. But I also don't mind 2nd or 1st level ones if it fits the flow of the class better..


This is actually how I feel about 3rd level Subclasses.  I do not mind subclasses that start at 3rd level for some classes, as long as there is a balanced diet of asymmetric subclass options to go with the 3rd level subclass option.

If one size fits all, the I think subclasses should begin at level 1.

----------


## False God

> That should be on a subclass by subclass basis. Yes, sometimes it's fun to go with a more involved subclass like Genielock or Rune Knight or Moon Druid, and have a boatload of sub-choices spring from that initial one. But sometimes, grabbing something straightforward like Fiendlock, Echo Knight or Wildfire Druid where your class advances more or less by itself is fun too. That keeps the game fun for both groups, never mind the fact that people can move between those two groups throughout their gaming career.


Well sure, some subclasses should be high choice and some low, but IMO, there should _always_ be choice.  And those choices shouldn't be the domain of magic-classes only.  Even Champion-like classes should have _some_ options.  Even if it's just the choice between Cleave or Power Attack.  (both of which should be simple "attack variants" anyone with a weapon can do IMO).




> I remember that in WoW (though its been over 20 years since I played. League of Legends (also long ago) had the mastery trees that _very_ much resembled WoW talents. Of course that was exactly the same for everybody, no matter who youre playing.
> 
> 
> Convince the whole D&D community that _the best option_ isnt necessary! 
> 
> I think they both function in a similar way. You can deal solid damage, tank reliably, or heal well enough - in a casual group (WoW). But if youre trying to optimize for ultimate effectiveness, just like a high level 25-man raid in WoW, you _better_ be optimized and pulling your weight, or get kicked.
> 
> Just for the record, I have never seen a table full of optimizers punishing each other for not being top tier, but I have seen a few of those people. In D&D its far more often Fun > Optimization.


I quite enjoy optimizing, but I still have a "special thing" I want to be optimized at, and it's rarely as something as _basic_ as "highest spell DC" or "biggest attack".  I particularly enjoy optimizing a Jack of all trades character who maybe comes in 3rd in the group in terms of skill rank, but I can cover darn near _everything_, in case the "main guy" can't do it or I'm on my own for a while.

----------


## Cheesegear

> I quite enjoy optimizing, but I still have a "special thing" I want to be optimized at [...] a Jack of all trades character who maybe comes in 3rd in the group in terms of skill rank, but I can cover darn near _everything_, in case the "main guy" can't do it or I'm on my own for a while.


I'm always excited when a player goes hard into a concept before Level 5 (or Level 3, which is what this thread is about), and all the other players at the table are like "WTF are you doing we don't need that."

In my experience the "Jack of All Trades" player always likes to forget the second part that goes with that description - they aren't actually good at anything.

Alright, the DC is 25, we need someone who can hit the DC.
I've got +3 in everything!
That's not helpful. We need a character with at _least_ +5.
I have a +3 which means I can cover anything!
You've covered nothing.  :Small Sigh:

----------


## KyleG

It has never made sense to me for a paladin to be a paladin and THEN choose an oath. An oath is what defines the paladin. If 3rd level was the default for all i would expect Paladin to be a subclass of fighter.
As it is i still think Paladin should be either the above or a subclass of Cleric but Cleric too should be a first level selection. A cleric doesnt worship to a faith and then later sure im a cleric of mystra but now im going to take the trickery domain.

Ranger too has a place as a path for fighter or perhaps druid.

----------


## Rukelnikov

> This is actually how I feel about 3rd level Subclasses.  I do not mind subclasses that start at 3rd level for some classes, as long as there is a balanced diet of asymmetric subclass options to go with the 3rd level subclass option.
> 
> If one size fits all, the I think subclasses should begin at level 1.


I also think that one size fits all is unnecessary. However, if that's the way to go it can't be lvl 1, it's too frontloaded to get some of the more specialized aspects of a class (which is what subclasses represent) with a single level dip. 

Also it fixes a secondary problem which is simply lvl 1 characters are weak, so giving the sub at 3, gives kind of the impression that before that you still aren't a full fledged adventurer, you may be getting there, but not still. So by starting at 3 you get your sub, you aren't as weak anymore, and getting to another sub takes another 3 levels which also makes it feel like something more special, than something anyone can get with a single level.

----------


## False God

> I'm always excited when a player goes hard into a concept before Level 5 (or Level 3, which is what this thread is about), and all the other players at the table are like "WTF are you doing we don't need that."
> 
> In my experience the "Jack of All Trades" player always likes to forget the second part that goes with that description - they aren't actually good at anything.
> 
> Alright, the DC is 25, we need someone who can hit the DC.
> I've got +3 in everything!
> That's not helpful. We need a character with at _least_ +5.
> I have a +3 which means I can cover anything!
> You've covered nothing.


I've optimized my average Jack better than most optimize their specialist.

----------


## Cheesegear

> I've optimized my average Jack better than most optimize their specialist.


The specialist can hit DC 25 in their chosen specialty at Level 1.
If they can't, they aren't - and never were - a specialist.

----------


## diplomancer

> Honestly--I've done that a lot. I used to run a TTRPG club at a school. Most of the players had not only never played a TTRPG, but never played _any form of RPG_. It took...one 1hr session. For me to do it for everyone (4-7 players). And most of that was describing the options. Of course I also allowed the "until level 5, you can retcon anything about your character as you choose" option, although few took it up.
> 
> It's actually not that hard, at least as long as you're not expecting forum-optimization levels. But the game itself doesn't expect that...nor does it actually handle those optimization levels gracefully. So that's something I don't worry about at all.


This. As long as you are not expecting newbies to optimize competently, a class description (and a short subclass description) is enough for them to decide what sort of character they want to play. Who cares if they pick a weak subclass?

Unless of course WotC prints subclasses that are so weak as to be near unplayable. But if that's the case (I'm not sure those exist in 5e; even the weakest ones _work_, they just don't compare to the better ones. But how would a newbie know it anyway?), the solution for WotC is simple: don't do that.

Oh, and, of course: if you're teaching newbies, stick to the PHB. I really like se later subclasses, but that much information is on fact unnecessary and counterproductive.

----------


## Jophiel

> Run a game with players who:
> 
> A) Have 0 experience with TTRPGs. I do mean 0 experience. As in "This is their first time ever playing _any_ form of TTRPG, ever"
> 
> B) Who all want really unique characters and would loath using pregens
> 
> C) The only ones with _any_ books are you and one other person


I used to run AL games at a local comics shop and did this a number of times.  I don't want to overstate and pretend that it happened weekly but it wasn't all that uncommon either that someone would come in who never played the game before and just knew about it from some pop culture thing (Stranger Things, Crit Role, etc).  We'd peel off one of the DMs to sit down with them and make a character before we got started (the table never minded because, hey, new player!) and it was a process far under an hour but then we were only doing a single player.  I never saw someone struggle more with subclasses than with anything else and, especially when you're just going out of the PHB, it wasn't hard to give a brief synopsis and suggestion.  

Comments about how overwhelming it is to have a subclass remind me a bit of 1e AD&D where some people today act as though it was an unfathomable labyrinth of rules and yet, as a bunch of 11-12 year olds who had never _heard_ of TTRPGs before, we just read the books and played it.

I can see level 2 for subclasses to make dipping more of a commitment but feel like 3 is waiting too long both mechanically and thematically.  I have no issue with Tier 1 play or finding it interesting and never played in a campaign that skipped to level 2/3 (a couple that just started at 5 but that's DMs hating all of Tier 1 and wanting to throw bigger monsters out immediately).  To me, wanting to do away with the opening levels because your DM can't make them more interesting than Giant Rat tail fetch quests is the same as saying the game system should end at level 12 just because your DM couldn't handle higher level play.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

You know, if the big problem with dips is subclasses (which, to some degree, it is), there's an easy solution.

*Spoiler: Warning: I'm not going to blue this whole thing because that's annoying to read. But consider it exactly as much blue or not as you find appropriate. I'm not entirely serious about it.*
Show


Make subclasses not stack. Whichever class you pick a subclass from first, that's the only subclass you get. And no, you don't get replacement features for the other one.

Pick up hexblade for the nifty CHA-sadness? Well, if you did it before you picked your regular subclass...you're a hexblade now. No other subclass for you. Go Wizard N/Cleric 1 for armor? Yeah, you don't get that domain at all if you've picked up a wizard school. If you haven't, you don't get your wizard subclass.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> Comments about how overwhelming it is to have a subclass remind me a bit of 1e AD&D where some people today act as though it was an unfathomable labyrinth of rules and yet, as a bunch of 11-12 year olds who had never _heard_ of TTRPGs before, we just read the books and played it..


Gygax AD&D, in many ways was an unfathomable mess.  
The commonly applied rule of being able to go to -10 Hit Points, arose from a common misreading of the DMG.  (If a player landed at exactly zero hit points from a hit, then one could go to negative 10).

The AD&D Monk, was largely a confusing verbose mess in many places, but had examples, that allowed people to ignore the text and adjudicate based off the example.

As for the issue with multiclassed dips, one way to eliminate the issue is to reinstate concurrent multi-classing from  AD&D.

A Battlemaster 4/ Hexblade 4/ Evoker 4 is roughly equivalent to a 12th level single class PC, and is a Magic Missile engine of death, but is also not quite as tailored as a current 5e PC can be.

What seems evident from this thread though, is there seems to be a lack of consensus on any suggestion.

Giving a minor subclass ability at level 1, and then every two or so levels after seems fine to me, but as soon as such an idea is proposed, someone points out that they would rather have fewer subclass powers that are more impactful.

There are so many different, potential approaches to the issue of subclasses, that baring some act of inspired design, someone is going to probably be disappointed with whatever is selected as the final process.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> There are so many different, potential approaches to the issue of subclasses, that baring some act of inspired design, someone is going to probably be disappointed with whatever is selected as the final process.


IMO, that means that the right idea is to _not_ standardize. More, more narrow base classes with different patterns of subclasses/features. Have your "regular progression" ones that scale smoothly with lots of small features. Then have your "big chunky progression" ones that get fewer, larger features.

And then let each class define separately how muticlassing into that class works. Fewer "general rules" for such things and more specific, fine-grained rules.

----------


## Pex

> IMO, that means that the right idea is to _not_ standardize. More, more narrow base classes with different patterns of subclasses/features. Have your "regular progression" ones that scale smoothly with lots of small features. Then have your "big chunky progression" ones that get fewer, larger features.
> 
> And then let each class define separately how muticlassing into that class works. Fewer "general rules" for such things and more specific, fine-grained rules.


Then you get people complaining it's not balanced with different classes getting subclass powers at different rates and strengths. Even if it evens out at 20th level the unbalance happens before that is reached.

Some people like and want the standardization you don't. They look at 4E as an inspiration. No, no matter what, some people will not be satisfied whichever direction is chosen. You have to hope you're not the one to be dissatisfied or otherwise ignore it.

----------


## Cheesegear

> Then you get people complaining it's not balanced with different classes getting subclass powers at different rates and strengths.


To be fair...

*Level 1.* Cleric, Sorcerer, Warlock, 
*Level 2.* Druid, Wizard
*Level 3.* Barbarian, Bard, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue

...With the exception of Paladin and Bard, all of the "traditionally stronger" classes get their toys at Level 1. You'll notice that all the Levels 1 and 2 Classes have something _really ****ing obvious_ in common. I think players who play characters that are "traditionally weaker" notice the difference, really quickly, and the game doesn't really equalise until Levels 4 or 5, or sometime during Tier 2 (and of course after Level 12...Many players consider it unplayable).

As I said earlier, getting your subclasses at Level 3 is totally fine for new players and players who don't have a cohesive group. I don't like that any classes, get their subclass, at Level 1 (or 2), and I wish that every subclass got it at Level 3. Not because of "game balance" or because of multi-classing. But because front-loading a whole ****-ton of new information and new abilities is more likely to turn people _off_ from playing the game, as it only serves to confuse people.

Well that's not a problem for me, personally, or my table. So obviously it's not a problem that anyone has.

If you're an impatient player, because you already know what you're doing and you don't need your hand held and you don't need to wait 'cause you already know what you want to do with your character (whether or not you've consulted with your other players and whether or not your character's concept is beneficial to the group)...Then ask your DM to start campaigns at Level 3. You can skip the two/three sessions where you fight Goblins and Wolves and an Ogre-Boss - you've already done that five times now. Let's just skip to the real campaign?

----------


## Jophiel

> Gygax AD&D, in many ways was an unfathomable mess.


The point wasn't that the rules were simple, the point is that we could still decipher the rules and play the game even with it being the first RPG we ever touched.  Comments suggesting that players new to 5e (or 5.5, whatever) can't be trusted with the complexity of picking a cleric subclass at level one feels like a real lack of confidence in the player.

I've led a number of brand new players through the character creation process and no one has ever gotten hung up on choosing a subclass.  Maybe I've just been blessed with the Best & Brightest novice D&D players around but I kind of doubt I'm that lucky.  I think it's more likely that novice D&D players are smarter than they're being given credit for.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> Then you get people complaining it's not balanced with different classes getting subclass powers at different rates and strengths. Even if it evens out at 20th level the unbalance happens before that is reached.


Standardization of the the levels when one acquires subclass abilities, has no impact on balance.  If a particular subclass is overpowered, an asymmetric or symmetric subclass ability acquisition schedule is not going to make _much_ difference either way.

A power like Hexblades Curse, is not made balanced by moving the power  to third level,_ if no other classes or subclasses receive abilities of a comparable power leve_l.

The Rune Knight overshadows many other Fighter subclasses, despite the symmetric acquisition of subclass abilities between the various Fighter subclasses.

----------


## sithlordnergal

> The point wasn't that the rules were simple, the point is that we could still decipher the rules and play the game even with it being the first RPG we ever touched.  Comments suggesting that players new to 5e (or 5.5, whatever) can't be trusted with the complexity of picking a cleric subclass at level one feels like a real lack of confidence in the player.
> 
> I've led a number of brand new players through the character creation process and no one has ever gotten hung up on choosing a subclass.  Maybe I've just been blessed with the Best & Brightest novice D&D players around but I kind of doubt I'm that lucky.  I think it's more likely that novice D&D players are smarter than they're being given credit for.


Just because one cold decipher the rules, doesn't mean it was a good system. Like it or not, but an information wall is always a bad thing. Its not an issue for people who are experienced, but info-walls are an example of poor game design. Full casters tend to be considered more advanced classes. Why? Because there's a wall of information you need to learn about spell casting, spells, and how they work before you can really get the most out of them. Its not really a lack of confidence, and simply a matter of game design principals.

I'm gonna go on a slight tangent actually. Fighting games tend to have a massive issue when it comes to information walls. The game expects players to learn/memorize those moves, how/when to use them, and any special techniques up front, and most usually have a practice mode that is simply a list of button combos and a white room to practice in. This has actually been shown to cause players to lose interest in those games because that information wall is too big.

Getting back to DnD, 5e's info-wall is not nearly as big or annoying as a fighting game is. But we still need to keep that wall in mind when it comes to how and when information is presented to a new player. Now, 5e actually does fairly well with this. The classes that get their subclasses at level 1 tend to start with pretty simple things. You generally only get one or two abilities from your level 1 Subclass, just like everyone else gets two abilities at level 1.

So, what happens if we just move all the subclasses to level 1? Welp, those classes that got their subclasses at level 3 are now getting four abilities at once at level 1. Not only does that cause some massive frontloading issues, but its now increased the amount of information new players need to learn about their class. For some classes, that's not much of an issue. Barbarian only has two subclasses in the PHB, and they only only get one ability each. For others, it could be a massive change. The Wizard has 8 subclasses, each with a unique ability, and the Paladin has 3 subclasses with an ability that gives two different effects. And those effects are wildly different from each other.

As for the front loading issue. We already have people complain that Cleric and Warlock dips are too powerful because of what they can get at level 1. Imagine being able to take a single level of Fighter and getting your Fighting Style, Second Wind, and Subclass abilities that can range from meh, like the Champion's Improved Crit, to insane, like the Echo Knight or Rune Knight.

----------


## Jophiel

> Just because one cold decipher the rules, doesn't mean it was a good system. Like it or not, but an information wall is always a bad thing.


In this particular case, it feels much more like a theoretical "Well, this could happen..." thing than something that actually does happen with any regularity (and enough to warrant a system change).  Based on hands-on experience with helping novice players make a new character, I disagree that picking a subclass is an 'information wall' in any meaningful way.  The whole things feels more like a solution in search of a problem or a post facto rationale for a system change made for other reasons.

I never advocated for moving every subclass to level one (much less with all of their abilities vs spreading them) so don't have much comment on all that.

----------


## Cheesegear

> As for the front loading issue. We already have people complain that Cleric and Warlock dips are too powerful because of what they can get at level 1. Imagine being able to take a single level of Fighter and getting your Fighting Style, Second Wind, and Subclass abilities that can range from meh, like the Champion's Improved Crit, to insane, like the Echo Knight or Rune Knight.


That's the wrong way of looking at things.

What happens if a Druid, Warlock or Cleric can't choose access their Patron's Powers until Level 3?
What happens if a Wizard can't choose their School until they've actually learned more than 2 spells, at Level 3?

The only one that actually presents a narrative problem, is the Sorcerer, because they're _born_ special - no training required. They're casting spells at Level 1 and they don't know why? ...Okay. That makes sense?  :Small Confused: 

But I dunno. Roll aspects of the Warlock into Sorcerer and Wizard, and then just delete Warlock. Yeah. I was born special. I made a deal. My parents made a deal. Whatever. I've got powers and I don't really know where they come from. By Level 3 I will have figured it out. Make Warlock a Subclass to Sorcerer. Why not?

----------


## animorte

> Based on hands-on experience with helping novice players make a new character, I disagree that picking a subclass is an 'information wall' in any meaningful way.


I also have some hands-on experience with new players. Some of the new players Ive seen cant wrap their head around the idea of choosing a class and then realizing theres multiple different subclasses inside that same class. Ive also experienced a few new players that latch on a lot quicker.

I think most of it stems from the concept of gaming in general. Even if youve never played a TTRPG, but youve played video games or board games, that concept of making decisions for how to level or customize your character is definitely something that is carried over. Just because a lot of people play games and get the idea easier, doesnt mean that the others who arent familiar with this concept should have the opportunity removed for an introduction process.

I realize that there are clearly exceptions to the statements Ive made and sometimes, the new players introduction can be made more difficult depending on the DM and other players (just as it can be made easier).




> The only one that actually presents a narrative problem, is the Sorcerer, because they're _born_ special - no training required. They're casting spells at Level 1 and they don't know why? ...Okay. That makes sense?


In various forms of media, you have a character with some basic innate abilities. They still need to hone those abilities through practice and experience. Once they have opened up the gateway, so to speak, their true power is unleashed! After some more experience with this true power, they refine and specialize even more.

This makes a lot of sense _to me_ for the Sorcerer.

----------


## OvisCaedo

While it _can_ be thematically fine for characters to not unlock the true abilities of their power source until a few levels in, I feel like you're often going to have a serious lack of coherence _as a character_ if you HAVEN'T already decided in advance at level 1 with some classes. 

Sure, a cleric can not get the true powers of the life domain until level 3, but if at level 1 and 2 the cleric somehow doesn't know what god+domain they're a cleric of... that's kind of silly. Warlocks also presumably should know the entire time what they're making a pact with. Paladins should probably know what oath they're devoting to. Sorcerors... technically COULD be entirely unaware of their true powers, I guess! I'd imagine that most players making a character like that would probably have already decided in advance for that, though.

I dunno. I just have trouble buying that a subclass is too intimidating of a decision to make at level 1, even for new players. A lot of them are so clearly thematically defining that it would be bizarre for a character to just suddenly pivot into them and not already being roleplayed as pursuing that path from the start. Even if the abilities don't unlock until later in (which could be fine!), I suspect it's going to be much more common for players to have already chosen what they want to pick at level 1.

in which case, I don't think shifting it back really does much in terms of "information overload", but arguments could still be made for it just from mechanical balance standpoints

edit: though there are amusingly some subclasses that are so overwhelmingly generic that a character COULD absolutely just pivot into them naturally without any prior roleplaying. Champion and battle master, for example.

----------


## diplomancer

> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> Not even. In the latest starter set, you can hit 2 in the first session if your group powers through 2-3 encounters.


I've started reading the Dragonlance module; without giving spoilers, level 1 is one encounter (and not even a combat encounter at that for many players), level 2 might take one mostly roleplaying session, with two combat encounters at the end.

Really, just stop pretending that levels 1 and 2 exist, except to balance multiclassing.

----------


## Mastikator

Going by exp budget a level 1 adventuring day for 4 players could be 3 separate encounters with a single orc (or whatever CR 1/2). Then level up. It does exist but it's pretty short. That's not including any traps or challenges that should also contribute to the exp budget. You might go one environmental puzzle/complex trap, two goblins (separate encounters) then one orc as the final boss. At the end of the day they are level 2.

Level 1 and 2 do exist, but only for one session each IMO.

----------


## Cheesegear

> I dunno. I just have trouble buying that a subclass is too intimidating of a decision to make at level 1, even for new players.


Plummeting literacy and numeracy rates disagree with you.
The popular direction of the game disagrees with you.
1DD disagrees with you.

Is that a good thing? Is that an ideal thing? ...No.

How does Sneak Attack work? ...I don't know. But let me tell you about Invisible Mage Hands and gaining spell slots when you don't even know how the core of your class works yet. Learn all of it right now. Why aren't you Sneak Attacking? ...That's not what Mage Hand does. What's taking you so long to make a turn? Just hurry up and attack. What do you mean you forgot Sneak Attack. We only have 4 hours and there are five players and you're holding the whole thing up. How come you didn't Fire Bolt? This is all your fault. Because you don't know how to play your class. Great. We were supposed to get to Level 2 at the end of this session but you slow-played all of us because you don't know what you're doing. FFS.

...What do you mean you don't want to play anymore? I'm just saying you have to learn to play your class. I'm just saying that you need to know how Spells work, and Sneak Attack - and all its mechanics. What do you mean you don't even know what Advantage is? You know at Level 2 you're gonna learn about Bonus Actions. If you don't have this yet, you're gonna have a bad time. I know you said you wont come back...I'm trying to convince you to come back by telling you how complicated your class is.

I promise; "Introductory Levels" are very necessary for a lot of players, and absolutely essential for younger players and players who "can't read good" (which is on the rise, even among adults).




> I suspect it's going to be much more common for players to have already chosen what they want to pick at level 1.


And that's a mistake. Again, if you have a strong session 0, you could probably change my mind. But at my tables, generally speaking, anyone with a "planned build order" is likely to have a bad time, because random loot rolls don't care about your plans. That is one thing _Tasha's_ did right. Every 4th Level you can respec some of your class' abilities. Oh? You're multi-classing and can't respec? That's a shame...

----------


## Jophiel

> How does Sneak Attack work? ...I don't know. But let me tell you about Invisible Mage Hands and gaining spell slots when you don't even know how the core of your class works yet. Learn all of it right now. Why aren't you Sneak Attacking? ...That's not what Mage Hand does. What's taking you so long to make a turn? Just hurry up and attack. What do you mean you forgot Sneak Attack. We only have 4 hours and there are five players and you're holding the whole thing up. How come you didn't Fire Bolt? This is all your fault. Because you don't know how to play your class. Great. We were supposed to get to Level 2 at the end of this session but you slow-played all of us because you don't know what you're doing. FFS.


That's not a "subclasses at level one are too hard" issue, that's just a "the table is full of jerks and the DM either had no control over their table or is also a jerk" issue.  Picking a deity at level three isn't the solution to any of what you wrote.

----------


## Daphne

> Going by exp budget a level 1 adventuring day for 4 players could be 3 separate encounters with a single orc (or whatever CR 1/2). Then level up.


It would have to be 4 encounters since exp is divided between players, and most fights usually involve multiple enemies and that get's the exp adjusted (but players by RAW don't receive the adjusted exp).

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> The point wasn't that the rules were simple, the point is that we could still decipher the rules and play the game even with it being the first RPG we ever touched.  Comments suggesting that players new to 5e (or 5.5, whatever) can't be trusted with the complexity of picking a cleric subclass at level one feels like a real lack of confidence in the player.
> 
> I've led a number of brand new players through the character creation process and no one has ever gotten hung up on choosing a subclass.  Maybe I've just been blessed with the Best & Brightest novice D&D players around but I kind of doubt I'm that lucky.  I think it's more likely that novice D&D players are smarter than they're being given credit for.


I agree. The rules were a mess, but the participants of the game were motivated enough to find a way to make the rules work, (even if that meant just ignoring a lot of rules).

If people are arguing that the player base for 5e is not interested in making the game work, why should we presume those same people would be interested in a switch to a new edition?

Casual Fans go away eventually..

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> 1. Subclasses at Level 3 give newer players the ability to play their class and "Have a go" at their class before committing.
> 
> 2. Subclasses at Level 3 gives players the ability to learn where they fit in with a group so that they can pick the best subclass that benefits the group most.


 Your point 2 is IMO a solid one, but then I advocate for team play.  



> That's not a "subclasses at level one are too hard" issue, that's just a "the table is full of jerks and the DM either had no control over their table or is also a jerk" issue.  Picking a deity at level three isn't the solution to any of what you wrote.


 You can pick a deity without picking a domain, and as you grow your domain is granted to you as a good and faithful (and not yet dead) servant. 
I will not engage in the rant where WoTC has implied that deities are restricted to a few domains - if you don't handcuff yourself like that all of a sudden the servant of that deity has a whole bundle of domains to choose from as they grow into their boots, so to speak.

----------


## Jophiel

> You can pick a deity without picking a domain


Picking a patron, picking a domain, whatever. The actual point being that people yelling at you for not casting Fire Bolt fast enough or needing Advantage explained while the DM either allows it (or joins in) isn't a rules/system issue. Much less one that gets fixed by moving subclass levels.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> You can pick a deity without picking a domain, and as you grow your domain is granted to you as a good and faithful (and not yet dead) servant.


Which is another way of saying that a pre-third level cleric, has only a lesser ordination, and has to wait until third level to receive their major ordination.

So much for playing that grizzled older priest, called to adventure.

One could have the background of being raised by the Church of the Silver Flame to fight evil, and despite a life time of devotion, and years of Church Training, is somehow metaphysically prevented from declaring ones major, until third level.

Outside of sharing Subclasses, what benefits does the synchronization of subclass abilities provide?

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Which is another way of saying that a pre-third level cleric, has only a lesser ordination, and has to wait until third level to receive their major ordination.
> 
> So much for playing that grizzled older priest, called to adventure.
> 
> One could have the background of being raised by the Church of the Silver Flame to fight evil, and despite a life time of devotion, and years of Church Training, is somehow metaphysically prevented from declaring ones major.
> 
> Outside of sharing Subclasses, what benefits does the synchronization of subclass abilities provide?


I don't entirely disagree, although there's already tension there with the idea _of being low level_. If you were raised to fight evil _and have done so for most of your life_ (as this background presupposes)...why are you level 1? The nature of "power via levels" and the idea of being a veteran at level 1 are in tension, as I see it.

Edit: I completely agree with that last line, however. I don't see any benefit from synchronizing subclass abilities. I see _downside_, because now classes have to relate to their subclasses in all exactly the same way. It makes that all cookie-cutter.

----------


## Cheesegear

> That's not a "subclasses at level one are too hard" issue, that's just a "the table is full of jerks and the DM either had no control over their table or is also a jerk" issue.


Nope. It's a 'Player didn't read their class.' issue, combined with a 'Player didn't or couldn't _understand_ their class' issue, combined with adding perhaps the single-most complicated mechanic in the game on top of it (Spellcasting).

I hate to break it to you;
D&D is not new-player-friendly.
The _DM_ can be new-player-friendly.
But the _game_, isn't.

I've lost count of the number of times I've had to ask 'Did you remember to add modifiers?', even to players who've been playing for months. I had one player who didn't know what her Initiative was...*20* sessions in. I have one player currently who doesn't know how to calculate their attack roll - and they've been playing for a year.

Oftentimes, the DM does not have unlimited time or concentration. They can't help you - they rely on the players to do that. I'm busy trying to figure out how I'm supposed to integrate the players' dumb backstories into a plot that I didn't already do.

Oftentimes, the _players_ are struggling with _their own_ characters because the "build" they pulled off the internet requires them to know about mechanics they barely understand, so they're trying to fumble their own way through _their own_ characters. What does that Feat do again? I forgot. Wait it's a _Reaction_...****. You're gonna forget to do it all the time aren't you? If you don't use it I'm gonna forget that you have it...And if I forget that you have it I wont be reminding you.

...And then the new(est) player who literally knows nothing about the game wants to play a Rogue. But not only that, they're also demanding subclasses at Level 1 - the one that casts _spells_. Yeah, no.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Nope. It's a 'Player didn't read their class.' issue, combined with a 'Player didn't or couldn't _understand_ their class' issue, combined with adding perhaps the single-most complicated mechanic in the game on top of it (Spellcasting).
> 
> I hate to break it to you;
> D&D is not new-player-friendly.
> The _DM_ can be new-player-friendly.
> But the _game_, isn't.
> 
> I've lost count of the number of times I've had to ask 'Did you remember to add modifiers?', even to players who've been playing for months. I had one player who didn't know what her Initiative was...*20* sessions in. I have one player currently who doesn't know how to calculate their attack roll - and they've been playing for a year.
> 
> ...


The only people I've ever had this issue with were

* Kids who literally only played for 1 hour every week...and often skipped weeks (because schedules are crazy) and never bought/read any of the books
* Stoners who are literally high while playing.

Both of those are easily avoidable. And personally, the stoners are way more annoying.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> I don't entirely disagree, although there's already tension there with the idea _of being low level_. If you were raised to fight evil _and have done so for most of your life_ (as this background presupposes)...why are you level 1? The nature of "power via levels" and the idea of being a veteran at level 1 are in tension, as I see it.


There are numerous  ways to rectify this tension.  Old age can explain why such a character is only first level.  

_*Pious John is called into action at the ripe age of 86*
*Pious John, has forgotten more things in his studies about fighting evil, then most will ever know. Pious John has also wetted himself, and forgot to change*_  🃏

A low Magic world also explains away any tension.  I can envision a world, where clerical Magic is a sign of something similar to the concept of Sainthood.  Most religious authorities go through their pious lives without ever summoning a miracle.

The gods seem capricious, when bestowing their favor, or selecting which mortals will serve as their tools.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> There are numerous  ways to rectify this tension.  Old age can explain why such a character is only first level.  
> 
> _*Pious John is called into action at the ripe age of 86*
> *Pious John, has forgotten more things about fighting evil, then most will ever know.
> Pious John has also wetted himself, and forgot to change*_  🃏
> 
> A low Magic world also explains away any tension.  I can envision a world, where clerical Magic is a sign of something similar tot he concept of Sainthood.  Most religious authorities go through their pious lives without ever summoning a miracle.
> 
> The gods seem capricious, when bestowing their favor, or selecting which mortals will serve as their tools.


I agree. They're just not the default explanations.

My personal setting actually says that

* the majority of priests don't have any non-ritualistic[1] magic.
* Those priests that do are closer to warlocks _whose patron is the church_ (taught secrets and initiated into power), but with very variable powers.
* Only a tiny majority are actual clerical casters (wielding divinely-granted power), and they tend to sit outside the hierarchies and be called when and how the deity wants. And there's no guarantee that NPC "clerics" have the same powerset as PC clerics.

[1] something that in-setting _anyone_ can learn to wield. But mostly very low-power "bless the ground/ease the birthing pains/keep the flies away from the horses" power.

----------


## Cheesegear

> The only people I've ever had this issue with were


Says here that half of American adults barely have a primary school level of literacy. (Point #3). Some of those, of course, can, have, and will find their way to D&D, somehow (and that's a good thing).

I know in Australia, a non-zero amount of people who "can't read good" have found their way to my tables over the last decade:
'I can't read good and I can sort of do single-digit maths okay. But I want to play D&D because I saw _Critical Role_ on Twitch...I didn't realise there'd be so much reading. I thought this game was about just making **** up.' - Not an exact quote from a player. But pretty close.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Says here that half of American adults barely have a primary school level of literacy. (Point #3). Some of those, of course, can, have, and will find their way to D&D, somehow (and that's a good thing).
> 
> I know in Australia, a non-zero amount of people who "can't read good" have found their way to my tables over the last decade:
> 'I can't read good and I can sort of do single-digit maths okay. But I want to play D&D because I saw _Critical Role_ on Twitch...I didn't realise there'd be so much reading. I thought this game was about just making **** up.' - Not an exact quote from a player. But pretty close.


Oddly I've never had an issue with those people. Not even from the group who were all just out of high school (very early 20s) and weren't exactly academic geniuses (no college, kinda bone-heads). The smartest one there was an ex-druggie. They all learned real fast and adapted. 

Maybe I've been lucky. Or maybe you have been unlucky.

----------


## Cheesegear

> Oddly I've never had an issue with those people.


"Issue" is a strong word.




> They all learned real fast and adapted.


Agreed. There's Barbarians and Fighters. Life Clerics. Dragon Sorcerers. There are classes where you can keep the infodump to a minimum.

But you _don't_ point players who can't read very well in the direction of a hybrid Spellcaster Warlock-Bard where they have to remember to add half their Proficiency to every single skill check, and don't forget to roll a d6 every time we Short Rest, plus your Hit Dice and make sure you understand the difference between Bard Spell Slots and how your Pact Magic works, maybe don't take _Pact of the Chain_ 'cause that's gonna be another thing you're not going to remember. No your Invocations aren't your Spells Known... Except that yes some of them do expend Spell Slots, and also some of them don't...Are you sure you don't want to play a Dragon Sorcerer...Just take the fire spells - you can't **** that up - and we'll go from there, yeah?




> Maybe I've been lucky. Or maybe you have been unlucky.


That's concerning.  :Small Frown:

----------


## Anymage

> But you _don't_ point players who can't read very well in the direction of a hybrid Spellcaster Warlock-Bard where they have to remember to add half their Proficiency to every single skill check, and don't forget to roll a d6 every time we Short Rest, plus your Hit Dice and make sure you understand the difference between Bard Spell Slots and how your Pact Magic works, maybe don't take _Pact of the Chain_ 'cause that's gonna be another thing you're not going to remember. No your Invocations aren't your Spells Known... Except that yes some of them do expend Spell Slots, and also some of them don't...Are you sure you don't want to play a Dragon Sorcerer...Just take the fire spells - you can't **** that up - and we'll go from there, yeah?


If someone pulls a complex build off the internet, that's on them.  I'd be more worried that they'll expect their build to work based on someone's tortured reading of the rules as opposed to trusting the DM to have their interpretation.  And if a newbie doesn't decide to look up bizarre optimization monstrosities, they're much more likely to go single classed which is less overhead and hassle.

Mind, I have seen players who had a limited attention span and will do things like forget what spells they used up or that they have debuffs on them.  To their credit most of the ones I've seen are also forgetful of external buffs too.  So it's a net positive to them, but generally about being not the sharpest players than being actively damaging to the game.

----------


## Jophiel

> Nope. It's a 'Player didn't read their class.' issue, combined with a 'Player didn't or couldn't _understand_ their class' issue, combined with adding perhaps the single-most complicated mechanic in the game on top of it (Spellcasting)


I guess this is one of those "I'm glad we play at different tables" moments if you honestly believe that a table getting pissy over a new player deciding which cantrip to cast or forgetting a modifier is a rules issue.  And stuff like "Player doesn't know what initiative is after twenty sessions" is, again, not something you're going to fix by changing the rules.  It's not something you fix by enrolling them in remedial literacy courses.  If the player doesn't know how to calculate initiative after twenty games or their attack modifiers after a year, they just don't care about the game beyond maybe a chance to sit and BS with other people.  Sorry, but I don't think we should be basing the rules around those players.

We've also somehow shifted from "John who has never played a TTRPG before but wants to try now" to "John who is both illiterate and also has a full extremely complex internet build he found on Reddit and plans to play despite not knowing what a bonus action is after five years".  I don't think that these are the same player, don't think that sublcasses are a barrier to the first person and don't think that changing when you get a subclass will make any difference to the second person anyway.

But if we're down to insisting that 5e needs to be easily accessible for people lacking basic literacy and math skills, I'd suggest a better idea is to steer them to a rules-lite full narrative system (one meant for people who 'thought this game was about just making **** up') rather than one that, at its core, assumes you can read and add based on it coming in the form of 100+ pages of words and numbers.

----------


## 5eNeedsDarksun

> I've started reading the Dragonlance module; without giving spoilers, level 1 is one encounter (and not even a combat encounter at that for many players), level 2 might take one mostly roleplaying session, with two combat encounters at the end.
> 
> Really, just stop pretending that levels 1 and 2 exist, except to balance multiclassing.


What you've described really... stinks.  This just doesn't sound like the game I've played for 40 years.  It sounds video gamey and kind of pointless.
I get that level 1 in particular is difficult to balance and make something interesting, but it's not impossible, particularly when you have the time and resources these guys do.  I think published content is so hyper focused at this point on the levels that 'most people' play that we're unlikely to see much outside levels 3 to end of tier 2 any more.  
Your post is just another reminder of why I haven't bought new content in a while.

----------


## animorte

> Really, just stop pretending that levels 1 and 2 exist, except to balance multiclassing.


Even if that would be the _only_ reason, which Cheesegear does a good job of explaining why its not (and I completely agree), I would _still_ be 100% ok with that being the only reason. Just to be clear.




> So much for playing that grizzled older priest, called to adventure.


Just because hes old doesnt mean he ever encountered enough to gain the necessary experience to level.




> The nature of "power via levels" and the idea of being a veteran at level 1 are in tension, as I see it.


Agreed.




> I hate to break it to you;
> D&D is not new-player-friendly.
> The _DM_ can be new-player-friendly.
> But the _game_, isn't.


I agree with this very much. I have seen a variety of players that come in and pick it up well enough, others severely struggle (for a while).

I generally tend to prepare for this by having my own (heavily simplified) copy of every character sheet so that all they have to do is roll and I will account for the additional modifiers. Over time theyll gradually pick it up with something like:

_Wow, how did I do that? I only rolled a 10!

Well, you see that you have <insert skill> checked with proficiency? And look at your <insert relevant ability mod>.

Oh, now I get it!_
Eventually.

----------


## Jophiel

> What you've described really... stinks.  This just doesn't sound like the game I've played for 40 years.  It sounds video gamey and kind of pointless.


Agreed.  Also, if the argument is that picking a subclass is too hard for a player at level one, how is it significantly better to make the person talk to two NPCs and maybe swing a stick at a beetle and then tell them to pick a subclass an hour after they started?  Wasn't the whole idea supposed to be that the player got acquainted with the rules and systems before picking a subclass?

But to tell me that a WotC campaign is poorly written and bad at its job... well, I can believe that  :Small Big Grin:

----------


## Pex

> Standardization of the the levels when one acquires subclass abilities, has no impact on balance.  If a particular subclass is overpowered, an asymmetric or symmetric subclass ability acquisition schedule is not going to make _much_ difference either way.
> 
> A power like Hexblades Curse, is not made balanced by moving the power  to third level,_ if no other classes or subclasses receive abilities of a comparable power leve_l.
> 
> The Rune Knight overshadows many other Fighter subclasses, despite the symmetric acquisition of subclass abilities between the various Fighter subclasses.


That reinforces the point. If the actual abilities are imbalanced compared to each other it is harder to measure that imbalance on first look when they come online at different level. The imbalance might not be the ability itself but rather when the ability is gained.

Mind I'm not bothered by the current 5E structure, just pointing out people exist who want standardization if only for easier comparisons of abilities that hopefully the game designers can take into account the appropriate power level for when the ability is gained.




> Nope. It's a 'Player didn't read their class.' issue, combined with a 'Player didn't or couldn't _understand_ their class' issue, combined with adding perhaps the single-most complicated mechanic in the game on top of it (Spellcasting).
> 
> I hate to break it to you;
> D&D is not new-player-friendly.
> The _DM_ can be new-player-friendly.
> But the _game_, isn't.
> 
> I've lost count of the number of times I've had to ask 'Did you remember to add modifiers?', even to players who've been playing for months. I had one player who didn't know what her Initiative was...*20* sessions in. I have one player currently who doesn't know how to calculate their attack roll - and they've been playing for a year.
> 
> ...


If a player can't be bothered to learn how to play the game 20 sessions/1 real world year into the game, then the player is not invested enough in the game to bother playing with him. He should have been told to learn the game much earlier. It's wonderful for people never having played any RPG game before to want to learn and play, but handholding can only go so far. Teach them, yes, but they have to want to learn and put in the effort to do so. If they can't/won't, then boot them from the game. This is a that player's problem, not the game.

----------


## 5eNeedsDarksun

> Even if that would be the _only_ reason, which Cheesegear does a good job of explaining why its not (and I completely agree), I would _still_ be 100% ok with that being the only reason. Just to be clear.
> 
> 
> Just because hes old doesnt mean he ever encountered enough to gain the necessary experience to level.
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 
> ...


Well done on the character sheet.  The default ones are terrible, not just for newbies, but experienced players as well.  There is so much stuff on the front page that belongs on the back.  Meanwhile, the tiny little square in the middle with 3 columns and 3 rows for attacks should take about 1/2 the page.  The other thing that should be on the front is a place to list BAs and Reactions with triggers.

For all the times 'new players' and 'slow players' come up I can't believe how little attention the lack of a good default character sheet that lays out the mechanics of possible actions gets.
For example, if Hypnotic Pattern is one of my spells, in one row on a good character sheet there should be room to list: Range, Area, Duration with Concentration/Not, Components, Save (with repeat?), and Damage/ Condition.  How many experienced players know every one of these things cold?  How many DMs?  How much time is taken up looking up spells/ abilities because people just aren't quite sure about 1 or more of these things?

----------


## animorte

> Well done on the character sheet.  The default ones are terrible, not just for newbies, but experienced players as well.  There is so much stuff on the front page that belongs on the back.  Meanwhile, the tiny little square in the middle with 3 columns and 3 rows for attacks should take about 1/2 the page.  The other thing that should be on the front is a place to list BAs and Reactions with triggers.
> 
> For all the times 'new players' and 'slow players' come up I can't believe how little attention the lack of a good default character sheet that lays out the mechanics of possible actions gets.
> For example, if Hypnotic Pattern is one of my spells, in one row on a good character sheet there should be room to list: Range, Area, Duration with Concentration/Not, Components, Save (with repeat?), and Damage/ Condition.  How many experienced players know every one of these things cold?  How many DMs?  How much time is taken up looking up spells/ abilities because people just aren't quite sure about 1 or more of these things?


All of this, every single word of this.

I literally dont remember the last time I used a pre-made (official print) character sheet.

All of the constant, relevant stats are on the front page, big and clear that only take a second to find. Every spell has a summarization of mechanical function next to it, everything you said + V/S/M components.

You know those cards you see while playing board games that you stop using after a couple times playing, but you still need it when you pull that game out for the first time in a year or more? You know, that card each person gets that basically states, _Its your turn: Move a piece, then choose one of three options (resolve action), now draw card. Play proceeds to next player._

I have also followed this kind of format including lots of the information you mentioned: movement, bonus action, action, and reaction.

----------


## Psyren

> The point wasn't that the rules were simple, the point is that we could still decipher the rules and play the game even with it being the first RPG we ever touched.  Comments suggesting that players new to 5e (or 5.5, whatever) can't be trusted with the complexity of picking a cleric subclass at level one feels like a real lack of confidence in the player.


Sure, *we* could. However, *we* are not the audience they are trying to make the game easier to pick up for; moreover, *we* (many of us anyway) picked up D&D during a time when the number of available alternatives to it were a miniscule fraction of what they are now. Gygax's day barely had the internet (or didn't at all depending on where you start measuring said day), much less all the entertainment outlets that have come along through or since. Just because it's not outright impossible for new players to pick up something as relatively byzantine as AD&D today and figure it out, doesn't mean that finding the right balance between keeping as far away from that design as possible while still paying homage to D&D's roots isn't worthwhile.




> I've led a number of brand new players through the character creation process and no one has ever gotten hung up on choosing a subclass.  Maybe I've just been blessed with the Best & Brightest novice D&D players around but I kind of doubt I'm that lucky.  I think it's more likely that novice D&D players are smarter than they're being given credit for.


And that's wonderful; truly I'm happy you were able to grow the hobby using 5.0 design, as others here have. But it's worth questioning how many new players (a) ended up bouncing off the hobby or having a bad experience instead, and (b) the extent to which 5.5 would have to change things before they start losing the kinds of players you brought on board - or us for that matter. "I got people into D&D using the 2014 rules/with them picking their subclass at 1 just fine" is a valid data point, but not the only one that matters by a long shot.

And all of the above would matter even if they were keeping level 1 otherwise untouched, which they're not - now those same new players, again, have to pick a 1st-level feat too, and possibly have other choices to make within their species and base class itself.




> I agree. The rules were a mess, but the participants of the game were motivated enough to find a way to make the rules work, (even if that meant just ignoring a lot of rules).
> 
> If people are arguing that the player base for 5e is not interested in making the game work, why should we presume those same people would be interested in a switch to a new edition?
> 
> Casual Fans go away eventually..


The point is to improve the on-ramp. Some "casual fans" will eventually leave D&D, sure, but others will stick around and eventually not be "casual" anymore, achieving such milestones as DMing their first session, their first campaign, and eventually even creating their own world or even publishing their own content, hopefully for D&D itself. If they bounce off the game, none of that will occur.

----------


## Jophiel

> Just because it's not outright impossible for new players to pick up something as relatively byzantine as AD&D today and figure it out, doesn't mean that finding the right balance between keeping as far away from that design as possible while still paying homage to D&D's roots isn't worthwhile.


It does, however, make me skeptical of how much confidence people have in novice players if they think "Pick a subclass" is a bridge too far.



> But it's worth questioning how many new players (a) ended up bouncing off the hobby or having a bad experience instead, and (b) the extent to which 5.5 would have to change things before they start losing the kinds of players you brought on board - or us for that matter.


I don't really see "questioning", though.  I see people defending the idea of moving subclasses to "make it less complicated" using the _assumed fact_ that novice players in general ever actually had a problem with it to justify the change.  Sure, my experience (and that of the others who said about the same) is anecdotal but I haven't even seen that much in terms of anyone having issue with it -- aside from someone whose players need a full calendar year to understand what their character's hit modifier is.

----------


## Psyren

> It does, however, make me skeptical of how much confidence people have in novice players if they think "Pick a subclass" is a bridge too far.


"Novice players" are not a monolith, is my point. Sure, some of them won't have a problem picking species+traits, background, equipment, spells, feat, scores, class, and subclass and getting all that onto the sheet before they can even play. But I don't think it's that farfetched to imagine that some will, and to see the value in tweaking the design accordingly. Especially when the subclass choice itself can change some of the other toggles I just mentioned.




> I don't really see "questioning", though.  I see people defending the idea of moving subclasses to "make it less complicated" using the _assumed fact_ that novice players in general ever actually had a problem with it to justify the change.  Sure, my experience (and that of the others who said about the same) is anecdotal but I haven't even seen that much in terms of anyone having issue with it -- aside from someone whose players need a full calendar year to understand what their character's hit modifier is.


Aren't you yourself assuming that new players _haven't_ had a problem with it? And you haven't addressed the fact that they are putting more choice points into level 1 than existed there in 2014. Keep in mind this might be justified even if the number of choices was going to stay unchanged, never mind increased.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Aren't you yourself assuming that new players _haven't_ had a problem with it? And you haven't addressed the fact that they are putting more choice points into level 1 than existed there in 2014. Keep in mind this might be justified even if the number of choices was going to stay unchanged, never mind increased.


We're speaking from experience. In my case, with a crap-ton of brand new players. And to the second point...maybe _that's_ the problem? Instead of shoving more level 1 choice points (free feats galore, sub-choices within species, etc)...they don't get credit for "fixing" an unforced problem. When you have to "fix" the problems you just created by doing something else that then causes more problems you then have to fix...maybe you shouldn't have caused yourself the problem in the first place. To me, it looks like they're just flailing around shoving stuff in willy-nilly without any real design ethos.

----------


## Psyren

> We're speaking from experience. In my case, with a crap-ton of brand new players.


And WotC's experience? Reported from tables across the globe, or directly observed across 8 years of conventions - does that "experience" not count, simply because it disagrees with yours?




> And to the second point...maybe _that's_ the problem? Instead of shoving more level 1 choice points (free feats galore, sub-choices within species, etc)...they don't get credit for "fixing" an unforced problem.


According to the survey data, 1st-level feats were wildly popular, as was every race they proposed other than Dragonborn and Ardling so far (options and all), and even those did not fall as far as being unwanted, just needing a bit more work.

----------


## animorte

> To me, it looks like they're just flailing around shoving stuff in willy-nilly without any real design ethos.


Since were trying to address theory on the matters of the developers, I want to remember the other metrics. Ethos is a problem with anybody with that much power, naturally. However, I believe they are attempting to appeal with two different forms of pathos:

1. They want to make the initiation process more standard for the _average_* new players.
2. They want to bring back the 1st-level feat that many 3.5e players were accustomed to, many of which house-ruled that back into 5e anyway.

This addresses (appeals to) both of the concerns were looking at.

*I think people can easily forget that each individual only has access to a microscopic sample of the player-base at any given time.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

Design by polling is exactly the opposite of a successful design ethos. And inevitably causes crappy design. Because, it turns out, people suck at actually knowing how what they want should be implemented to make a good product.

----------


## Sorinth

I'm partial to earlier subclass, as I definetly prefer to get my concept off the ground as early as possibe. Maybe level 2 would be a good middle ground but if it sticks to level 3 then I do think certain classes need to change up what the subclass represents and be more of a dual-subclass type design like the Warlock who has the Patron and the Pact. So for Cleric change the Subclass from being the diety you serve and instead be the way you serve your diety, so choose the diety at level 1 and get a level 1 feature and that's it, the subclass would then be something like the Holy Order which has the features.

Now what I find it kind of funny that most of the talk is about too much choice for new players, when new players are probably the least likely to be making choices based on reading the rules/mechanics in the first place. In most cases they will be making decisions on a concept that a class/sub-class represents, which means so long as there are no class/sub-classes that give the impression that they should play one way but then mechanically it doesn't work out and have to play a different way then there wouldn't be an issue with new players.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> According to the survey data, 1st-level feats were wildly popular, as was every race they proposed other than Dragonborn and Ardling so far (options and all), and even those did not fall as far as being unwanted, just needing a bit more work.


According to _reported_ survey data.
_Are players that create an account on D&D Beyond, download Playtest rules, read said rules, perhaps actually Playtest said rules, and then take cumbersome surveys, casual fans?_

In general, I do think we need not engage in Schrödinger's Wizard type arguments, vis a vis complexity.

Phoenix Phyre is correct, if one of the proposed benefits of symmetric subclass acquisition is ease of play, then we should also consider the new proposed layers of complexity that is added by having Feats that are limited by _Background and Class Groupings and  character levels._

A VHuman, can select, (practically), any Feat.  The 1st level Feat options in the Playtest docs have severe limitations on what can be selected.

The Playtest rules are, at this point, are adding more complexity to 5e, not reducing complexity.

----------


## animorte

> According to _reported_ survey data.
> _Are players that create an account on D&D Beyond, download Playtest rules, read said rules, perhaps actually Playtest said rules, and then take cumbersome surveys, casual fans?_


Maybe I come across as devils advocate, but Ive seen far more new players with D&DBeyond accounts than anybody else.

However:



> Design by polling is exactly the opposite of a successful design ethos. And inevitably causes crappy design. Because, it turns out, people suck at actually knowing how what they want should be implemented to make a good product.


I think this is a good point. It should be noted that *people* in general suck, not just new people.

----------


## Kane0

I like the idea of breaking down choices into different levels. All classes are already fine at level 1 because you're already choosing a feat but also all the other chargen stuff. UA Clerics get to pick an order at 2, warlocks invocations, artificers infusions, paladins and rangers spells + fighting style so those are all good. 
If sorcerers pick up metamagic at 2 that would also be a good fit
monks could feasibly get to choose a few options from a pool of ki powers
I could easily see a cleric order analogue for the druid and wizard
perhaps maneuvers for the fighter
Barbarian getting something that isnt tied to rage would open up a lot of doors for the class
and you could move expertise to level 2 for the bard and rogue? (Edit: but you know what sounds better? Skill tricks as a Rogue class feature! And you could have a choice of songs or something for the bard instead, so they could choose from say song of rest, courage or knowledge which is an actual FEATURE and not just a handful of bonus spells disguised as one but i digress)

So then everyone gets to choose something at level 1 (feat), level 2 (class specific), level 3 (subclass) and level 4 (ASI) before the 'capstone' of tier 1 hits (3rd level spells or extra attack, mostly), which is also a convenient time to do any re-speccing before your build is pretty much locked in, but also 'fully functional'

----------


## animorte

> In most cases they will be making decisions on a concept that a class/sub-class represents, which means so long as there are no class/sub-classes that give the impression that they should play one way but then mechanically it doesn't work out and have to play a different way then there wouldn't be an issue with new players.


This makes me think Actually the first argument for level 1 that makes sense to me because it gave me a thought.

If youre playing a Fighter at level 1 and level 2, then you start to look at subclasses and see one that stands out to you, Eldritch Knight. Hey look, it helps to have a decent INT, but you have an 8 or maybe just a 10. That still doesnt feel great (if you want to actually use the save DC). How could you have known to plan for that?

Ive seen this before. Its not difficult to just swap stats around a little bit, but still worth noting.




> So then everyone gets to choose something at level 1 (feat), level 2 (class specific), level 3 (subclass) and level 4 (ASI) before the 'capstone' of tier 1 hits (3rd level spells or extra attack, mostly), which is also a convenient time to do any re-speccing before your build is pretty much locked in, but also 'fully functional'


This looks good to me, yes.

----------


## Cheesegear

> According to the survey data...


Was there ever any data on who took that survey; How old are they? How long have they been playing TTRPGs for, and how long have they played D&D 5e for, and how _often_ do they play D&D?

For some reason, I don't think it was "young adult casuals" who were taking the survey. Not least because it was on D&D Beyond and basically you didn't take the survey if you're not already deep in the zeitgeist. Why would you want to?

----------


## Psyren

> Design by polling is exactly the opposite of a successful design ethos. And inevitably causes crappy design. Because, it turns out, people suck at actually knowing how what they want should be implemented to make a good product.


They're not doing "design by polling." If you'll notice, they designed the thing first, playtested it to some degree internally, released the draft and _then_ made a poll about it. Design by polling would be _"Tell us how you think feats should work in 1DnD! We will abide by the results of this poll."_




> According to _reported_ survey data.
> _Are players that create an account on D&D Beyond, download Playtest rules, read said rules, perhaps actually Playtest said rules, and then take cumbersome surveys, casual fans?_


I think they're a damn sight more casual than _Playgrounders_, particularly those of us who have provably been on D&D forums since before 5e even existed. And I include myself in the latter.




> Phoenix Phyre is correct, if one of the proposed benefits of symmetric subclass acquisition is ease of play, then we should also consider the new proposed layers of complexity that is added by having Feats that are limited by _Background and Class Groupings and  character levels._


They _have_ considered it. That's what the _survey_ was for.

And making it so your first level feat choice is no longer "any feat ever printed" - the VHuman option - is in fact a reduction in complexity.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> Maybe I come across as devils advocate, but Ive seen far more new players with D&DBeyond accounts than anybody else..


I was asking a question, (not a loaded question), so I appreciate the response.

Of course, just having a D&D Beyond account is not the same as downloading, reading and then commenting on the Playtest docs.

One can theoretically contact Porsche and provide feedback on how Porsche vehicles perform, even if one has never driven a Porsche vehicle, or know nothing about Porsche or automobiles in general.

This type of feedback, while not worthless, is likely also not that worthwhile.

If we theorize that a good percentage of Playtest feedback, is coming from gormless newbs, that barely understand how a proficiency bonus works, and likes everything that is coming out, because, (like Donny), these theoretical newbs lack a broad frame of reference, what do the survey results, truly indicate? 🃏

(Clearly, that is a wildly extreme example, but so is the Pollyanna-ish, position that WotC has taken everything into consideration).

----------


## Witty Username

Do we need subclasses at all?
If the goal is to reduce complexity, we could remove subclasses entirely, that would solve some of the thematic problems and simplicity is a goal that can be pursued at all levels of play, new players is a broad category, and people learn at vastly different rates, subclass at 3 is arguably kicking the issue down the road a couple sessions instead of fixing it.

Would this reduce the number of archetypes in the game, not necessarily. Take the mix subclasses, like Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster. The multiclassing system already allows for such characters. I am personally not a fan, as I mentioned this puts weird delays on archetypes. But as that is not a problem 
Alternatively, we don't need to adhere to the low number of classes model. Additional classes or borrowing something like class kits from AD&D and we would arguably get the effects of subclasses with greater utility. I personally think we lost the utility of keeping to a short list of classes when we got past 6, so I dont see much value in sticking to the PHB list with any strong adherence.

----------


## animorte

> Was there ever any data on who took that survey; How old are they? How long have they been playing TTRPGs for, and how long have they played D&D 5e for, and how _often_ do they play D&D?


I mean, those were in fact questions that I answered within the survey itself so its not an unreasonable request. They specifically asked age and what edition you started playing (not that anybody was actually required to answer everything).




> This type of feedback, while not worthless, is likely also not that worthwhile.


Thats precisely why many sites have a place to offer feedback require you to make the purchase first.

----------


## Cheesegear

> Do we need subclasses at all?


My fix always involves making every ability score useful, for every class, insofar as the ideal character who can "do a little bit of everything" has a 14 in every stat, regardless of class.
Then you go through the PHB, Xanathar's and Tasha's and you find abilities and Feats that key to ability scores, and you allow the character to do more of the thing, the higher their stat is.

Each class then would have six "trees." But you can pick and choose which subclass tree you go down based on what your favoured ability score, is.




> Take the mix subclasses, like Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster.


Under my system, they would be the STR and DEX "trees", respectively, of the Wizard class.

A Str-Based Fighter is...A Fighter.
An Int-Based Fighter gains Battlemaster Traits.
A Str-Based _Wizard_ gains Eldritch Arcane Knight Traits.




> I mean, those were in fact questions that I answered within the survey itself so its not an unreasonable request. They specifically asked age and what edition you started playing (not that anybody was actually required to answer everything).


Yeah. I know they have the data. They could just tell us.
But of course I'm worried that 'The majority of respondents are angry grognards who know exactly what they're doing.' might not be something you want made public, if true.

----------


## Psyren

> I was asking a question, (not a loaded question), so I appreciate the response.
> 
> Of course, just having a D&D Beyond account is not the same as downloading, reading and then commenting on the Playtest docs.
> 
> One can theoretically contact Porsche and provide feedback on how Porsche vehicles perform, even if one has never driven a Porsche vehicle, or know nothing about Porsche or automobiles in general.
> 
> This type of feedback, while not worthless, is likely also not that worthwhile.
> 
> If we theorize that a good percentage of Playtest feedback, is coming from gormless newbs, that barely understand how a proficiency bonus works, and likes everything that is coming out, because, (like Donny), these theoretical newbs lack a broad frame of reference, what do the survey results, truly indicate? 🃏
> ...


It's not "Pollyanna-ish" to understand how statistically significant sample sizes work, and how they prevent edge cases like the one you're describing here.




> Do we need subclasses at all?
> If the goal is to reduce complexity, we could remove subclasses entirely, that would solve some of the thematic problems and simplicity is a goal that can be pursued at all levels of play, new players is a broad category, and people learn at vastly different rates, subclass at 3 is arguably kicking the issue down the road a couple sessions instead of fixing it.


I don't know that we "need" them - but they too have proven to be wildly successful, so I don't see a good reason to get rid of them either..

I'd be interested in a variant rule that lets you drop them in favor of something else though... maybe bonus feats and guaranteed magic items (from a small list) or something.

----------


## Kane0

> Do we need subclasses at all?
> If the goal is to reduce complexity, we could remove subclasses entirely
> 
> Alternatively, we don't need to adhere to the low number of classes model. Additional classes or borrowing something like class kits from AD&D and we would arguably get the effects of subclasses with greater utility.


Class Kits/ACFs, Prestige Classes, Archetypes, Subclasses, all these fulfill the same mechanical function of adding choice and variation to a smaller set of starting options (core classes) that is also, importantly, expandible with future content.
Doesnt really matter which one they go with i suppose, but I prefer a combination of subclasses and ACFs personally, with Multiclassing as a third option that fulfills another function but happens to have a lot of overlap.

----------


## animorte

> Do we need subclasses at all?
> If the goal is to reduce complexity, we could remove subclasses entirely, that would solve some of the thematic problems and simplicity is a goal that can be pursued at all levels of play, new players is a broad category, and people learn at vastly different rates, subclass at 3 is arguably kicking the issue down the road a couple sessions instead of fixing it.


3.5e had no subclasses and each class had even larger variants in progression, not to mention the feat chains, and obscene prestige class prerequisites. Lets not.

Kicking it down the road, cross that bridge when you get there, yeah. But also *more importantly*, get used to the game a little bit as we start to discuss outside of the game what your progression looks like.




> I'd be interested in a variant rule that lets you drop them in favor of something else though...


I keep talking about my hopes for a more modular system. Balance likely becomes more of an issue though between each accessible feature, the more there are.




> Yeah. I know they have the data. They could just tell us.
> But of course I'm worried that 'The majority of respondents are angry grognards who know exactly what they're doing.' might not be something you want made public, if true.


People arent likely to reveal information that may discredit any part of their process.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> It's not "Pollyanna-ish" to understand how statistically significant sample sizes work, and how they prevent edge cases like the one you're describing here..


Papa Smurf Always says..the appeal to Authority argument, holds little appeal to me.

I respect the opinion, (that some hold), that symmetrical subclass acquisition is more aesthetically appealing for them.  I do not hold much respect for the view that, a priori, WotC is going to get 1DND _right or wrong._

Quite simply, I am going to let the finished product of 1DND speak for itself, in terms of what and was not considered by WotC.

Unless someone wants to leak inside information, we are all just speculating.

----------


## Psyren

> I keep talking about my hopes for a more modular system. Balance likely becomes more of an issue though between each accessible feature, the more there are.


For me, this kind of modular design can come into play well after core. So long as they keep the "DM's Workshop: here are some things you should consider when editing a subclass or making one of your own" in the DMG, that's all I really want. I can use that to swap out a subclass feature for one from another class, or a feat, or something else entirely on my own.




> Yeah. I know they have the data. They could just tell us.


There's no reason for them to. They're not looking for feedback on the demographics of the survey respondents; they're looking for feedback on the design. But realistically, even if they told you something like "only 10% of responses came from grognards", would you believe them anyway?

For the latter, the numbers they've shared so far (e.g. Dragonborn, Ardling, and the new crit rules being the most divisive things in the first playtest) made sense.




> Papa Smurf Always says..the appeal to Authority argument, holds little appeal to me.
> 
> I respect the opinion that some hold that symmetrical subclass acquisition is more aesthetically appealing.  I do not respect the view that, a priori, WotC is going to get 1DND right or wrong.
> 
> Quite simply, I am going to let the finished product of 1DND speak for itself, in terms of what and was not considered by WotC.
> 
> Unless someone wants to leak inside information, we are all just speculating.


"50,000 people responded to our survey" is inside information. If you believe they're just openly lying, fine, but it's not really possible to engage with that belief in a coherent way.

----------


## animorte

> Quite simply, I am going to let the finished product of 1DND speak for itself, in terms of what and was not considered by WotC.


Ive said this like nine times by now myself, but it wont stop me from enjoying the speculation and appreciating the viewpoints of my fellow forumites.




> For me, this kind of modular design can come into play well after core. So long as they keep the "DM's Workshop: here are some things you should consider when editing a subclass or making one of your own" in the DMG, that's all I really want. I can use that to swap out a subclass feature for one from another class, or a feat, or something else entirely on my own.


I would be fine with this. Still polishing up my subclass feature-swapping idea.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> "50,000 people responded to our survey" is inside information. If you believe they're just openly lying, fine, but it's not really possible to engage with that belief in a coherent way.


Folks, would you mind discussing the survey in a separate thread?
The veracity of survey results or anything dealing with the integrity of WotC devolves quickly and threads get closed because of it, only slightly less quickly.

Suffice to say, I am not privy to the workings of WotC to competently have developed a theory of mind for the company as a whole.

I certainly have seen no raw, massaged, or any data from the playtests..just second hand reports from folks here.

Again, if we can stick to the issue proposed in the O.P., I would appreciate it.

----------


## Psyren

> I certainly have seen no raw, massaged, or any data from the playtests..just second hand reports from folks here.


It's a firsthand account from WotC themselves actually, not secondhand reports.




> Again, if we can stick to the issue proposed in the O.P., I would appreciate it.


Sure, I'm happy to table that aspect until the next survey results video (which will discuss subclasses at 3rd, for the Expert Classes at least, but people had the opportunity to rate that specifically in _that_ survey too - so survey results will be directly relevant information.) 

In the interest of avoiding further secondhand accounts, here is the video I mentioned towards the beginning of the thread - where Crawford explains the design team's rationale for subclasses at 3rd in detail: starting at 4:10 or so.

What I find most telling about Crawford's phrasing is that he specifically states they've seen the problems previously mentioned with subclasses at 1st level; he doesn't say it's a hypothetical or theoretical or supposed feeling, rather he positions it as an observed phenomenon.

----------


## Arkhios

> It's a firsthand account from WotC themselves actually, not secondhand reports.


...firsthand account from WotC themselves yes, BUT often paraphrased by the person posting the link. There's alway the chance that the person posting a link also paraphrases the content, and something is always _lost in translation_, and as much as people might try, quite often they self-insert their opinions or interpretation rather than what was said word for word in the interview.

AND, sometimes people prefer to read straight from the forum instead of opening an external link. So, the information they get is essentially secondhand reports.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> It's a firsthand account from WotC themselves actually, not secondhand reports.


Which I have not read or watched, making it , (drum roll please), a secondhand account.

Psyren, you strike me as a reasonable and polite person.
The desire to talk about WotC, has a history of overwhelming any thread, right here in the Playground.

Would you or someone be willing to start a separate thread, to discuss the Playtest, and leave this thread to the topic presented in the O.P.?

It seems my prediction from several posts and hours ago is coming to fruition.

----------


## Psyren

> ...firsthand account from WotC themselves yes, BUT often paraphrased by the person posting the link. There's alway the chance that the person posting a link also paraphrases the content, and something is always _lost in translation_, and as much as people might try, quite often they self-insert their opinions or interpretation rather than what was said word for word in the interview.
> 
> AND, sometimes people prefer to read straight from the forum instead of opening an external link. So, the information they get is essentially secondhand reports.


I included the link itself for that very reason.

And if there's someone who doesn't like to click links and also doesn't like to read someone else's account of a link's contents... yeah, I got nothing  :Small Tongue: 




> Which I have not read or watched, making it , (drum roll please), a secondhand account.
> 
> Psyren, you strike me as a reasonable and polite person.
> The desire to talk about WotC, has a history of overwhelming any thread, right here in the Playground.
> 
> Would you or someone be willing to start a separate thread, to discuss the Playtest, and leave this thread to the topic presented in the O.P.?
> 
> It seems my prediction from several posts and hours ago is coming to fruition.


I moved back to the primary topic, it's the part of my post you omitted.

----------


## diplomancer

> What you've described really... stinks.  This just doesn't sound like the game I've played for 40 years.  It sounds video gamey and kind of pointless.
> I get that level 1 in particular is difficult to balance and make something interesting, but it's not impossible, particularly when you have the time and resources these guys do.  I think published content is so hyper focused at this point on the levels that 'most people' play that we're unlikely to see much outside levels 3 to end of tier 2 any more.  
> Your post is just another reminder of why I haven't bought new content in a while.


It's not that bad, as long as you see it for what it is (and not what you're used to for a first and second level scenario). The level 1 scene is to establish the setting, the level 2 roleplay is to establish the stakes. Just think "this is an adventure that starts at level 3, with one or two setting-establishing sessions"

----------


## Gignere

> Oddly I've never had an issue with those people. Not even from the group who were all just out of high school (very early 20s) and weren't exactly academic geniuses (no college, kinda bone-heads). The smartest one there was an ex-druggie. They all learned real fast and adapted. 
> 
> Maybe I've been lucky. Or maybe you have been unlucky.


Youve been very lucky, the number of times some players in my group that tries and do 2 actions or 2 bonus actions in a round after playing 10 games together now is staggering.

Half of them still havent memorized their AC, DC, and attack modifiers.

Watching the new players with moon Druid and sorcerer has definitely convinced me we need a tutorial of levels 1 and 2, and i have no issue if they had to fit some stupid narrative to justify subclass at level 3.

----------


## 5eNeedsDarksun

> It's not that bad, as long as you see it for what it is (and not what you're used to for a first and second level scenario). The level 1 scene is to establish the setting, the level 2 roleplay is to establish the stakes. Just think "this is an adventure that starts at level 3, with one or two setting-establishing sessions"


I guess I can see that point of view.  But it really undermines levels 1 and 2 as actual play.  If forced to choose, I'd rather just start at 3 rather than effectively handwaving half of tier 1.
On the topic at hand, and as someone mentioned just a bit upthread, this sure doesn't support the argument that some (newer) players want/ need time to get used to mechanics before added complexity comes in.

----------


## Psyren

> I guess I can see that point of view.  But it really undermines levels 1 and 2 as actual play.  If forced to choose, I'd rather just start at 3 rather than effectively handwaving half of tier 1.
> On the topic at hand, and as someone mentioned just a bit upthread, this sure doesn't support the argument that some (newer) players want/ need time to get used to mechanics before added complexity comes in.


I don't see how it doesn't. Crawford says that they "typically designed first level to only last a session or two and then you're moved along." I see that as "actual play."

----------


## animorte

> I don't see how it doesn't. Crawford says that they "typically designed first level to only last a session or two and then you're moved along." I see that as "actual play."


Not only is that actual play, but it also provides real world time (for more learning) as I mentioned before:



> But also *more importantly*, get used to the game a little bit as we start to discuss outside of the game what your progression looks like.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Which is another way of saying that a pre-third level cleric, has only a lesser ordination, and has to wait until third level to receive their major ordination.


 Good idea. 


> So much for playing that grizzled older priest, called to adventure.


 Hardly. As the PHB says, most priests are not clerics. It is only those whome the gods have chosen that become clerics (the class). If he's a late bloomer no big deal.  The call came, and he answered.  Or, like Maria in The Sound of Music, the call came (to leave the convent) and she answered it.  



> In general, I do think we need not engage in Schrödinger's Wizard type arguments, vis a vis complexity.


 *grin* 



> A VHuman, can select, (practically), any Feat.  The 1st level Feat options in the Playtest docs have severe limitations on what can be selected.  The Playtest rules are, at this point, are adding more complexity to 5e, not reducing complexity.


 vHuman being nerfed makes Korvin sad.  :Small Yuk: 



> ...then everyone gets to choose something at level 1 (feat), level 2 (class specific), level 3 (subclass) and level 4 (ASI) before the 'capstone' of tier 1 hits (3rd level spells or extra attack, mostly), which is also a convenient time to do any re-speccing before your build is pretty much locked in, but also 'fully functional'


 That appears to be the pattern that they are looking for, and the AL 'respec any time before 5' allows for dealing with "buyers remorse" when it arises. 



> Do we need subclasses at all?


 Yes. They work as intended.  



> But of course I'm worried that 'The majority of respondents are angry grognards who know exactly what they're doing.' might not be something you want made public, if true.


 *snicker* Not an angry grognard, but a hopeful one who has seen enough sloppy work from this dev team (and the art team) of late that I begin to worry ... 



> Class Kits/ACFs, Prestige Classes, Archetypes, Subclasses, all these fulfill the same mechanical function of adding choice and variation to a smaller set of starting options (core classes) that is also, importantly, expandible with future content. Doesnt really matter which one they go with i suppose, but I prefer a combination of subclasses and ACFs personally, with Multiclassing as a third option that fulfills another function but happens to have a lot of overlap.


 Feats also help with customization.  


> 3.5e had no subclasses and each class had even larger variants in progression, not to mention the feat chains, and obscene prestige class prerequisites. Lets not.


 +1. 



> Youve been very lucky, the number of times some players in my group that tries and do 2 actions or 2 bonus actions in a round after playing 10 games together now is staggering.


 Still crops up in one of the groups I play with, and have played with for some years.  



> Watching the new players with moon Druid and sorcerer has definitely convinced me we need a tutorial of levels 1 and 2, and i have no issue if they had to fit some stupid narrative to justify subclass at level 3.


 Full casters are a bit more to tackle for the noob.

----------


## Anymage

> Youve been very lucky, the number of times some players in my group that tries and do 2 actions or 2 bonus actions in a round after playing 10 games together now is staggering.
> 
> Half of them still havent memorized their AC, DC, and attack modifiers.
> 
> Watching the new players with moon Druid and sorcerer has definitely convinced me we need a tutorial of levels 1 and 2, and i have no issue if they had to fit some stupid narrative to justify subclass at level 3.


If a player doesn't understand how their character works in 10 sessions, I doubt that two sessions early on are going to suddenly make them understand things.  At most that speaks to the value of simple subclasses that are easy to default into.  Not unlike how the basic rules only give one sublcass for each class that's both simple and iconic.

Which does actually make me change my position, come to think of it.  Most of my new player experiences have been a player who was excited at the thought of playing D&D, but where it was easier to onboard them with the basic rules subclass instead of digging through books to find which flavor of the iconic classes they wanted to be.  So long as the subclass isn't too frontloaded that it raises multiclassing dip issues, I'd be fine if one subclass was tagged as being the most archetypal so that new players could pick up and go more quickly.  Give advice for respeccing once they have a bit more experience if they think another subclass is a better fit, and that also handily covers most of the new player onboarding issues I've seen.

----------


## diplomancer

> I don't see how it doesn't. Crawford says that they "typically designed first level to only last a session or two and then you're moved along." I see that as "actual play."


Because of the 3 scenes for level 1, 2 don't involve combat at all (one of them don't involve _mechanics_) at all. So even if you put all the group for the 3rd scene (which the module does not call for), it's still one, short, combat for learning the mechanics. Which is the same thing as to say "this won't help you learn the mechanics".

If levels 1 and 2 are to help new players learn the mechanics of their characters, I wouldn't say this particular adventure is making a good job of it.

----------


## Sorinth

> Hardly. As the PHB says, most priests are not clerics. It is only those whome the gods have chosen that become clerics (the class). If he's a late bloomer no big deal.  The call came, and he answered.  Or, like Maria in The Sound of Music, the call came (to leave the convent) and she answered it.


Which is actually a reason to have a deity specific feature even at level 1 because even at level 1 you've already been chosen by a god and therefore should be representative of that god. If you've been chosen by the death god you shouldn't look identical to the chosen of a thunder god or a sun god or most others. And it's not like you need something big, something as simple as the domain spell list is all it takes to provide that feel. Which is why choosing the domain at level 1 but having the subclass be something else would be a good way to satisfy both sides.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Which is actually a reason to have a deity specific feature even at level 1 because even at level 1 you've already been chosen by a god


But the domain need not be fixed. Waiting for level 3 is fine.  :Small Smile:

----------


## Psyren

> Because of the 3 scenes for level 1, 2 don't involve combat at all (one of them don't involve _mechanics_) at all. So even if you put all the group for the 3rd scene (which the module does not call for), it's still one, short, combat for learning the mechanics. Which is the same thing as to say "this won't help you learn the mechanics".
> 
> If levels 1 and 2 are to help new players learn the mechanics of their characters, I wouldn't say this particular adventure is making a good job of it.


Even focusing on SotDQ, I don't agree with your premise, that two mechanical encounters at level 1 (one combat challenge, one skill based challenge) are somehow insufficient as a foundation for reaching 2nd level. In fact, I'd consider this a step up over previous design, like the first starter set (LMoP) which contains something like 6-7 encounters including traps and a boss fight all before level 2. Levels 1 and 2 being more introductory in the vein of SotDQ is fine.




> Which is actually a reason to have a deity specific feature even at level 1 because even at level 1 you've already been chosen by a god and therefore should be representative of that god. If you've been chosen by the death god you shouldn't look identical to the chosen of a thunder god or a sun god or most others.


While I concur that this kind of differentiation is important, I agree with Korvin that it doesn't need to happen at level 1. Regardless of who they serve, to an extent all clerics are drawing from the same well, much like all druids, paladins, warlocks etc are. That is just how that kind of granted magic expresses itself in mortals.

----------


## Pex

> Youve been very lucky, the number of times some players in my group that tries and do 2 actions or 2 bonus actions in a round after playing 10 games together now is staggering.
> 
> Half of them still havent memorized their AC, DC, and attack modifiers.
> 
> Watching the new players with moon Druid and sorcerer has definitely convinced me we need a tutorial of levels 1 and 2, and i have no issue if they had to fit some stupid narrative to justify subclass at level 3.


I've seen that too and always worry when corrected they can't do what they want they get mad and will quit the game. If I bring it up I might get accused of rules lawyering ruining the fun, especially when the DM is new and isn't so familar with the game himself so he doesn't know you can't do two actions or cast two 1st level spells. One time a player had a hissy fit when I brought up he couldn't cast a second 1st level spell in a round, did it anyway, and the DM let it happen. DMing a game I had players quit on me for following the rules and not letting them do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted just because they wanted to do it. "My other DM would let me." was one player's response.

New players are not universally idealistic players ready to learn and play the game as the game says.

----------


## Sorinth

> While I concur that this kind of differentiation is important, I agree with Korvin that it doesn't need to happen at level 1. Regardless of who they serve, to an extent all clerics are drawing from the same well, much like all druids, paladins, warlocks etc are. That is just how that kind of granted magic expresses itself in mortals.


So a warlock who sold his soul to a fiend for magic power is "drawing from the same well" as someone who has made a deal with an Archfey? I just don't see that as being true at all.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> So a warlock who sold his soul to a fiend for magic power is "drawing from the same well" as someone who has made a deal with an Archfey? I just don't see that as being true at all.


And druids and paladins aren't tied to gods in 5e, while clerics are. So no, not the same well of power there either.

----------


## Psyren

> So a warlock who sold his soul to a fiend for magic power is "drawing from the same well" as someone who has made a deal with an Archfey? I just don't see that as being true at all.


They all share the same base spell list, including the same signature spell, and have access to the same invocations and Pact Boons. There is a lot more in common there than not.




> And druids and paladins aren't tied to gods in 5e, while clerics are. So no, not the same well of power there either.


Re-read the playtest doc, the tie between clerics and gods has been softened. Now they can draw from pantheons and "other immortal entities." (CSUA 3)

----------


## Atranen

> Which is actually a reason to have a deity specific feature even at level 1 because even at level 1 you've already been chosen by a god and therefore should be representative of that god. If you've been chosen by the death god you shouldn't look identical to the chosen of a thunder god or a sun god or most others. And it's not like you need something big, something as simple as the domain spell list is all it takes to provide that feel. Which is why choosing the domain at level 1 but having the subclass be something else would be a good way to satisfy both sides.


Absolutely; there needs to be some tie to the deity even from level 1. "Generic clerics" should not exist. 




> But the domain need not be fixed. Waiting for level 3 is fine.


If they shift the flavor to note the same God can have multiple domains, provide enough domains such that that's reasonable (i.e. more than 4), and give a choice at level 1, I'm on board. 




> Even focusing on SotDQ, I don't agree with your premise, that two mechanical encounters at level 1 (one combat challenge, one skill based challenge) are somehow insufficient as a foundation for reaching 2nd level. In fact, I'd consider this a step up over previous design, like the first starter set (LMoP) which contains something like 6-7 encounters including traps and a boss fight all before level 2. Levels 1 and 2 being more introductory in the vein of SotDQ is fine.


This sounds like a 'video game tutorial' feel that I don't care for. 




> While I concur that this kind of differentiation is important, I agree with Korvin that it doesn't need to happen at level 1. Regardless of who they serve, to an extent all clerics are drawing from the same well, much like all druids, paladins, warlocks etc are. That is just how that kind of granted magic expresses itself in mortals.


Clerics being the same as warlocks being the same as druids sounds like a poor narrative choice. For me at least, the appeal of a cleric is that they are _not_ drawing on a generic power source, but a very specific one with specific goals and aims.

----------


## Psyren

> If they shift the flavor to note the same God can have multiple domains, provide enough domains such that that's reasonable (i.e. more than 4), and give a choice at level 1, I'm on board.


There will be just four in core unfortunately. Personally I would prefer more than four subclasses (domains and schools) for clerics and wizards respectively again.




> This sounds like a 'video game tutorial' feel that I don't care for.


I genuinely don't know how "video game" became such a curse around here. Lots of video game designers got their start in D&D, and not just in the west. Is it a 4e thing maybe?




> Clerics being the same as warlocks being the same as druids sounds like a poor narrative choice. For me at least, the appeal of a cleric is that they are _not_ drawing on a generic power source, but a very specific one with specific goals and aims.


I didn't say clerics, warlocks and druids are the same. I'm saying that all clerics share some fundamental elements with one another, just like all sorcerers with each other, all druids with each other, all warlocks etc. That's the whole concept behind the spell list after all, and always has been.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> T
> Re-read the playtest doc, the tie between clerics and gods has been softened. Now they can draw from pantheons and "other immortal entities." (CSUA 3)


IE they're just warlocks. The whole distinguishing factor of being a god was that they could grant clerical spells. If you relax that, you eliminate any reason to _have_ a cleric class as a separate thing. There's certainly not enough mechanical impetus.

----------


## Sorinth

> They all share the same base spell list, including the same signature spell, and have access to the same invocations and Pact Boons. There is a lot more in common there than not.


Of course there's more in common then not, that's the whole point of having subclasses but right now the different subclasses will feel different even at level 1. So they share some similarities and have some things to differentiate themselves, that's a good thing.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> And druids and paladins aren't tied to gods in 5e, while clerics are. So no, not the same well of power there either.


 Check DMG pages 10-13, forces and philosophies.  :Small Wink: 



> Absolutely; there needs to be some tie to the deity even from level 1.


 Aye. 



> If they shift the flavor to note the same God can have multiple domains, provide enough domains such that that's reasonable (i.e. more than 4), and give a choice at level 1, I'm on board.


 As am I, but most gods already have 2 domains in the PHB, that restriction is  :Small Furious:  FR and WoTC stupidity. (further rant not indulged in)  




> Clerics being the same as warlocks being the same as druids sounds like a poor narrative choice. For me at least, the appeal of a cleric is that they are _not_ drawing on a generic power source, but a very specific one with specific goals and aims.


 yeah, that's where the thematics need to stop being watered down.
*Glares at WotC*

----------


## Psyren

> Of course there's more in common then not, that's the whole point of having subclasses but right now the different subclasses will feel different even at level 1. So they share some similarities and have some things to differentiate themselves, that's a good thing.


It can be a bad thing too. With subclass at 1, there's no onramp for a new player to learn their class' fundamentals before they have to make the most build-defining choice of their career.

And a level 1 cleric of a death god can still feel different from a level 1 cleric of a life god (though arguably those two could easily be two sides of the same coin anyway.) The former can pick different spells and choose not to use their CD to heal.




> IE they're just warlocks. The whole distinguishing factor of being a god was that they could grant clerical spells. If you relax that, you eliminate any reason to _have_ a cleric class as a separate thing. There's certainly not enough mechanical impetus.


"Cleric = Worship Only A Deity" was _never_ a thing in D&D before 5.0; it's unnecessarily limiting. There are already specific settings like FR where that can be the case if desired. Pantheon was an option all the way back to 1e IIRC, and every edition since has been even broader. 

*Spoiler: Prior Edition Quotes*
Show

4e: _"All clerics choose a specific faith to which they devote themselves. Usually this faith is the worship of a specific patron deityfor example, Moradin, Pelor, or Erathis. Sometimes clerics are devoted to churches that venerate groups of deities or even philosophies."_

3.5: _"Some clerics devote themselves not to a god but to a cause or a source of divine power. These characters wield magic the way clerics devoted to individual gods do, but they are not associated with any religious institution or any particular practice of worship."_

3.0: _"When your character becomes a Cleric, you may choose to have your character serve a specific deity...Choosing to serve a specific deity is optional."_

2e: _"The cleric is a generic priest (of any mythos) who tends to the needs of a community. He is both protector and healer. He is not purely defensive, however."_

----------


## animorte

> There will be just four in core unfortunately. Personally I would prefer more than four subclasses (domains and schools) for clerics and wizards respectively again.


Ill pull a card out of your deck and play it: Thats something I would rather them save for a subsequent installment. We need more subclasses to fairly represent each class and further options, methinks. I like what theyve done with that.

----------


## Psyren

> Ill pull a card out of your deck and play it: Thats something I would rather them save for a subsequent installment. We need more subclasses to fairly represent each class and further options, methinks. I like what theyve done with that.


I'll reserve judgement on how much I like it until I see which wizard schools made the cut and which didn't. I can't imagine Illusionist didn't make core for instance, but that means Enchanter is probably screwed. I guess the only one I can be truly confident about is Evoker.

----------


## animorte

> I'll reserve judgement on how much I like it until I see which wizard schools made the cut and which didn't. I can't imagine Illusionist didn't make core for instance, but that means Enchanter is probably screwed. I guess the only one I can be truly confident about is Evoker.


I hope their representation is suitable for the biggest fans of each class. For example, I dont give a snoot which Wizards end up there, but plenty others do. I hope they give me the Warlock representation I desire. Of, course I have preferences for most classes, as does nearly everyone else.

I think theyll be reorganizing some of the concept features (between each subclass and the class), honestly.

----------


## Sorinth

> It can be a bad thing too. With subclass at 1, there's no onramp for a new player to learn their class' fundamentals before they have to make the most build-defining choice of their career.
> 
> And a level 1 cleric of a death god can still feel different from a level 1 cleric of a life god (though arguably those two could easily be two sides of the same coin anyway.) The former can pick different spells and choose not to use their CD to heal.


Isn't the "most build-defining choice of their career" actually the class and not the subclass? How can we expect new players to make such an important choice of which class to take with no on-ramp? Shouldn't we give them a few levels of generic hero class so that they can learn the fundamentals of the game before making such a big decision?

Most new players will probably have an idea/concept of the type of character they want to play, what they don't know is how best to represent that concept in terms of class/subclass choices. And I'm not even against pushing subclasses to level 3, what I'm against is being too generic, Fighters get a Fighting Style at level 1 and quite a few of the styles are major parts of a character concept/build and for the most part will help differentiate one fighter from the next. That's something that's also needed for classes like Warlock and Cleric because spell selection isn't good enough when they have the same spell list.

----------


## BeholderEyeDr

> And a level 1 cleric of a death god can still feel different from a level 1 cleric of a life god (though arguably those two could easily be two sides of the same coin anyway.) The former can pick different spells and choose not to use their CD to heal.


This is my feeling as well: I really do think there are sufficient choices in the first two levels to distinguish clerics of different deities, so that a 1st level cleric of Pelor can feel very different from a cleric of Kord, or what have you. I have more concerns about how this feels for warlocks, because I do think the fantasy of playing the chosen of an archfey or fiend are quite different and maybe require different mechanics from the very beginning, but I'm willing to wait and see how it works in the context of the warlock revision (which I imagine/hope might be more significant).

In general, I think establishing the foundations of your class in levels 1-2, and then specializing at 3rd level, is really sound design, even ignoring the new player angle. I do echo the concern that the standardized subclass level progression is going to make things feel homogenized, but as long as there is sufficient variety between and within classes, I'll actually be very happy with this structure.

----------


## Pex

> I'll reserve judgement on how much I like it until I see which wizard schools made the cut and which didn't. I can't imagine Illusionist didn't make core for instance, but that means Enchanter is probably screwed. I guess the only one I can be truly confident about is Evoker.


They might not even use schools as a means of subclass. I wouldn't doubt we'd get recognizable abilities like Sculpt Spell, but they subclass wouldn't be called Evoker. They could; I'm not ruling it out, but the opportunity is there to divorce schools from subclass. There are 8 schools but will only be 4 subclasses. To keep schools would mean each subclasses specialize in two schools. Possible, sure, but maybe not well received. Still, wizards are entitled to have class features that do stuff aside from casting spells. Of course this is all conjecture.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Still, wizards are entitled to have class features that do stuff aside from casting spells.


Heresy! Burn the blasphemer! (Apply blue to the level desired).

----------


## Witty Username

> As am I, but most gods already have 2 domains in the PHB, that restriction is  FR and WoTC stupidity. (further rant not indulged in)


Morn the days of 3.5 where you got 2 domains per cleric, I mean in 3.5 Gods had specific domains, but they had like 5 each, some of the greater deities had like 8-10 if you included the supplements.

But I wholeheartedly agree that 1 domain for a deity is lunacy, the whole advantage of the 5e system was you could untether domain and deity if you had a good idea.

----------


## animorte

> Most new players will probably have an idea/concept of the type of character they want to play, what they don't know is how best to represent that concept in terms of class/subclass choices.


When I know there will be a new player I have a bunch of questions that I can ask to help guide them before they even see the choices. *If Im the one bringing them in, all of this conversation has already happened well before showing up to play.* Do you like spells to deal damage safely from afar or smashing baddies in the face with a melee weapon? Do you want some combination of the two or something entirely different? Sneaking around enemies, setting up allies, or utilizing a pet? Do you like to have some control magic, healing magic, or just blow the enemies to bits? When you bash the baddies on the noggin, do you also want to have a good defense (shield or elusive?), throw caution to the wind, or with fancy tricks up your sleeve?

I try and gauge what their goal is and point them in the directions of a couple options they can do as many of the things they aspire to (within reason), because a lot of those ideas overlap. The point is, I have never let a person wander in completely blind and that sentiment is a bit outlandish to me.




> They might not even use schools as a means of subclass.


I hope they instead work to incorporate school specialization into base class features. This would open up much better themes (you know like every other class gets) and I might actually care to give one the time of day. But, as mentioned earlier, Im not a Wizard fan, and thus not a player they should cater to in this area.

----------


## Atranen

> There will be just four in core unfortunately. Personally I would prefer more than four subclasses (domains and schools) for clerics and wizards respectively again.


Agreed!




> I genuinely don't know how "video game" became such a curse around here. Lots of video game designers got their start in D&D, and not just in the west. Is it a 4e thing maybe?


No problem with video games. But there are certain, say, cookie cutter elements of video games (like tutorials) that don't mesh well with a tabletop rpg. Hence the negative connotation. 




> I didn't say clerics, warlocks and druids are the same. I'm saying that all clerics share some fundamental elements with one another, just like all sorcerers with each other, all druids with each other, all warlocks etc. That's the whole concept behind the spell list after all, and always has been.


Ok, so the important question here is "to what extent do they share fundamental elements?" In my opinion, a lesser extent is better, hence my desire for more distinguishing features for e.g. clerics of different deities. 




> IE they're just warlocks. The whole distinguishing factor of being a god was that they could grant clerical spells. If you relax that, you eliminate any reason to _have_ a cleric class as a separate thing. There's certainly not enough mechanical impetus.


I've lost what WOTC thinks the difference between these is.




> A level 1 cleric of a death god can still feel different from a level 1 cleric of a life god (though arguably those two could easily be two sides of the same coin anyway.) The former can pick different spells and choose not to use their CD to heal.





> This is my feeling as well: I really do think there are sufficient choices in the first two levels to distinguish clerics of different deities, so that a 1st level cleric of Pelor can feel very different from a cleric of Kord, or what have you.


They can--but they also can be identical. For comparison (and with reference to the "spheres" thread) I could have a wizard choose only to cast illusion spells, but this is different than mechanics for a (hypothetical) "illusionist" subclass that restricts my spell options. In my view, the latter is better because the mechanics ought to serve the narrative. 

Put another way, it's not enough to be able to choose to restrict oneself in order to play a thematic character--the mechanics should encourage you to do so. Right now, they encourage the cleric of Pelor and of Kord to both pick the optimal cleric spells for whatever adventure they're on rather than anything thematic, and so the two may end up feeling identical.

----------


## Psyren

> This is my feeling as well: I really do think there are sufficient choices in the first two levels to distinguish clerics of different deities, so that a 1st level cleric of Pelor can feel very different from a cleric of Kord, or what have you. I have more concerns about how this feels for warlocks, because I do think the fantasy of playing the chosen of an archfey or fiend are quite different and maybe require different mechanics from the very beginning, but I'm willing to wait and see how it works in the context of the warlock revision (which I imagine/hope might be more significant).
> 
> In general, I think establishing the foundations of your class in levels 1-2, and then specializing at 3rd level, is really sound design, even ignoring the new player angle. I do echo the concern that the standardized subclass level progression is going to make things feel homogenized, but as long as there is sufficient variety between and within classes, I'll actually be very happy with this structure.


Indeed. My hope is that they do a bit more to explain where those common powers Warlocks gain access to are coming from. Like to me, it doesn't make sense that Celestial, Fiendish, Great Old One, Archfey and Genielocks all get power from this Hadar guy. 

Maybe that's why the Mage playtest is going to be last - Warlock is getting a soup to nuts overhaul.




> Isn't the "most build-defining choice of their career" actually the class and not the subclass? How can we expect new players to make such an important choice of which class to take with no on-ramp? Shouldn't we give them a few levels of generic hero class so that they can learn the fundamentals of the game before making such a big decision?


You can pick a class without knowing any of the game's mechanics. _"I want to be kind of like Aragorn/Conan/Gandalf/etc."_ Done. Subclass  is less likely to be that simple - and besides, sometimes you want to figure out your subclass through play too. Or even plan to start as one and then events of the campaign lead you to retrain into another, etc. It's not like every Paladin knows exactly what Oath they're going to dedicate their lives to the moment they become a squire; some do, but not all. That same journey of discovery can apply to any class, just expressed in different ways.




> And I'm not even against pushing subclasses to level 3, what I'm against is being too generic, Fighters get a Fighting Style at level 1 and quite a few of the styles are major parts of a character concept/build and for the most part will help differentiate one fighter from the next. That's something that's also needed for classes like Warlock and Cleric because spell selection isn't good enough when they have the same spell list.


Well, we don't know what Fighters will get at 1 and 2 yet (nor Warlocks for that matter). We know the Warrior group will have _access_ to Fighting Styles at 1st level, but not whether Fighters will get any for free (though I expect they will.)

But concerning spells not being enough differentiation between two different members of the same class, honestly I disagree. Sure, your party _could_ have two clerics, one of Bane and one of Lathander, who end up preparing all the same low level spells each day - but not only do I see that as being unlikely, the game itself would encourage some divergence to make sure you can cover off on more situations. Like maybe they both grab Cure Wounds, because cleric, but the Lathanderite also preps Sanctuary while the Banite preps... well, Bane.




> No problem with video games. But there are certain, say, cookie cutter elements of video games (like tutorials) that don't mesh well with a tabletop rpg. Hence the negative connotation.


I still don't get it. I believe tutorials mesh well with any game, especially a game that takes hours if not days to play at a minimum for most people. Starter Sets fill this function well.




> Ok, so the important question here is "to what extent do they share fundamental elements?" In my opinion, a lesser extent is better, hence my desire for more distinguishing features for e.g. clerics of different deities.


My point is that, so long as they demonstrably share those elements, there must be some similarity in their respective power sources. A Banite and a Lathanderite and a Loviataran and an Ilmateri can all heal people at level 1, so there must logically be something in common about the power they're drawing from. What differentiates them most at low levels isn't the ability to heal, rather it's who they choose to heal and why.

And the same is true of the gods themselves. No matter how vastly different their outlooks, portfolios and dwellings are, ultimately they all share one thing in common - living in the Outer Planes (rather than the Inner or Material.) And those common powers they grant are presumably (now explicitly) a function of that common energy source.




> They can--but they also can be identical. For comparison (and with reference to the "spheres" thread) I could have a wizard choose only to cast illusion spells, but this is different than mechanics for a (hypothetical) "illusionist" subclass that restricts my spell options. In my view, the latter is better because the mechanics ought to serve the narrative. 
> 
> Put another way, it's not enough to be able to choose to restrict oneself in order to play a thematic character--the mechanics should encourage you to do so. Right now, they encourage the cleric of Pelor and of Kord to both pick the optimal cleric spells for whatever adventure they're on rather than anything thematic, and so the two may end up feeling identical.


I would argue that's more a function of the possibility space known as "optimal" being so narrow at low levels. It can't really be helped, if you have two level 1 clerics in the party then they are going to have noticeable overlap unless one is intentionally throwing or picking at random. But I also don't think the possibility of two level 1 clerics in a party who would _care_ about potential overlap is big enough to sabotage their other stated design goals over.

----------


## Atranen

> You can pick a class without knowing any of the game's mechanics. _"I want to be kind of like Aragorn/Conan/Gandalf/etc."_ Done. Subclass  is less likely to be that simple - and besides, sometimes you want to figure out your subclass through play too. Or even plan to start as one and then events of the campaign lead you to retrain into another, etc. It's not like every Paladin knows exactly what Oath they're going to dedicate their lives to the moment they become a squire; some do, but not all. That same journey of discovery can apply to any class, just expressed in different ways.


Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Cleric is an example where the subclass (or at least the deity) is more defining than the class in my opinion. Magical vs mundane rogues and fighters are another. And this runs into the issue of ability score requirements changing with level.




> But concerning spells not being enough differentiation between two different members of the same class, honestly I disagree. Sure, your party _could_ have two clerics, one of Bane and one of Lathander, who end up preparing all the same low level spells each day - but not only do I see that as being unlikely, the game itself would encourage some divergence to make sure you can cover off on more situations. Like maybe they both grab Cure Wounds, because cleric, but the Lathanderite also preps Sanctuary while the Banite preps... well, Bane.


The "two clerics in one party" is a red herring; clerics should feel different even if I have two different clerics in different games. Maybe they choose unique spells; but maybe they choose the same ones. The mechanics can assist here by giving them, I don't know, free spells associated with an aspect whatever deity they follow. 




> I still don't get it. I believe tutorials mesh well with any game, especially a game that takes hours if not days to play at a minimum for most people. Starter Sets fill this function well.


A good tutorial for tabletop would be a relatively simple adventure but may go through all of tier 1. I see no need to gate levels 1&2 as "tutorial" and then never really spend any time in them beyond that. D&D doesn't need that for a tutorial. 




> My point is that, so long as they demonstrably share those elements, there must be some similarity in their respective power sources. A Banite and a Lathanderite and a Loviataran and an Ilmateri can all heal people at level 1, so there must logically be something in common about the power they're drawing from. What differentiates them most at low levels isn't the ability to heal, rather it's who they choose to heal and why.


Yes--but does that similarity mean they get all the same abilities, or many similar abilities but some different ones based on the specifics? The latter seems better to me.

----------


## Witty Username

> They can--but they also can be identical. For comparison (and with reference to the "spheres" thread) I could have a wizard choose only to cast illusion spells, but this is different than mechanics for a (hypothetical) "illusionist" subclass that restricts my spell options. In my view, the latter is better because the mechanics ought to serve the narrative. 
> 
> Put another way, it's not enough to be able to choose to restrict oneself in order to play a thematic character--the mechanics should encourage you to do so. Right now, they encourage the cleric of Pelor and of Kord to both pick the optimal cleric spells for whatever adventure they're on rather than anything thematic, and so the two may end up feeling identical.


Eh, wizard and cleric are different beasts in that regard.

It is a thematic imparitive of wizard to be self directed, this necessities the ability to pursue outside ones primary focus. Also, it is the class that most operates at the application level of thought, so ultility in a larger context is an imparative. Your character's spell selection must be directly informed by the character's personality, temperament, personal goals, etc. At least after first level, where it is assumed your increasing capability is based on research as opposed to training.

Cleric gets power from rigidly defined outside forces, so they require restrictions in that vein as part of their theme. I think previous editions did this better (priests of Auril not being able to cast spells that produce light or flame, given that Auril is a goddess of darkness, frost and winter), but domains still do this decently, for the gods that are compatible with the base cleric class.

----------


## Kane0

> They might not even use schools as a means of subclass.


God i hope so.

----------


## Psyren

> Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Cleric is an example where the subclass (or at least the deity) is more defining than the class in my opinion. Magical vs mundane rogues and fighters are another. And this runs into the issue of ability score requirements changing with level.


Ability score requirements are valid, you can certainly lock yourself out of something like Eldritch Knight or Arcane Archer (functionally anyway) by dumping Int at level 1.But even then, you still have plenty of choices available by the time your subclass rolls around.




> The "two clerics in one party" is a red herring; clerics should feel different even if I have two different clerics in different games.


Sure - but how much differentiation do you really need at levels 1 and 2? I don't recall anyone getting all that upset about, say, 5.0 Paladins getting similar features at those levels. Even the spell choice barely mattered since most paladins were using theirs to do the same thing regardless of what they had prepared. And a lot of them pick a deity too, even if mechanically they don't need one.




> Maybe they choose unique spells; but maybe they choose the same ones. The mechanics can assist here by giving them, I don't know, free spells associated with an aspect whatever deity they follow.


They do get those, just not at 1st level (nor do they need to.) I imagine every cleric domain will now get Domain Spells + something else at 3rd.




> A good tutorial for tabletop would be a relatively simple adventure but may go through all of tier 1. I see no need to gate levels 1&2 as "tutorial" and then never really spend any time in them beyond that. D&D doesn't need that for a tutorial.


It's not a binary between the whole starter set is a tutorial or none of it is. The first two levels of play can be a tutorial _within_ a tutorial, lots of games have those too. 




> Yes--but does that similarity mean they get all the same abilities, or many similar abilities but some different ones based on the specifics? The latter seems better to me.


Good news, that's what they get. Just not at level 1 and 2.




> Eh, wizard and cleric are different beasts in that regard.
> 
> It is a thematic imparitive of wizard to be self directed, this necessities the ability to pursue outside ones primary focus. Also, it is the class that most operates at the application level of thought, so ultility in a larger context is an imparative. Your character's spell selection must be directly informed by the character's personality, temperament, personal goals, etc. At least after first level, where it is assumed your increasing capability is based on research as opposed to training.
> 
> Cleric gets power from rigidly defined outside forces, so they require restrictions in that vein as part of their theme. I think previous editions did this better (priests of Auril not being able to cast spells that produce light or flame, given that Auril is a goddess of darkness, frost and winter), but domains still do this decently, for the gods that are compatible with the base cleric class.


I'll add here that some of these restrictions need to bow to gameplay too. It's all well and good to say something like _"Auril clerics are not allowed to prepare flamestrike and continual flame_" or even _"Auril clerics are not allowed to prepare or cast spells that create fire or light"_ and some tables might find that limitation interesting while others find it chafing. But the more important issue is that you can easily as the designers tumble down a rabbit hole by doing this kind of thing - either digging through every spell ever printed to find the things Auril might object to to add them to a list somewhere, or trying to finesse a "natural language" solution to the restriction that is anything but and causing endless debates _("You said she hates spells that make light right? Am I still allowed to prepare Guiding Bolt??")_ or, gods forbid we could end up going all the way to the deep end of bringing back Keywords and Descriptors. 

But from where I sit, the simplest idea is to leave it up to the tables that care about that sort of thing to impose those restrictions and answer those questions themselves. If you want your Auril clerics to either be unable to cast light spells or eat a very narratively memorable punishment for violating her strictures to do so, go for it. If you think a cleric of Talona should lose their powers for helping to stop a plague, go nuts. As long as both you and your players are having fun, it's all valid.

----------


## MoiMagnus

> A good tutorial for tabletop would be a relatively simple adventure but may go through all of tier 1. I see no need to gate levels 1&2 as "tutorial" and then never really spend any time in them beyond that. D&D doesn't need that for a tutorial.


While D&D doesn't *need* that, IMO it would be fine if it was openly presented as such. If the designers want level 1&2 to be "tutorial", they should put explicitly in the rulebook "experienced groups of players should start at level 3, as the level 1&2 are intended to progressively introduce the mechanics of the class". 

Or alternatively if you prefer RP-explanations something along the line "Characters of level 1&2 are still considered to be 'in-training' or 'students', and truly become independent of their mentor at level 3. As such, it is not unusual for a D&D campaign to start with level 3 PCs.".

----------


## diplomancer

> While D&D doesn't *need* that, IMO it would be fine if it was openly presented as such. If the designers want level 1&2 to be "tutorial", they should put explicitly in the rulebook "experienced groups of players should start at level 3, as the level 1&2 are intended to progressively introduce the mechanics of the class". 
> 
> Or alternatively if you prefer RP-explanations something along the line "Characters of level 1&2 are still considered to be 'in-training' or 'students', and truly become independent of their mentor at level 3. As such, it is not unusual for a D&D campaign to start with level 3 PCs.".


Maybe it's one of tho cases where memory tricks us, but I was pretty sure they do say, either in PHB or DMG, that more experienced groups can start at level 3.

----------


## Cheesegear

> they should put explicitly in the rulebook "experienced groups of players should start at level 3"


They do?




> *Dungeon Master's Guide; Starting at Higher Level, pg 38*
> Experienced players familiar with the capabilities of the character classes and impatient for more significant adventures might welcome the idea of starting a campaign with characters above 1st level.


There's a small table on that page I use all the time when characters die and players need to make new ones. That's how I know it's there.

----------


## Atranen

> Eh, wizard and cleric are different beasts in that regard.
> 
> It is a thematic imparitive of wizard to be self directed, this necessities the ability to pursue outside ones primary focus. 
> 
> ...
> 
> Cleric gets power from rigidly defined outside forces, so they require restrictions in that vein as part of their theme.


Yes, these could be treated differently. I agree that restrictions are more important for clerics. 




> Sure - but how much differentiation do you really need at levels 1 and 2? I don't recall anyone getting all that upset about, say, 5.0 Paladins getting similar features at those levels. Even the spell choice barely mattered since most paladins were using theirs to do the same thing regardless of what they had prepared. And a lot of them pick a deity too, even if mechanically they don't need one.


Paladins have a less clear connection to a deity than clerics do. For clerics, I want differentiation starting at level 1. 




> They do get those, just not at 1st level (nor do they need to.) I imagine every cleric domain will now get Domain Spells + something else at 3rd.


So add something to 1st as well. 




> It's not a binary between the whole starter set is a tutorial or none of it is. The first two levels of play can be a tutorial _within_ a tutorial, lots of games have those too.


Sure. I don't like the idea of "tutorial levels" in D&D broadly. 

One reason why--I think you should be able to have real impactful adventures (that often break the "tier" recommendations) and so I don't like shoving 1st and 2nd off into tutorial land. A good example is the Lord of the Rings. What level are the hobbits in Fellowship? Was Weathertop part of a tutorial? Was Moria?

Making these levels tutorial levels reinforces the idea that they don't matter, don't have consequences, etc. And I think that's bad for the game. 

And this is to say nothing about breaking in-universe verisimilitude, where fast leveling means power levels are not clearly definied and things lack a clear place in the universe. But that's another complaint entirely.




> I'll add here that some of these restrictions need to bow to gameplay too. It's all well and good to say something like _"Auril clerics are not allowed to prepare flamestrike and continual flame_" or even _"Auril clerics are not allowed to prepare or cast spells that create fire or light"_ and some tables might find that limitation interesting while others find it chafing. But the more important issue is that you can easily as the designers tumble down a rabbit hole by doing this kind of thing - either digging through every spell ever printed to find the things Auril might object to to add them to a list somewhere, or trying to finesse a "natural language" solution to the restriction that is anything but and causing endless debates _("You said she hates spells that make light right? Am I still allowed to prepare Guiding Bolt??")_ or, gods forbid we could end up going all the way to the deep end of bringing back Keywords and Descriptors.


Well, you picked a very complicated implementation and noted it was complicated. Sure. 

But there is a simple implementation that does what I want. It is the 5E ruleset. 




> While D&D doesn't *need* that, IMO it would be fine if it was openly presented as such. If the designers want level 1&2 to be "tutorial", they should put explicitly in the rulebook "experienced groups of players should start at level 3, as the level 1&2 are intended to progressively introduce the mechanics of the class".


If they have to do tutorial levels, I would appreciate them being more clearly marked as such. 




> Maybe it's one of tho cases where memory tricks us, but I was pretty sure they do say, either in PHB or DMG, that more experienced groups can start at level 3.





> They do?
> 
> There's a small table on that page I use all the time when characters die and players need to make new ones. That's how I know it's there.


There is some language (and maybe more in other places). But I think it could be more explicit. Really I think the DMG should have a lot more detail about their design philosophy and why they chose to do things the way they did. Like a detailed description of bounded accuracy as a concept, for example. It would be a good place to put an explanation of tutorial levels too.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Sure. I don't like the idea of "tutorial levels" in D&D broadly. 
> 
> One reason why--I think you should be able to have real impactful adventures (that often break the "tier" recommendations) and so I don't like shoving 1st and 2nd off into tutorial land. A good example is the Lord of the Rings. What level are the hobbits in Fellowship? Was Weathertop part of a tutorial? Was Moria?
> 
> Making these levels tutorial levels reinforces the idea that they don't matter, don't have consequences, etc. And I think that's bad for the game.


Strong agree. The concept of "yeah, this stuff doesn't matter" is not something I like.




> There is some language (and maybe more in other places). But I think it could be more explicit. Really I think the DMG should have a lot more detail about their design philosophy and why they chose to do things the way they did. Like a detailed description of bounded accuracy as a concept, for example. It would be a good place to put an explanation of tutorial levels too.


Amen. This is what should be in the DMG, not huge lists of planes that no one ever is going to use. Give me worked examples, give me discussion of the _why_ of the choices they made.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Morn the days of 3.5 where you got 2 domains per cleric, I mean in 3.5 Gods had specific domains, but they had like 5 each, some of the greater deities had like 8-10 if you included the supplements.


 A not do  nod to 3.5 for the better idea, if domains even need to be a sub class defining feature. 
I get what 5e was trying to do, in terms of simplicity. Pick a god and domain at the beginning, and make it super easy for a new player to pick one that 'seems to fit.'  This is fine if we leave Sub Class at level 1, but not if we level the playing field so that all classes pick at 3; but any god can have most domains ought to be the default.  



> But I wholeheartedly agree that 1 domain for a deity is lunacy, the whole advantage of the 5e system was you could untether domain and deity if you had a good idea.


 Yes, it does work that way, but if you look at the table in the PHB a lot of folks may see a closer 1:1 kind of association.

----------


## animorte

> Making these levels tutorial levels reinforces the idea that they don't matter, don't have consequences, etc. And I think that's bad for the game.





> Strong agree. The concept of "yeah, this stuff doesn't matter" is not something I like.


Being a "tutorial" area and being meaningless are wildly different (as far as I'm concerned) and I'm not sure how they became synonymous. 

Meaning isn't strictly tied to mechanics or how much power your character has. That's one part of the much bigger picture.

----------


## TurboGhast

> Being a "tutorial" area and being meaningless are wildly different (as far as I'm concerned) and I'm not sure how they became synonymous. 
> 
> Meaning isn't strictly tied to mechanics or how much power your character has. That's one part of the much bigger picture.


I think it comes from tutorials often lowering the consequences for mistakes or giving players free resources so new ones feel safe to experiment. This helps the tutorial fulfill its goal of teaching people the game, but at the cost of making it feel less meaningful later on.

----------


## Psyren

> Paladins have a less clear connection to a deity than clerics do. For clerics, I want differentiation starting at level 1.


The connection was only made this strict in 5.0. As I cited previously, no other edition has done that, and clerics worked fine. The solution is to do what they did, and what the  playtest is doing even - relax the connection between clerics and specific deities.




> So add something to 1st as well.


They did, Divine Spark. I think they can let you choose between Radiant and Necrotic but beyond that, it works fine.




> Sure. I don't like the idea of "tutorial levels" in D&D broadly. 
> 
> One reason why--I think you should be able to have real impactful adventures (that often break the "tier" recommendations) and so I don't like shoving 1st and 2nd off into tutorial land. A good example is the Lord of the Rings. What level are the hobbits in Fellowship? Was Weathertop part of a tutorial? Was Moria?
> 
> Making these levels tutorial levels reinforces the idea that they don't matter, don't have consequences, etc. And I think that's bad for the game.


They've been tutorial levels since the beginning of 5e. The very first starter set from 2014 (LMoP) had the provision that in the unlikely event the level 1 characters die in "Goblin Arrows", they are simply knocked out and looted, then come to later with the opportunity to track down their assailants. The other two starters sets (Essentials Kit and the Stormwreck) have similar provisions. And while I don't think D&D translates to LotR particularly well, you could argue that _Weathertop does too_ - remember how Aragorn showed up to save the day?




> And this is to say nothing about breaking in-universe verisimilitude, where fast leveling means power levels are not clearly definied and things lack a clear place in the universe. But that's another complaint entirely.


Levels 1 and 2 being fairly quick to get through breaks nothing. And I don't know what you mean or are looking for when you say "power levels are not clearly defined and things lack a clear place in the universe." That doesn't sound like something that needs to be set in stone in the first 2 levels of the game.




> Well, you picked a very complicated implementation and noted it was complicated. Sure. 
> 
> But there is a simple implementation that does what I want. It is the 5E ruleset.


Well you're welcome to houserule cleric subclasses back to 1st level if you wish.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Being a "tutorial" area and being meaningless are wildly different (as far as I'm concerned) and I'm not sure how they became synonymous. 
> 
> Meaning isn't strictly tied to mechanics or how much power your character has. That's one part of the much bigger picture.





> I think it comes from tutorials often lowering the consequences for mistakes or giving players free resources so new ones feel safe to experiment. This helps the tutorial fulfill its goal of teaching people the game, but at the cost of making it feel less meaningful later on.


I agree with TurboGhast. _Explicitly-marked, skippable_ tutorials (which is what we're talking about here) tend to act as a "game within a game" where the decisions you make rarely carry over more than notionally. They have to, because otherwise you wouldn't be able to skip them without consequences. They also tend to be very forgiving of character death/mistakes. Tutorials also tend to bypass a lot of the setup, starting you _in media res_. Which is fine for a video game, but really painful at the table.

You can avoid this, but only at the cost of compromising the tutorial nature or introducing some kinks.

*Spoiler: Aside*
Show


I actually had a set of explicit "tutorials" for a few school club games I ran one year. The background was that all the characters were approaching graduation from an explicit Adventurers' School (more of a specialty school for people who already knew how to <class> but needed to be taught about adventuring specifically) and were set a series of solid-illusion challenges. "Success" only meant more starting resources and a better starting reputation; "failure" meant you lost prestige. OOC, it was all about me getting a sense of the group's approach to things and letting them experience some basic operations in a "safe" environment. At the end, they leveled to level 2. Death simply meant losing points--you'd be healed up at the end of the round.

It had 3 rounds:
- A simple combat against bandits, including a spell-caster (Acolyte).  Terrain, combat, spell-casting.
- A "skill challenge" consisting of them having to get a heavily-expecting noble-woman across a 10-ish foot gap in a high-mountain trail safely. Taught ability checks, teamwork, and the idea that you can approach things in lots of different ways.
- A "dungeon" consisting mostly of traps. There were animated armors that would attack if you set off the noise traps, but fighting them wasn't actually part of the mission brief. The goal was to retrieve an object from an inner room and return it to the exit.

It worked ok, but required a very fictionally-structured start to every campaign. Which I didn't like. So I've moved away from it.

On the other hand, one of about 3 final character deaths (ie not resurrected) happened in a different campaign at level 2. No, soloing the Dire Yeti is _not_ expected. Especially since you didn't even have to face him--he was just peacefully slumbering in a cave off your path of travel. Going in there and waking him up and demanding that he face you squarely was a bad idea. If levels 1-2 were a tutorial, this lesson (that doing such things is utterly dumb) would have either required some serious contrivances or not been possible.

----------


## Atranen

> Yes, it does work that way, but if you look at the table in the PHB a lot of folks may see a closer 1:1 kind of association.


Yep. That table has to be changed. 




> Being a "tutorial" area and being meaningless are wildly different (as far as I'm concerned) and I'm not sure how they became synonymous. 
> 
> Meaning isn't strictly tied to mechanics or how much power your character has. That's one part of the much bigger picture.


I'm explicitly rejecting that 'meaning is tied to how much power your character has'. I think that's basically WoTC's view, based on how they structure the tier system. I think you should be able to have meaningful (say, world-saving) adventures even at a low level. 




> I think it comes from tutorials often lowering the consequences for mistakes or giving players free resources so new ones feel safe to experiment. This helps the tutorial fulfill its goal of teaching people the game, but at the cost of making it feel less meaningful later on.





> I agree with TurboGhast. _Explicitly-marked, skippable_ tutorials (which is what we're talking about here) tend to act as a "game within a game" where the decisions you make rarely carry over more than notionally.


Yes and yes. This is what I mean when I say tutorial--not necessarily something with no narrative consequences, but something that is basically on-the-rails where the decisions you make don't have much impact. This characterizes most video game tutorials and the early levels of many published WoTC campaigns. 




> The connection was only made this strict in 5.0. As I cited previously, no other edition has done that, and clerics worked fine. The solution is to do what they did, and what the  playtest is doing even - relax the connection between clerics and specific deities.


I think this is a poor decision in certain details, because it causes the aformentioned blending of lines between clerics and warlocks. I think clerics of a pantheon are highly appropriate. 




> They did, Divine Spark. I think they can let you choose between Radiant and Necrotic but beyond that, it works fine.


I mean add something that differs based on the kind of cleric you are. Being able to choose damage type at 1st would at least be a start, but is probably more gameable than thematic. 




> They've been tutorial levels since the beginning of 5e. The very first starter set from 2014 (LMoP) had the provision that in the unlikely event the level 1 characters die in "Goblin Arrows", they are simply knocked out and looted, then come to later with the opportunity to track down their assailants. The other two starters sets (Essentials Kit and the Stormwreck) have similar provisions. And while I don't think D&D translates to LotR particularly well, you could argue that _Weathertop does too_ - remember how Aragorn showed up to save the day?


The first encounters of the starter sets being tutorials is entirely different than levels 1 & 2 being tutorial levels in all future d&d games. 

I don't find your Weathertop point compelling, because there are real permanent consequences in a way tutorials generally lack. And while D&D should be able to do things beyond Tolkien, if D&D _can't_ do Tolkien something has gone wrong. 




> Levels 1 and 2 being fairly quick to get through breaks nothing. And I don't know what you mean or are looking for when you say "power levels are not clearly defined and things lack a clear place in the universe." That doesn't sound like something that needs to be set in stone in the first 2 levels of the game.


Then allow me to expand.

What I'm looking for in my games is a sense of verisimilitude and _groundedness,_ a feeling that the world makes sense on its own terms and that the characters are real, living people within it. One thing that helps the characters feel real is the sense that they are progressing at a reasonable rate in-universe. In the real world, people train for years or decades to become highly skilled in specific areas; they do not become masters overnight. And similarly characters in game should spend a significant amount of time and effort to improve. 

Say I have a first level character with the soldier background; they have participated in a single campaign, or perhaps served as a town guard and got into several scuffles. This background, presented in the PHB, _implies_ at least a basic level of experience. It doesn't have to be the 'grizzled old veteran' brought up earlier; but it does have to be someone who has been a soldier (and ditto for folk hero and other backgrounds).

Now they enter one of the adventure paths. They fight a single combat, do a skill challenge, and immediately double in strength. Then they fight another combat, another skill challenge...and all of a sudden they're third level, out of the league of the first level character (who, in at least a year or two of experience, would have done at least a combat or two). And so the character progression doesn't make sense in-universe. 

At the same time, it raises the question of why all these NPC guards who get into scuffles routinely are so weak. Have they never had to fight off a few goblins or peacefully disperse a crowd? 

To expand beyond the tutorial point: the progression in 5e breaks the most in the long hardcovers like Tyranny of Dragons. There, the characters meet faction members at 3rd level (nobodies in FR) then go off for a few months, and come back at 10th level as some of the most influential people in the coalition opposing the Cult of the Dragon. It strains my credulity and sense of verisimilitude.

----------


## Jophiel

The idea of levels 1 & 2 being blow-off "tutorial" levels feels nonsensical to me.  On one hand, we're saying that a new player can't handle picking between a Draconic Sorcerer and a Wild Magic Sorcerer.  But then we're also saying that the right time to dump the combined mechanics of _levels 1-3_ on them is after two NPC conversations, solving a Junior Jumble and punching a Dire Squirrel.

Shouldn't a tutorial have the time invested to actually _teach_ a player something?  Even the maligned "Level One Dungeon" is going to provide a couple NPC encounters (getting the quest, maybe releasing a prisoner, getting your reward), a handful of combat encounters to learn what Initiative and To Hit Mods are before the year's out, a chance to Short Rest, an introduction to resource management (no, you shouldn't use every spell slot you have against the first guard), multiple chances to make an ability check, saving throws, Dis/Advantage, etc.  All basic game concepts you should probably have experienced by the time you're halfway through Tier 1.  Plus the joy of rummaging through goblin pockets for loose change and finding that _Potion of Whatever_ the End Boss Goblin Necromancer had under his pillow.

A good tutorial should give you the chance to flip all the switches and twist the knobs on your character sheet before you really get rolling.  I don't see how blazing through the first two levels with barely any investment or effort accomplishes that.  Of course this ties back into character creation/development -- if you're actually going to go on a couple of _adventures_ before level three and not just a couple of tavern chats, it becomes weirder that your Warlock doesn't have any idea who they sold their soul to or why.

----------


## Sorinth

> You can pick a class without knowing any of the game's mechanics. _"I want to be kind of like Aragorn/Conan/Gandalf/etc."_ Done. Subclass  is less likely to be that simple - and besides, sometimes you want to figure out your subclass through play too. Or even plan to start as one and then events of the campaign lead you to retrain into another, etc. It's not like every Paladin knows exactly what Oath they're going to dedicate their lives to the moment they become a squire; some do, but not all. That same journey of discovery can apply to any class, just expressed in different ways.


And the same holds true for the vast majority of subclasses, your going to know from the start whether you want to be an Arcane Trickster or an Assassin, people wanting to be warlocks are going to know whether they want their patron to be a fiend or a celestial, clerics will have an idea of the type of domain/god they want to serve. You don't need to play 2 levels of ranger to decide you want an animal companion to fight alongside, that's something you will know from the very start.

In the very worst case you just need to provide a 1-2 sentence describing the subclass like the PHB did for the different classes. And let's not forget that AL already solved the whole new players might later regret picking something and want to change things up.




> Well, we don't know what Fighters will get at 1 and 2 yet (nor Warlocks for that matter). We know the Warrior group will have _access_ to Fighting Styles at 1st level, but not whether Fighters will get any for free (though I expect they will.)
> 
> But concerning spells not being enough differentiation between two different members of the same class, honestly I disagree. Sure, your party _could_ have two clerics, one of Bane and one of Lathander, who end up preparing all the same low level spells each day - but not only do I see that as being unlikely, the game itself would encourage some divergence to make sure you can cover off on more situations. Like maybe they both grab Cure Wounds, because cleric, but the Lathanderite also preps Sanctuary while the Banite preps... well, Bane.


With only 2 prepared spell slots it's not enough especially since in order to be on theme you will often have to take mechanically worse options.

----------


## Sorinth

> The idea of levels 1 & 2 being blow-off "tutorial" levels feels nonsensical to me.  On one hand, we're saying that a new player can't handle picking between a Draconic Sorcerer and a Wild Magic Sorcerer.  But then we're also saying that the right time to dump the combined mechanics of _levels 1-3_ on them is after two NPC conversations, solving a Junior Jumble and punching a Dire Squirrel.
> 
> Shouldn't a tutorial have the time invested to actually _teach_ a player something?  Even the maligned "Level One Dungeon" is going to provide a couple NPC encounters (getting the quest, maybe releasing a prisoner, getting your reward), a handful of combat encounters to learn what Initiative and To Hit Mods are before the year's out, a chance to Short Rest, an introduction to resource management (no, you shouldn't use every spell slot you have against the first guard), multiple chances to make an ability check, saving throws, Dis/Advantage, etc.  All basic game concepts you should probably have experienced by the time you're halfway through Tier 1.  Plus the joy of rummaging through goblin pockets for loose change and finding that _Potion of Whatever_ the End Boss Goblin Necromancer had under his pillow.
> 
> A good tutorial should give you the chance to flip all the switches and twist the knobs on your character sheet before you really get rolling.  I don't see how blazing through the first two levels with barely any investment or effort accomplishes that.  Of course this ties back into character creation/development -- if you're actually going to go on a couple of _adventures_ before level three and not just a couple of tavern chats, it becomes weirder that your Warlock doesn't have any idea who they sold their soul to or why.


Agreed, and it's not like they can't just create an appendix of pre-generated characters where say all choices between level 1-5 are made for them and spelled out.

----------


## False God

Regardless of the the level, the worst part about subclasses remains:

Hey!  I like this simple Fighter Champion guy, but I'd kinda like to dip my toes into this Fighter Mage guy.  
You can't do that.
Uh, why not?
Because.  But you can pick an entirely different class with entirely different mechanics to mix them together.
Uh, I just want the Eldritch Knight stuff.
No.

Subclasses at level 1 should basically mean entirely distinct classes.  But wherever subclasses land, they're not, for some weird reason.

----------


## Psyren

> I think this is a poor decision in certain details, because it causes the aformentioned blending of lines between clerics and warlocks.


I don't see that as particularly problematic. Clerics and Druids have blurred lines between them too; so do Fighters and Barbarians. What ultimately matters most is how a class feels to play, and I can't think of anyone who would conclude Clerics and Warlocks play the same because of it. When you have three classes whose power is granted by external often extraplanar entities, there is going to be _some_ thematic overlap; it's unavoidable.




> I mean add something that differs based on the kind of cleric you are. Being able to choose damage type at 1st would at least be a start, but is probably more gameable than thematic.


You're still not explaining why this differentiation is so imperative to have _at level 1 and 2 specifically._ The difference between 2 Barbarians, 2 Rogues and 2 Paladins at those levels are slight too. That's just what starting out entails; more of your differences come from things like race/background/feat/class choice itself, than _within_ your class. And that's okay.




> The first encounters of the starter sets being tutorials is entirely different than levels 1 & 2 being tutorial levels in all future d&d games.


I disagree - Starter Sets give us the most straightforward example of the *intended* play experience for newcomers to the game. They are a direct through-line into how the designers see people who have never played before approaching the hobby. And every single one of them including an escape hatch to prevent a TPK (however unlikely or hidden from the PCs it might be) is telling. Their primary goal is to welcome people to the game, and provide a _sense_ of danger without turning them off.




> I don't find your Weathertop point compelling, because there are real permanent consequences in a way tutorials generally lack. And while D&D should be able to do things beyond Tolkien, if D&D _can't_ do Tolkien something has gone wrong.


You brought up Weathertop, not me  :Small Confused: 

And sure, if you throw a bunch of barrow wights at level 1 characters then you're probably going to get "real permanent consequences." That doesn't mean a game about empowered special-forces heroes rather than noncombatant hobbits should seek to emulate that.




> Then allow me to expand.
> 
> What I'm looking for in my games is a sense of verisimilitude and _groundedness,_ a feeling that the world makes sense on its own terms and that the characters are real, living people within it. One thing that helps the characters feel real is the sense that they are progressing at a reasonable rate in-universe. In the real world, people train for years or decades to become highly skilled in specific areas; they do not become masters overnight. And similarly characters in game should spend a significant amount of time and effort to improve. 
> 
> Say I have a first level character with the soldier background; they have participated in a single campaign, or perhaps served as a town guard and got into several scuffles. This background, presented in the PHB, _implies_ at least a basic level of experience. It doesn't have to be the 'grizzled old veteran' brought up earlier; but it does have to be someone who has been a soldier (and ditto for folk hero and other backgrounds).
> 
> Now they enter one of the adventure paths. They fight a single combat, do a skill challenge, and immediately double in strength. Then they fight another combat, another skill challenge...and all of a sudden they're third level, out of the league of the first level character (who, in at least a year or two of experience, would have done at least a combat or two). And so the character progression doesn't make sense in-universe. 
> 
> At the same time, it raises the question of why all these NPC guards who get into scuffles routinely are so weak. Have they never had to fight off a few goblins or peacefully disperse a crowd? 
> ...


I think we have a fundamental disagreement on what PC class levels and advancement through them represents. There is not meant to be 1:1 parity between a grizzled NPC warrior using the "Veteran" statblock, and a "veteran" PC fighter who is level 10, level 5, or even level 1. What makes a PC a PC are talent, training and potential, not speed of advancement.

----------


## Atranen

> The idea of levels 1 & 2 being blow-off "tutorial" levels feels nonsensical to me.  On one hand, we're saying that a new player can't handle picking between a Draconic Sorcerer and a Wild Magic Sorcerer.  But then we're also saying that the right time to dump the combined mechanics of _levels 1-3_ on them is after two NPC conversations, solving a Junior Jumble and punching a Dire Squirrel.


Absolutely. Level 1 & 2 should be real levels; tutorial things can be dealt with in other ways, like via a starter set, without always forcing 1 & 2 into the 'tutorial' box. 




> With only 2 prepared spell slots it's not enough especially since in order to be on theme you will often have to take mechanically worse options.


I'm so opposed to this change I memory-holed it. But yes, this drives the point home even further--there is no space for 1st level characters to be thematic. 




> When you have three classes whose power is granted by external often extraplanar entities, there is going to be _some_ thematic overlap; it's unavoidable.


Some--but less is better  :Small Smile: 




> You're still not explaining why this differentiation is so imperative to have _at level 1 and 2 specifically._ The difference between 2 Barbarians, 2 Rogues and 2 Paladins at those levels are slight too. That's just what starting out entails; more of your differences come from things like race/background/feat/class choice itself, than _within_ your class. And that's okay.


It is imperative because level 1 & 2 are real levels; one should therefore be able to play a character that matches one's vision for the character.




> I disagree - Starter Sets give us the most straightforward example of the *intended* play experience for newcomers to the game. They are a direct through-line into how the designers see people who have never played before approaching the hobby. And every single one of them including an escape hatch to prevent a TPK (however unlikely or hidden from the PCs it might be) is telling. Their primary goal is to welcome people to the game, and provide a _sense_ of danger without turning them off.


I don't follow your point. I have no issue with the starter set as stands or with the starter set being a tutorial. I have an issue with levels 1 & 2 being carved out as 'tutorial levels' intended only for newcomers. They should provide a rich play experience even for seasoned players. If all the experienced players skip to 3 to start the 'real game', that is a problem. 




> And sure, if you throw a bunch of barrow wights at level 1 characters then you're probably going to get "real permanent consequences." That doesn't mean a game about empowered special-forces heroes rather than noncombatant hobbits should seek to emulate that.


To reiterate:




> And while D&D should be able to do things beyond Tolkien, if D&D can't do Tolkien something has gone wrong.







> I think we have a fundamental disagreement on what PC class levels and advancement through them represents. There is not meant to be 1:1 parity between a grizzled NPC warrior using the "Veteran" statblock, and a "veteran" PC fighter who is level 10, level 5, or even level 1. What makes a PC a PC are talent, training and potential, not speed of advancement.


I never asserted there ought to be. PCs and NPCs do not have to follow the same rules. 

However, they have to be similar enough that it is believable they are from the same universe.

----------


## animorte

> I think it comes from tutorials often lowering the consequences for mistakes or giving players free resources so new ones feel safe to experiment. This helps the tutorial fulfill its goal of teaching people the game, but at the cost of making it feel less meaningful later on.





> I agree with TurboGhast. _Explicitly-marked, skippable_ tutorials (which is what we're talking about here) tend to act as a "game within a game" where the decisions you make rarely carry over more than notionally. They have to, because otherwise you wouldn't be able to skip them without consequences. They also tend to be very forgiving of character death/mistakes. Tutorials also tend to bypass a lot of the setup, starting you _in media res_. Which is fine for a video game, but really painful at the table.
> 
> You can avoid this, but only at the cost of compromising the tutorial nature or introducing some kinks.





> I'm explicitly rejecting that 'meaning is tied to how much power your character has'. I think that's basically WoTC's view, based on how they structure the tier system. I think you should be able to have meaningful (say, world-saving) adventures even at a low level.


I have several points about all of this that strike me as odd:

Are we explicitly discussing tutorial templates, starter kits, and the like? If so (based on the complaints we have here), aren't they working as intended? Keep in mind that some of these things are also designed to help new DMs. I have looked at a few, but I have neither played in nor DMed one of them. If these things seem, to the experienced players, a waste of time, why are you bothering with them?

If we're discussing levels 1-2 being framed as tutorials through *any* published adventure, I can start to see that being a bit of a concern. I think some people would appreciate a better opening story summarization in the event of starting at a higher level. However, I have participated in very few published campaigns, despite having read some anyway. If you're playing homebrew, as I have 90% of the time, there should be no problem whatsoever, unless the DM is fairly inexperienced.

Consequences come in far greater forms than just threatening somebody's HP. It's up to the DM to present you a living world that actually matters, whatever level you're playing at. Naturally, this is significantly easier with an experienced DM and homebrew.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I have several points about all of this that strike me as odd:
> 
> Are we explicitly discussing tutorial templates, starter kits, and the like? If so (based on the complaints we have here), aren't they working as intended? Keep in mind that some of these things are also designed to help new DMs. I have looked at a few, but I have neither played in nor DMed one of them. If these things seem, to the experienced players, a waste of time, why are you bothering with them?
> 
> If we're discussing levels 1-2 being framed as tutorials through *any* published adventure, I can start to see that being a bit of a concern. I think some people would appreciate a better opening story summarization in the event of starting at a higher level. However, I have participated in very few published campaigns, despite having read some anyway. If you're playing homebrew, as I have 90% of the time, there should be no problem whatsoever, unless the DM is fairly inexperienced.
> 
> Consequences come in far greater forms than just threatening somebody's HP. It's up to the DM to present you a living world that actually matters, whatever level you're playing at. Naturally, this is significantly easier with an experienced DM and homebrew.


I have no problems with _tutorial scenarios_ (starter kits, introductory adventures, etc). But they're rarely cabined to levels 1-2, so they're rather not apropos here.

What I object to is the _system_ demanding that levels 1 and 2 be tutorial levels _as a matter of game design_. That you're supposed to "go soft" on the party there and avoid real decisions of lasting consequence.

As for consequences...if the players can't be trusted to handle making a decision as core as "what kind of oath did I swear" or "what kind of god chose me" for the first 3 or so sessions for fear they'll get analysis paralysis or regret their choice later[1]...they _certainly_ can't be trusted to make any decision of consequence to the story as a whole. Not just HP loss, but _anything_.

[1] The answer to later regret is to institutionalize something like AL's "respec for free through T1" as a cultural norm. Don't just push the decision point back and make people either (a) suffer through two bland levels even though they know what they want to do or could figure it out real fast or (b) start at level 3 and have to make 3 levels of decisions all at once.

That's the big problem with the "well, just start at level 3" attitude--if you do so, you're creating a _huge_ barrier, especially for spell-casters. You're shoving 3 levels worth of decisions all at once, giving lots of features that they've never had a chance to feel out all at once. Frankly, that's _way_ worse than growing slowly with the chance to respec if you don't like it later.

----------


## Sorinth

I will say that the biggest thing in favour of streamlining 1st level is that it will allow playing D&D faster. By that I mean, if your sitting around with friends and someone says let's play D&D and it takes 15min to create characters and jump into actual play then I can see that as being an overall positive for the game as it will get people playing whereas if it takes 2hrs to just create characters and then we have to plan when to actually start playing it's a big hurdle. That said I doubt moving subclasses to level 3 actually accomplishes that goal.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I will say that the biggest thing in favour of streamlining 1st level is that it will allow playing D&D faster. By that I mean, if your sitting around with friends and someone says let's play D&D and it takes 15min to create characters and jump into actual play then I can see that as being an overall positive for the game as it will get people playing whereas if it takes 2hrs to just create characters and then we have to plan when to actually start playing it's a big hurdle. That said I doubt moving subclasses to level 3 actually accomplishes that goal.


Or even really moves the needle in any significant way. There are exactly 2 classes that have level 1 subclasses--cleric and warlock. If you're just sitting down and playing, I'd expect something like the Basic Rules or the starter kits...which only have one subclass. So no choices to be made there.

----------


## Boci

> Or even really moves the needle in any significant way. There are exactly 2 classes that have level 1 subclasses--cleric and warlock. If you're just sitting down and playing, I'd expect something like the Basic Rules or the starter kits...which only have one subclass. So no choices to be made there.


  Sorcerors too, no?

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Sorcerors too, no?


Oh yeah, forgot about them. But the point about not affecting anyone who's throwing together a party for the first time because they're likely using the basic rules/starter set rules, which don't have a plethora of choices anyway stands.

And if you _do_ have someone experienced, the answer to "I can't decide" is "here's the default choice, I'll let you change it later if you don't like it." It _isn't_ rework the entire process, including having to jigger around a lot of other things to make it work. Unless the actual concern is elsewhere (a desire to standardize, a desire to break backward compatibility and _force_ everyone to buy the new books if they want to use new material /tinfoil hat, etc.)

----------


## Psyren

> It is imperative because level 1 & 2 are real levels; one should therefore be able to play a character that matches one's vision for the character.


Not all "character visions" are compatible with _level 1._ That's just a fact of life. And that's okay.




> I don't follow your point. I have no issue with the starter set as stands or with the starter set being a tutorial. I have an issue with levels 1 & 2 being carved out as 'tutorial levels' intended only for newcomers. They should provide a rich play experience even for seasoned players. If all the experienced players skip to 3 to start the 'real game', that is a problem.


I don't think "all the experienced players" are doing any such thing. I start characters at level 1 all the time, including the classes that don't get a subclass at 1st level _now._ I saw over a dozen convention tables at DragonCon starting at level 1 too, and not everyone who joined those was new to D&D either - in fact, I'd wager that most probably weren't.




> I never asserted there ought to be. PCs and NPCs do not have to follow the same rules. 
> 
> However, they have to be similar enough that it is believable they are from the same universe.


They are. PCs having higher potential and different advancement from NPCs does not put them in a different universe.

----------


## animorte

> I have no problems with _tutorial scenarios_ (starter kits, introductory adventures, etc). But they're rarely cabined to levels 1-2, so they're rather not apropos here.
> 
> What I object to is the _system_ demanding that levels 1 and 2 be tutorial levels _as a matter of game design_. That you're supposed to "go soft" on the party there and avoid real decisions of lasting consequence.


That's fair. I still think there are far more degrees of consequence than is being accounted for by us as a community (but perhaps more by WotC themselves) which seems to be the more legitimate concern here. I'm genuinely convinced this is more of a problem than the expectation to "hold back."




> As for consequences...if the players can't be trusted to handle making a decision as core as "what kind of oath did I swear" or "what kind of god chose me" for the first 3 or so sessions for fear they'll get analysis paralysis or regret their choice later[1]...they _certainly_ can't be trusted to make any decision of consequence to the story as a whole. Not just HP loss, but _anything_.


To be fair, the majority of players I have encountered tend to struggle with taking initiative no matter how long they've been playing.




> [1] The answer to later regret is to institutionalize something like AL's "respec for free through T1" as a cultural norm.


This is a good idea that has been standard at our table for quite some time.




> You're shoving 3 levels worth of decisions all at once, giving lots of features that they've never had a chance to feel out all at once. Frankly, that's _way_ worse than growing slowly with the chance to respec if you don't like it later.


That's why I support waiting for it. In my experience, a lot of the issues around this tutorial concept have been met with a simple solution, teamwork and communication!
- First, if it's mostly new players, we won't typically be skipping levels to begin with. If we do, the few with more experience don't mind pitching in with some clarification. This is done between sessions or during breaks and I actively address each player with nearby future options. Open door policy, so to speak.
- Second, if it's mostly experienced players, the rate at which the fewer new players learn stuff is rapidly accelerated. And there's more help to go around (in and out of game).
- Finally, if we're starting at 3rd level or higher, each person will get at least one opportunity to look over what they have and make a some changes within reason.

I think some of this is also ignoring the existence of a session zero. A lot of this discussion and preparation can *and should* happen there. If you have at least one experienced person, especially if that person is the DM, why isn't this relevant? If it's just a one-shot, I think that's a different conversation entirely than what we're on about.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I think some of this is also ignoring the existence of a session zero. A lot of this discussion and preparation can *and should* happen there. If you have at least one experienced person, especially if that person is the DM, why isn't this relevant? If it's just a one-shot, I think that's a different conversation entirely than what we're on about.


If you have a session 0 with an experienced DM...there is no issue at all. There's no pain in choosing a subclass at level 1, 2, or 3.

It's only for the "everyone's inexperienced, just pick up the game and go" that "it's hard to pick a level 1 subclass" has any bearing at all. And there...that's what the starter sets with their intentionally restricted content is for.

----------


## Psyren

> If you have a session 0 with an experienced DM...there is no issue at all. There's no pain in choosing a subclass at level 1, 2, or 3.
> 
> It's only for the "everyone's inexperienced, just pick up the game and go" that "it's hard to pick a level 1 subclass" has any bearing at all. And there...that's what the starter sets with their intentionally restricted content is for.


So you want the starter sets to follow a completely different progression or set of rules from the rest of the game? Do you not see the problem with that?

----------


## animorte

> If you have a session 0 with an experienced DM...there is no issue at all. There's no pain in choosing a subclass at level 1, 2, or 3.
> 
> It's only for the "everyone's inexperienced, just pick up the game and go" that "it's hard to pick a level 1 subclass" has any bearing at all. And there...that's what the starter sets with their intentionally restricted content is for.


I appreciate you saying as much. Speaking of which, on this concept of where tutorials belong, I have a request:

Would you care to weigh in on this part? It was one of my stronger thoughts that I feel is an issue when discussing playing through the entirety of Tier 1. For any campaign and players of any experience, those first levels should have meaning.



> That's fair. I still think there are far more degrees of consequence than is being accounted for by us as a community (but perhaps more by WotC themselves) which seems to be the more legitimate concern here. I'm genuinely convinced this is more of a problem than the expectation to "hold back."

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> So you want the starter sets to follow a completely different progression or set of rules from the rest of the game? Do you not see the problem with that?


...I'm not sure where you got that from. Starter sets _only have one subclass_. They don't expect you to have the PHB. So there's no difficulty in choosing a subclass at level 1, 2, or whatever...because you only have one choice.

The starter sets have exactly the same progression. They start at level 1, getting all the normal level 1 stuff, then go to level N (depending). They are explicitly, intentionally, openly tutorials. But what they _don't_ do is pretend that _every_ game has to follow the same "level 1 and 2 are basically pointless" model. Or that every game that starts at level 1 has two levels of tutorial.

In fact, I'd say that setting the leveling speed of level 1 and 2 to "ultra fast" is _more_ of a break with the rest of the game. And directly opposes the idea of using it as a tutorial--you don't have enough time to learn anything at those speeds. I'd say that a _proper_ tutorial should be 3-4 sessions _minimum_. Possibly even an entire _tier_ to do right. Not "hey, you fought someone (and maybe didn't even make an attack or get hit) and rolled an ability check, welcome to level 2!".




> I appreciate you saying as much. Speaking of which, on this concept of where tutorials belong, I have a request:
> 
> Would you care to weigh in on this part? It was one of my stronger thoughts that I feel is an issue when discussing playing through the entirety of Tier 1. For any campaign and players of any experience, those first levels should have meaning.


I absolutely agree that the first levels should have meaning. IMO, by the end of level 3 (and _certainly_ by the end of level 4), the party should have already done Great Things. On a restricted scope, but they absolutely should be heroes at least at a village/local level. And spending half of those levels in tutorial mode doesn't accomplish that at all.

For the record, looking back at my past campaigns (most of whom spent the majority if not entirety of their time in T1 due to being school club games):

My first two (in 4e) completed the entire campaign by level 4-ish. Their actions had _major_ consequences. Not because of their personal power, but because they were in the right place at the right time. But that's a bit exceptional.

My next two had two big adventures under their belt--one significant one by level 2 and another ranging from 3-4-ish.

Third campaign(s) started split, then joined up around level 6. By the end of level 4, one party had mostly uncovered and dealt with an ancient lab where the villain was planning to churn out an army of quasi-dragonborn. The other half-campaign had earned a foothold in a city of undead and demons, making significant allies.

Fourth and fifth did just about everything in T1.

Next group had 1 that influenced a nation at the end of T1; another _built an airship_ by the end of T1. A third discovered (and got chased out of) a long-lost city.

My last set had all sorts of things happen by the end of T1.

My point is that power should be orthogonal to consequences. People should be doing notable, heroic things _all the darn time_. Only the scale changes as you level, and it shouldn't change exponentially. Level 1 should be just as impactful as level 20 _relative to the power levels_. And putting the first two levels into forced "tutorial mode where you can't be trusted to make any meaningful choices" ruins that. It separates the first levels from the rest of the game in a way I don't like.

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

Beyond that, _choosing subclasses at level 3 doesn't actually fix any of the problems_. It's a minor dial tweak. Which leads me to believe that they're making this change for other reasons and throwing that reason out as cover.

----------


## Atranen

> I have several points about all of this that strike me as odd:
> 
> Are we explicitly discussing tutorial templates, starter kits, and the like? If so (based on the complaints we have here), aren't they working as intended? Keep in mind that some of these things are also designed to help new DMs. I have looked at a few, but I have neither played in nor DMed one of them. If these things seem, to the experienced players, a waste of time, why are you bothering with them?
> 
> If we're discussing levels 1-2 being framed as tutorials through *any* published adventure, I can start to see that being a bit of a concern.


Yes, I'm thinking of the latter. Starter kits are fine as tutorials. 




> Not all "character visions" are compatible with _level 1._ That's just a fact of life. And that's okay.


Of course. But the ones referenced here, like 'clerics who follow a particular God', _are_ compatible because that's the way the 5e ruleset has worked for the past 8 years. So in most cases, you can't wash your hands of the issue and say it's impossible. If a concept can be realized at level 1, then it should be playable from level 1. The mechanics should attempt to realize it rather than kicking it down the road. 




> I don't think "all the experienced players" are doing any such thing. I start characters at level 1 all the time, including the classes that don't get a subclass at 1st level _now._ I saw over a dozen convention tables at DragonCon starting at level 1 too, and not everyone who joined those was new to D&D either - in fact, I'd wager that most probably weren't.


Nor do I, but 'start at level 3' has been suggested in the thread as a way around the subclass problem. I think it's a bad one. 




> They are. PCs having higher potential and different advancement from NPCs does not put them in a different universe.


But them leveling up incredibly quickly and going from nobodies to demigods in a few months does. Spending years as a solider with no change in abilities only to triple in strength after 2 combats and 2 skill challenges does.

----------


## Rukelnikov

I don't think levels 1 & 2 are unsuitable for interesting adventures, but I do think level 1 is not suitable for lore-wise "powerful characters", for the simple reason than an unlucky crit has a very good chance to down anyone and a pretty decent chance at killing a good chunk of characters. So the mighty champion of the campaign in the north having 13 hp creates a lot of narrative dissonance in a world were powerful humans can duke it out with dragons.

Btw, I aso think lvl 1 is probably the deadliest level in the game, I never counted but I think I've seen more character deaths at level 1 than any other level besides high level 3.x (11-13+). So if the idea is to make level 1 more new player friendly (and especially more new DM friendly), maybe characters shoudn't be as fragile.

----------


## Psyren

> Of course. But the ones referenced here, like 'clerics who follow a particular God', _are_ compatible because that's the way the 5e ruleset has worked for the past 8 years. So in most cases, you can't wash your hands of the issue and say it's impossible. If a concept can be realized at level 1, then it should be playable from level 1. The mechanics should attempt to realize it rather than kicking it down the road.


Just because _you_ follow a particular god, does not mean that particular god is ready to fully invest in _you_, as represented by the acquisition of the domain and its specialized powers. Nothing is stopping your level 1 cleric from declaring a particular patron or faith starting out; heck, even non-clerics get to do that.




> Nor do I, but 'start at level 3' has been suggested in the thread as a way around the subclass problem. I think it's a bad one.


That requires me accepting the premise that it's a "problem" in the first place - which I don't.




> But them leveling up incredibly quickly and going from nobodies to demigods in a few months does. Spending years as a solider with no change in abilities only to triple in strength after 2 combats and 2 skill challenges does.


This is a mindset problem; level 1-3 is not "tripling in strength," regardless of the level numbers themselves, no more than level 2 means you're exactly half as powerful as level 4 or level 16 means you're exactly twice as powerful as level 8. Moreover, 5e's bounded accuracy means that even high level characters can be threatened or stymied by some lower level obstacles or opponents.




> ...I'm not sure where you got that from. Starter sets _only have one subclass_. They don't expect you to have the PHB. So there's no difficulty in choosing a subclass at level 1, 2, or whatever...because you only have one choice.
> 
> The starter sets have exactly the same progression. They start at level 1, getting all the normal level 1 stuff, then go to level N (depending). They are explicitly, intentionally, openly tutorials. But what they _don't_ do is pretend that _every_ game has to follow the same "level 1 and 2 are basically pointless" model. Or that every game that starts at level 1 has two levels of tutorial.


I never said they pretend _every_ game has to be structured like they are - but again, they are the clearest window we have into what the designers feel to be the optimal "_never played or DMed D&D or any other TTRPG in our lives before"_ new group experience. Your table running a custom campaign can spend as long as you want at level 1 and 2, nothing is stopping that, but clearly they don't see a problem with getting through 1 and 2 fairly quickly, and nor do I. 




> In fact, I'd say that setting the leveling speed of level 1 and 2 to "ultra fast" is _more_ of a break with the rest of the game. And directly opposes the idea of using it as a tutorial--you don't have enough time to learn anything at those speeds. I'd say that a _proper_ tutorial should be 3-4 sessions _minimum_. Possibly even an entire _tier_ to do right. Not "hey, you fought someone (and maybe didn't even make an attack or get hit) and rolled an ability check, welcome to level 2!".


Is this based on a poll of new players of some kind? Did you sit down with folks who made it through the starter set and were routinely told they "didn't have enough time to learn anything?" If so, how many, and where are the results of that stored?




> Btw, I aso think lvl 1 is probably the deadliest level in the game, I never counted but I think I've seen more character deaths at level 1 than any other level besides high level 3.x (11-13+). So if the idea is to make it more new player friendly, maybe characters shoudn't be as fragile.


If I had to guess this was their primary goal behind the "no DM crits" rule. They don't want to just straight up give level 1 PCs more hit points in 1DnD because they'll get drowned in the inevitable round of "D&D for babbies!" and "they're dumbing down the game!" complaints, but with things like the attempted crit change, the 1st level feat, and more level 1 healing abilities than ever, it feels like they're finding and pulling every _other_ lever they can.

----------


## animorte

Thanks for engaging!  :Small Smile: 



> I absolutely agree that the first levels should have meaning. IMO, by the end of level 3 (and _certainly_ by the end of level 4), the party should have already done Great Things. On a restricted scope, but they absolutely should be heroes at least at a village/local level. And spending half of those levels in tutorial mode doesn't accomplish that at all.
> 
> My point is that power should be orthogonal to consequences. People should be doing notable, heroic things _all the darn time_. Only the scale changes as you level, and it shouldn't change exponentially. Level 1 should be just as impactful as level 20 _relative to the power levels_. And putting the first two levels into forced "tutorial mode where you can't be trusted to make any meaningful choices" ruins that. It separates the first levels from the rest of the game in a way I don't like.


I agree, and I don't think it's that difficult to accomplish (though every story shouldn't have the same rate of progression, clearly). This is a big part of the concern that I have. Why can't that first half of Tier 1 contribute to the story and the world whether it's tutorial material or not?

I'm not specifically directing this at you (or most of us) because the experience should speak for itself. However, it still seems to create a divide in understanding here. I don't believe it was ever intended to break away from _the rest of the game_. It just happens to ruin the immersion for some people when they don't feel like anything is at stake. This is the impression I'm getting.




> Beyond that, _choosing subclasses at level 3 doesn't actually fix any of the problems_. It's a minor dial tweak. Which leads me to believe that they're making this change for other reasons and throwing that reason out as cover.


I don't think that choosing subclasses at level 1 makes a valiant effort to address those problems either. We could fabricate any number of excuses, but honestly... I think they're trying to standardize the level progression for ease of design (and hopefully balance).

----------


## Sorinth

> Just because _you_ follow a particular god, does not mean that particular god is ready to fully invest in _you_, as represented by the acquisition of the domain and its specialized powers. Nothing is stopping your level 1 cleric from declaring a particular patron or faith starting out; heck, even non-clerics get to do that.


That's just it thought, the god has invested in a level 1 cleric otherwise they wouldn't have spellcasting. So why wouldn't the bulk of that investment be tailored to that particular god's domain(s)?

----------


## Psyren

> That's just it thought, the god has invested in a level 1 cleric otherwise they wouldn't have spellcasting. So why wouldn't the bulk of that investment be tailored to that particular god's domain(s)?


But the bulk of it _isn't_ tailored to their domains. The vast majority of a cleric's power comes from their base spellcasting and the general cleric list, not the domain list; some domain spells are quite nice to have always prepared, sure, but clerics would be a top-tier class even if none of their domain spells were free preparations.

----------


## Sorinth

> But the bulk of it _isn't_ tailored to their domains. The vast majority of a cleric's power comes from their base spellcasting and the general cleric list, not the domain list; some domain spells are quite nice to have always prepared, sure, but clerics would be a top-tier class even if none of their domain spells were free preparations.


Well 33% of the spells would be domain spells, and with only 2 spell slots the level 1 ability will quite often be significant for a level 1 character given that quite a few are Wisdom mod times a day which will be more then the number of spells. So yeah a big chunk of the level 1 cleric will be defined by the domain they chose. And even if it's not the "bulk" and only 33%, that's still a whole lot more then 0.

----------


## Psyren

> Well 33% of the spells would be domain spells, and with only 2 spell slots the level 1 ability will quite often be significant for a level 1 character given that quite a few are Wisdom mod times a day which will be more then the number of spells. So yeah a big chunk of the level 1 cleric will be defined by the domain they chose. And even if it's not the "bulk" and only 33%, that's still a whole lot more then 0.


Which is why they gave them Divine Spark to compensate for the loss of that domain spell feature. 2d8 radiant damage/healing 2x per day is actually better than an extra 1st-level spell prepared.

Another point in favor of standardizing subclass progression is that Paladins will no longer have to have a new capstone designed for every subclass that gets published.

----------


## Atranen

> Just because _you_ follow a particular god, does not mean that particular god is ready to fully invest in _you_, as represented by the acquisition of the domain and its specialized powers. Nothing is stopping your level 1 cleric from declaring a particular patron or faith starting out; heck, even non-clerics get to do that.


This is a red herring. You could say the same thing about 3rd level, or 5th level, or 7th level, and so forth; for any scenario, there's a just so story to explain why such and such follower of such and such God gets/doesn't get certain powers. 

The question is not "is there a narrative justification for clerics without domain powers?"

The question is: "given that clerics follow a deity (or pantheon etc.), is it more appropriate for them to have specific powers which relate to that deity or to have only the generic powers available to all deities?"

To which, I think more specificity is clearly better. There's some extent to which being specific goes too far, but I think that's well beyond, say, the 5E domain system. 




> That's just it thought, the god has invested in a level 1 cleric otherwise they wouldn't have spellcasting. So why wouldn't the bulk of that investment be tailored to that particular god's domain(s)?


Exactly. It's more thematic and more appropriate to have relevant powers. 




> This is a mindset problem; level 1-3 is not "tripling in strength," regardless of the level numbers themselves, no more than level 2 means you're exactly half as powerful as level 4 or level 16 means you're exactly twice as powerful as level 8. Moreover, 5e's bounded accuracy means that even high level characters can be threatened or stymied by some lower level obstacles or opponents.


Ok, 'tripling' was a poor word choice. Replace it with 'becomes significantly stronger to the extent they are now out of the league of level 1 characters in terms of the opponents and challenges they can take on' and the point stands. 




> I never said they pretend _every_ game has to be structured like they are - but again, they are the clearest window we have into what the designers feel to be the optimal "_never played or DMed D&D or any other TTRPG in our lives before"_ new group experience. Your table running a custom campaign can spend as long as you want at level 1 and 2, nothing is stopping that, but clearly they don't see a problem with getting through 1 and 2 fairly quickly, and nor do I.


I don't really care whether the designers think level 1 & 2 are ok to skip through. They are often wrong.




> Which is why they gave them Divine Spark to compensate for the loss of that domain spell feature. 2d8 radiant damage/healing 2x per day is actually better than an extra 1st-level spell prepared.


Mechanically stronger but _waaaaaay_ more boring.

----------


## Psyren

> The question is: "given that clerics follow a deity (or pantheon etc.), is it more appropriate for them to have specific powers which relate to that deity or to have only the generic powers available to all deities?"


Yes - at level 3. Just like Paladins don't get Oath powers at 1st level, nor even Druids getting Circle powers, from following a deity/pantheon/etc.




> Ok, 'tripling' was a poor word choice. Replace it with 'becomes significantly stronger to the extent they are now out of the league of level 1 characters in terms of the opponents and challenges they can take on' and the point stands.


Level 3 characters are "out of the league" of level 1 characters? I don't agree with that at all.




> I don't really care whether the designers think level 1 & 2 are ok to skip through.


You probably should, but you don't have to, that's true enough.




> Mechanically stronger but _waaaaaay_ more boring.


Opinions, etc.

----------


## Atranen

> Yes - at level 3. Just like Paladins don't get Oath powers at 1st level, nor even Druids getting Circle powers, from following a deity/pantheon/etc.


What narratively speaking is flawed about the current 5e solution? Did you have any problem with it previously, or are you retroactively saying 'actually 3 is better' now that the move to subclasses at 3 has been suggested?




> Level 3 characters are "out of the league" of level 1 characters? I don't agree with that at all.


Run some AL games and see how they play at the same table  :Small Yuk: 




> Opinions, etc.


Of course. Everything here is opinion.

----------


## animorte

> Mechanically stronger but _waaaaaay_ more boring.


I feel like we've seen the opposite side of this coin often. _Sure, it's thematic, but it's weak and I would rather use something else._

----------


## Atranen

> I feel like we've seen the opposite side of this coin often. _Sure, it's thematic, but it's weak and I would rather use something else._


Yeah, I wouldn't like there to be a choice between divine spark and a thematic but weak CD. Ideally the overturned divine spark is brought down to a reasonable level or scrapped entirely, and low level thematic CDs are back.

This whole problem is why I favor strong mechanical restrictions to support thematic characters. When every character has the same powerful options, they're encouraged to feel similar.

----------


## Psyren

> What narratively speaking is flawed about the current 5e solution? Did you have any problem with it previously, or are you retroactively saying 'actually 3 is better' now that the move to subclasses at 3 has been suggested?


I'm not "retroactively" doing anything. As I explicitly said on page 1 of this thread:




> _I waffled on this initially but now I'm in favor of subclasses at 3rd after hearing Crawfords explanation of the design decision. It makes sense to me that they're increasing the complexity of 1st level by putting a feat choice there, so the added complexity of a subclass wouldn't do as well; on top of that, his explanation of a new player getting comfortable with a class for a couple of levels makes sense to me too._


The designers made a change, they explained the change, I agreed with their explanation. 




> Run some AL games and see how they play at the same table


I've done several at conventions, both local and national, so my opinion stands.

----------


## Atranen

> I'm not "retroactively" doing anything. As I explicitly said on page 1 of this thread:





> I waffled on this initially but now I'm in favor of subclasses at 3rd after hearing Crawfords explanation of the design decision. It makes sense to me that they're increasing the complexity of 1st level by putting a feat choice there, so the added complexity of a subclass wouldn't do as well; on top of that, his explanation of a new player getting comfortable with a class for a couple of levels makes sense to me too.


Note that this is explicitly _not_ what I asked for--a narrative, not a mechanical, explanation for why 3rd is better. That is, an answer to

"is it more appropriate for them to have specific powers which relate to that deity or to have only the generic powers available to all deities?"

which makes no reference to mechanics. 




> I've done several at conventions, both local and national, so my opinion stands.


I disagree; casters with many more HPs and triple the spell slots  :Wink:  or fighters with more HPs and action surge and maneuvers are significantly out of the league of their first level counterparts.

----------


## Psyren

> Note that this is explicitly _not_ what I asked for--a narrative, not a mechanical, explanation for why 3rd is better. That is, an answer to
> 
> "is it more appropriate for them to have specific powers which relate to that deity or to have only the generic powers available to all deities?"
> 
> which makes no reference to mechanics.


Why is it _narratively_ necessary for those specific powers to manifest at _1st level?_ For me, you can narratively explain them coming online at _any_ level, so the gameplay benefits described by the designers for delaying them until 3rd win out. Levels are a metagame construct, not a hard in-universe measurement.




> I disagree; casters with many more HPs and triple the spell slots  or fighters with more HPs and action surge and maneuvers are significantly out of the league of their first level counterparts.


I suspect your definition of "out of the league" differs from mine. Level 3 characters are more powerful, sure, but they're still both dealing with Tier 1 challenges at the end of the day.

----------


## Jophiel

> Is this based on a poll of new players of some kind? Did you sit down with folks who made it through the starter set and were routinely told they "didn't have enough time to learn anything?" If so, how many, and where are the results of that stored?


Presumably anecdotal information based on running games and assisting new players.  Which is all anyone has -- even Crawford is just "Well, we've seen..." rather than busting out his data charts and cross-tabbing frustration rates between level one clerics and level one rogues to prove that clerics get more upset about choosing a subclass.



> I've done several at conventions, both local and national, so my opinion stands.


One level 3 character is literally worth three level one characters for determining the APL and what difficulty you should use in an AL module.  In a four person group, that'll move you up a power tier.

For example, in The Black Road, whether or not it's four level ones or three ones & level three determines whether or not the first encounter includes a Goblin Boss (21hp, 17AC, +4 hit, 5dmg, two attacks per round; second at disadvantage).  That's a pretty significant add and I've had to intentionally not TPK parties in that fight before.

----------


## Atranen

> Why is it _narratively_ necessary for those specific powers to manifest at _1st level?_ For me, you can narratively explain them coming online at _any_ level, so the gameplay benefits described by the designers for delaying them until 3rd win out. Levels are a metagame construct, not a hard in-universe measurement.


Because I think mechanics should serve the narrative. A cleric whose allegiance to a God manifests in the mechanics is better than a cleric whose allegiance does not, because in the first case the mechanics reinforce the narrative ('ah, Durkon is a cleric of Thor, that's why he keeps using those thunder abilities') while in the second case the mechanics do not ('Durkon is a cleric of...someone? He casts Bless and guiding bolt like the half dozen other clerics we've seen')




> I suspect your definition of "out of the league" differs from mine. Level 3 characters are more powerful, sure, but they're still both dealing with Tier 1 challenges at the end of the day.


I mean something like 'if you had to bet on which one would complete a given challenge first (or at all), is it even or lopsided'?




> Presumably anecdotal information based on running games and assisting new players.  Which is all anyone has -- even Crawford is just "Well, we've seen..." rather than busting out his data charts and cross-tabbing frustration rates between level one clerics and level one rogues to prove that clerics get more upset about choosing a subclass.


These discussions could all be helped by an upfront acknowledgement that no one has data, no one can prove their position, no one is objectively right about how d&d ought to be played, etc.

----------


## Psyren

> Presumably anecdotal information based on running games and assisting new players.  Which is all anyone has


That's not nearly enough data to base a sweeping statement like _"you don't have enough time to learn anything at those speeds"_ on.




> -- even Crawford is just "Well, we've seen..." rather than busting out his data charts and cross-tabbing frustration rates between level one clerics and level one rogues to prove that clerics get more upset about choosing a subclass.


Crawford and co. do have player data, whether or not they share it with us.




> One level 3 character is literally worth three level one characters for determining the APL and what difficulty you should use in an AL module.  In a four person group, that'll move you up a power tier.


And if I were proposing mixing 1st and 3rd-level characters in the same party that would matter. 1st and 3rd level are in the same game tier.




> Because I think mechanics should serve the narrative. A cleric whose allegiance to a God manifests in the mechanics is better than a cleric whose allegiance does not, because in the first case the mechanics reinforce the narrative ('ah, Durkon is a cleric of Thor, that's why he keeps using those thunder abilities') while in the second case the mechanics do not ('Durkon is a cleric of...someone? He casts Bless and guiding bolt like the half dozen other clerics we've seen')


So if he only casts bless and guiding bolt in a given day _after_ third level, is he not serving the narrative?

I want mechanics that serve the narrative too, I just don't think they need to do so in this specific way at every single level of a character's career.




> I mean something like 'if you had to bet on which one would complete a given challenge first (or at all), is it even or lopsided'?


That's not just dependent on level though. If your level 3 rogue has expertise in Persuasion and my level 1 rogue has expertise in Thieves' Tools, I have better odds at unlocking a door. And if we both have expertise in Thieves' tools, we have exactly the same odds. So I view the "out of league" argument as specious.




> These discussions could all be helped by an upfront acknowledgement that no one has data, no one can prove their position, no one is objectively right about how d&d ought to be played, etc.


WotC has data, and they have stated their position quite clearly. But I agree that no one is objectively right about anything.

----------


## Jophiel

> Crawford and co. do have player data, whether or not they share it with us.


A meaningless statement until it's shared and the people using it as 'evidence' can point to exactly what it says and let the ramifications be discussed.  As is, it's just "We've seen..." which, in a game this large, you can find people who've seen anything.  Right now, it's just as anecdotal as anyone else's table stories.




> And if I were proposing mixing 1st and 3rd-level characters in the same party that would matter. 1st and 3rd level are in the same game tier.


But not the same combat tier or even capability tier for many non-combat encounters.  The extra abilities, hit points, spell slots, etc makes a pretty significant difference (_in my experience_).  Game tiers are just a handy way of lumping players together but there's a reason why the modules come with instructions on how to determine the actual strength of the party based on level and how to adjust the module to account for it.

----------


## Atranen

> And if I were proposing mixing 1st and 3rd-level characters in the same party that would matter. 1st and 3rd level are in the same game tier.


Mixing them in the same party is precisely what happens in AL. 




> So if he only casts bless and guiding bolt in a given day _after_ third level, is he not serving the narrative?


Why is he only casting those two? Is it because they're way better than any thematic options he gets? If so it is a problem. If it's because he likes those spells, I don't have a problem with it. If he wanted to emphasize his identity as a cleric of Thor mechanically he could. 




> That's not just dependent on level though. If your level 3 rogue has expertise in Persuasion and my level 1 rogue has expertise in Thieves' Tools, I have better odds at unlocking a door. And if we both have expertise in Thieves' tools, we have exactly the same odds. So I view the "out of league" argument as specious.


For skill checks, bounded accuracy means they are in the same league. But in terms of spells or attacks or HPs, there's a substantial difference. 




> WotC has data, and they have stated their position quite clearly. But I agree that no one is objectively right about anything.


"Did they acquire the data correctly" and "did they interpret the data correctly" are two rabbit holes I don't want to go down. But suffice to say, I don't think them having data is meaningful  :Small Smile:

----------


## Psyren

> Mixing them in the same party is precisely what happens in AL.


Yeah, but the difficulty of encounters is rarely modified to reflect that. Especially not for beginner characters.




> Why is he only casting those two? Is it because they're way better than any thematic options he gets? If so it is a problem. If it's because he likes those spells, I don't have a problem with it. If he wanted to emphasize his identity as a cleric of Thor mechanically he could.


Even if he wants to "emphasize his identity as a cleric of Thor" at 1st level, there's no reason _Thor_ needs to enable that. Getting your domain when you've proven worthy of it by making it through the first two levels is narratively fine. 




> For skill checks, bounded accuracy means they are in the same league. But in terms of spells or attacks or HPs, there's a substantial difference.


I'm not denying there's a difference. 




> "Did they acquire the data correctly" and "did they interpret the data correctly" are two rabbit holes I don't want to go down. But suffice to say, I don't think them having data is meaningful


That's your prerogative certainly.




> A meaningless statement until it's shared and the people using it as 'evidence' can point to exactly what it says and let the ramifications be discussed.  As is, it's just "We've seen..." which, in a game this large, you can find people who've seen anything.  Right now, it's just as anecdotal as anyone else's table stories.


You're certainly welcome to believe that.




> But not the same combat tier or even capability tier for many non-combat encounters.  The extra abilities, hit points, spell slots, etc makes a pretty significant difference (_in my experience_).  Game tiers are just a handy way of lumping players together but there's a reason why the modules come with instructions on how to determine the actual strength of the party based on level and how to adjust the module to account for it.


I'm not denying that the same encounter that might challenge a 1st-level party might need to be adjusted for 3rd-level or vice-versa for maximum fun. What I find hyperbolic is the "out of league" declaration.

----------


## Jophiel

> Yeah, but the difficulty of encounters is rarely modified to reflect that. Especially not for beginner characters.


What?  The first couple of pages of each AL module I've seen is how to determine APL, use that to determine party strength and then each combat encounter has notes on how to adjust the fight based on that strength level.  You've never done this or seen it done while running/playing AL games?

In fact, if you're NOT adjusting the combat encounters based on the group being a bunch of level one newbies, they're probably gonna get smoked in the first fight.

----------


## Psyren

> What?  The first couple of pages of each AL module I've seen is how to determine APL, use that to determine party strength and then each combat encounter has notes on how to adjust the fight based on that strength level.  You've never done this or seen it done while running/playing AL games?
> 
> In fact, if you're NOT adjusting the combat encounters based on the group being a bunch of level one newbies, they're probably gonna get smoked in the first fight.


I meant that if the encounter is a level 1 encounter and a level 3 character joins, they're not going to ramp up the difficulty just to challenge that person and risk giving the newer players a bad experience, usually.

----------


## Atranen

> Yeah, but the difficulty of encounters is rarely modified to reflect that. Especially not for beginner characters.


AL modules include guidance for doing so. 




> Even if he wants to "emphasize his identity as a cleric of Thor" at 1st level, there's no reason _Thor_ needs to enable that. Getting your domain when you've proven worthy of it by making it through the first two levels is narratively fine.


Beside the point; Thor doesn't have to give him spells at all. If one is going to be playing a cleric of Thor, it is better to get abilities that reflect that. 




> I'm not denying that the same encounter that might challenge a 1st-level party might need to be adjusted for 3rd-level or vice-versa for maximum fun. What I find hyperbolic is the "out of league" declaration.


We can use a different semantic if you prefer. My point doesn't hinge on 'out of their league' being the right word choice, but on 3rd level characters being noticeably more powerful than 1st level ones (see those fancy new spells?) in a way that makes progressing from 1-->3 in two days jarring when a character can plausibly have spent years with a similar level of action at 1st.

----------


## Psyren

> Beside the point; Thor doesn't have to give him spells at all. If one is going to be playing a cleric of Thor, it is better to get abilities that reflect that.


It doesn't have to be a binary between "Thor withholds everything that makes you a cleric" and "Thor gives you access to a domain as soon as you're ordained." In fact, when you consider that most gods are capable of offering more than one, he may simply be waiting to see which one suits his follower (or waiting for said follower to request the one they want when they're ready to handle it.) This is more of the narrative you were requesting earlier.




> We can use a different semantic if you prefer.


We disagree on the underlying sentiment behind it ("jarring") so there's no need.

----------


## Jophiel

> I meant that if the encounter is a level 1 encounter and a level 3 character joins, they're not going to ramp up the difficulty just to challenge that person and risk giving the newer players a bad experience, usually.


I don't know what you mean.  There is no "level one encounter" in an AL module.  There's a Tier One encounter adjusted based on the party's strength (which is a function of APL and headcount).  If a level three character somehow joined mid-session, the DM really should start adjusting any encounters because otherwise the level three is likely going to stomp the _Very Weak_ tier kobolds and skeletons.  

In some weird edge case where a player joins _mid-combat_... I dunno.  Who does that?  I'd tell them to wait until the encounter is over to be introduced to the party.

----------


## Spacehamster

Should be level one but should also get subclass feature at level 3, a smaller that gives the flavor of the class and only minor power at 1 and at 3 a bigger power with the feel of the class, this would let the player play the subclass from the get go and would lessen frontload.

----------


## Boci

> Should be level one but should also get subclass feature at level 3, a smaller that gives the flavor of the class and only minor power at 1 and at 3 a bigger power with the feel of the class, this would let the player play the subclass from the get go and would lessen frontload.


  So like warlock? Or cleric, only they get channel divinity at level 2, not 3.

----------


## BeholderEyeDr

> It doesn't have to be a binary between "Thor withholds everything that makes you a cleric" and "Thor gives you access to a domain as soon as you're ordained." In fact, when you consider that most gods are capable of offering more than one, he may simply be waiting to see which one suits his follower (or waiting for said follower to request the one they want when they're ready to handle it.) This is more of the narrative you were requesting earlier.


I find the following in-game narrative both believable and compelling: Through some combination of deep faith, proven devotion, or another exceptional quality, a 1st level cleric can harness the power of divine magic (divine spellcasting and channel divinity). They travel and adventure, using their god-given miracles to further the priorities of their faith, aid their allies, strike down their enemies, etc. After some time (reaching 3rd level), their power has grown, their faith has deepened, and/or their god has taken note of them enough so that they are able to commit fully to one specific aspect of their chosen god/faith. They choose a domain, and can start manifesting these specific miracles that distinguish them as a more powerful follower of their religion.

It's different than the current fiction, sure, and it might not be the fiction you prefer, but it's certainly cohesive and consistent with the new level progression. I even like it better! (Though I doubt this was anyone's real issue with the topic, compared to the mechanical/gameplay points being raised here.)

----------


## Psyren

> I find the following in-game narrative both believable and compelling: Through some combination of deep faith, proven devotion, or another exceptional quality, a 1st level cleric can harness the power of divine magic (divine spellcasting and channel divinity). They travel and adventure, using their god-given miracles to further the priorities of their faith, aid their allies, strike down their enemies, etc. After some time (reaching 3rd level), their power has grown, their faith has deepened, and/or their god has taken note of them enough so that they are able to commit fully to one specific aspect of their chosen god/faith. They choose a domain, and can start manifesting these specific miracles that distinguish them as a more powerful follower of their religion.
> 
> It's different than the current fiction, sure, and it might not be the fiction you prefer, but it's certainly cohesive and consistent with the new level progression. I even like it better! (Though I doubt this was anyone's real issue with the topic, compared to the mechanical/gameplay points being raised here.)


Right - this works fine for me too. It's not hard to justify this change narratively, flavor is free.

----------


## Atranen

> It doesn't have to be a binary between "Thor withholds everything that makes you a cleric" and "Thor gives you access to a domain as soon as you're ordained." In fact, when you consider that most gods are capable of offering more than one, he may simply be waiting to see which one suits his follower (or waiting for said follower to request the one they want when they're ready to handle it.) This is more of the narrative you were requesting earlier.


I have said several times now that I think you can justify it narratively. I find that narrative (which BeholderEyeDoctor does a great job of explaining) worse than the narrative where the deity that grants your powers gives you specific abilities that relate to that deity from first level. In particular, I think that the "domain at 3rd" narrative shunts levels 1&2 off as apprentice levels in a way that compounds the tutorial problem and makes level 1&2 characters have less of a connection to their chosen deity.

----------


## Psyren

> I have said several times now that I think you can justify it narratively. I find that narrative (which BeholderEyeDoctor does a great job of explaining) worse than the narrative where the deity that grants your powers gives you specific abilities that relate to that deity from first level. In particular, I think that the "domain at 3rd" narrative shunts levels 1&2 off as apprentice levels in a way that compounds the tutorial problem and makes level 1&2 characters have less of a connection to their chosen deity.


You keep saying "the tutorial problem" as though it's somehow self-evident when it's not. You can both have important choices in your character's first two levels (level 1 in particular is chock full of those) as well as high stakes and connections to the larger story. None of those are dependent on getting a subclass right out of the gate, nor on needing to go through half a dozen encounters to get out of 1st level. And "connection to your chosen deity" does not have to be mechanically represented by a domain at 1st level either, it can be shown just fine through roleplay - signs, portents, dreams and the like. The gameplay benefits to this kind of standardization of progression across classes, as explained by the designers, outweigh this yearning for the status quo.

----------


## GooeyChewie

There's a lot going on in this thread, so instead of responding to individual posts I'm just going to add my 2 cents.

WotC gave two reasons why they want to delay subclasses to level 3. The first is that they want to reduce the complexity at level 1, and the second is multiclassing power level concerns. I'll address each in turn.

Regarding the complexity issue:

I believe the vast majority of players look far enough forward during character creation to have already picked a subclass anyway. For these players, delaying the subclass provides no benefit.
For the players who _don't_ look forward to picking a subclass at character creation, delaying the choice only makes sense if levels 1 and 2 are designed to prepare the player for making that choice. Otherwise they're just kicking the can down the road rather than fixing the perceived problem.
Some subclasses require making choices at level 1 which wouldn't make sense _unless_ the character was designed to go for that subclass. For example, nothing in Fighter 1 and 2 lead a player to wanting Intelligence, but Eldritch Knight wants Intelligence. For the players the delay is supposed to help (those who aren't already making the choice at level 1), the delay can lead them to making choices which hamstring themselves when they get to the subclass choice. (Yes, this issue already exists in 5e for many classes, including the Eldritch Knight example.)

In short, I totally disagree with WotC's reasoning on the complexity issue. Delaying the subclass choice doesn't reduce the complexity of building a character at level 1; it simply causes players who don't look ahead to level 3 to make decisions without full information.


Regarding multiclassing:

WotC is correct in this regard. Having subclasses at level 1 encourages single-level dips. Delaying subclasses to level 3 doesn't completely resolve this issue, but it does at least make such dips more significant. There are a few ways WotC could address the multiclassing issue, and none of them are ideal.


Regarding themes at level 1:

I see a lot of discussion about how Clerics can choose a deity at level 1 despite not getting their domain until level 3. That's true, but the more I think about it the more I realize it defeats the point of delaying the subclass in the first place. You are effectively choosing a domain (or at least narrowing it down to a small selection of domains) at level 1 and just not getting the benefits of that domain until two levels later.

That said, I think the theming problem is bigger for Paladins, Sorcerers and Warlocks. Their subclasses are based on where they draw their power (their Oath, Origin or Pact, respectively), and it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to even have powers before having their subclass. (Yes, I already consider it a problem with Level 1 Paladin in 5e.)


Conclusion:

I would rather all classes get their subclass at level 1, and for WotC to find some other way to balance out multiclassing. But I also don't consider it a game-breaking deal. If subclasses are all pushed to level 3, it just means that I'll never run a game that starts lower than level 3 (and as a player will strongly prefer games which start at level 3 or higher).

----------


## Atranen

> You keep saying "the tutorial problem" as though it's somehow self-evident when it's not. You can both have important choices in your character's first two levels (level 1 in particular is chock full of those) as well as high stakes and connections to the larger story. None of those are dependent on getting a subclass right out of the gate, nor on needing to go through half a dozen encounters to get out of 1st level. And "connection to your chosen deity" does not have to be mechanically represented by a domain at 1st level either, it can be shown just fine through roleplay - signs, portents, dreams and the like. The gameplay benefits to this kind of standardization of progression across classes, as explained by the designers, outweigh this yearning for the status quo.


I don't have anything to add here that is not reiterating what I have said previously, so I'll leave it there. 




> In short, I totally disagree with WotC's reasoning on the complexity issue. Delaying the subclass choice doesn't reduce the complexity of building a character at level 1; it simply causes players who don't look ahead to level 3 to make decisions without full information.


Agreed; a better solution is the 'respec at will' that has been adopted by AL.




> Regarding multiclassing:
> 
> WotC is correct in this regard. Having subclasses at level 1 encourages single-level dips. Delaying subclasses to level 3 doesn't completely resolve this issue, but it does at least make such dips more significant. There are a few ways WotC could address the multiclassing issue, and none of them are ideal.


Also agreed, although I think they should deal with this via the multiclassing system itself. Ironically, Divine Spark perhaps makes a 1 level cleric dip better than it was previously. 




> Regarding themes at level 1:
> 
> I see a lot of discussion about how Clerics can choose a deity at level 1 despite not getting their domain until level 3. That's true, but the more I think about it the more I realize it defeats the point of delaying the subclass in the first place. You are effectively choosing a domain (or at least narrowing it down to a small selection of domains) at level 1 and just not getting the benefits of that domain until two levels later.
> 
> That said, I think the theming problem is bigger for Paladins, Sorcerers and Warlocks. Their subclasses are based on where they draw their power (their Oath, Origin or Pact, respectively), and it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to even have powers before having their subclass. (Yes, I already consider it a problem with Level 1 Paladin in 5e.)


Yeah, I'm very worried to see how it affects Sorcerers and Warlocks. They've ignored the issue on Paladin already, so I don't have much hope.

----------


## Daphne

They care so much about multiclassing that they made divine spark prof d8s /prof per day.

Surely I believe that.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Beyond that, _choosing subclasses at level 3 doesn't actually fix any of the problems_. It's a minor dial tweak. Which leads me to believe that they're making this change for other reasons and throwing that reason out as cover.


 It's a minor dial tweak: agree.  And the MC dips/how MC works strikes me as a substantive reason. 



> Through some combination of deep faith, proven devotion, or another exceptional quality, a 1st level cleric can harness the power of divine magic (divine spellcasting and channel divinity). They travel and adventure, using their god-given miracles to further the priorities of their faith, aid their allies, strike down their enemies, etc. After some time (reaching 3rd level), their power has grown, their faith has deepened, and/or their god has taken note of them enough so that they are able to commit fully to one specific aspect of their chosen god/faith. They choose a domain, and can start manifesting these specific miracles that distinguish them as a more powerful follower of their religion.


 Works for me.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> It's a minor dial tweak: agree.  And the MC dips/how MC works strikes me as a substantive reason.


But their solution belies that as a real reason--the whole "Divine Spark" thing makes it _worse_.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> But their solution belies that as a real reason--the whole "Divine Spark" thing makes it _worse_.


 Is it your feeling that the 'real reason' is to boost power at lower level, or, to reduce the 'heal bot' tax on level 1 and 2 clerics?

----------


## Kane0

Had a lovely brainstorm session with my UA playtest group yesterday, we came up with the following:

Cleric order at 2 and subclass at 3 is the working model to be expanded to other classes. Domain is renamed to aspect in an attempt to better represent what your subclass is, especially since plenty of divine sources can cover multiple domains

Druid 'order' at level two would be concerned with your persepctive on nature and how best to serve/maintain it. The druid that seeks balance would be differentiated from the one that seeks to fend off civilization at every turn and the one who views it as a valued tool to be properly maintained in order to serve its purpose.
Secondary concepts where what point of the circle of life do you emphasise or do you focus yourself into flora, fauna or weather/environment.

Wizardry could go in multiple directions, but consensus was closer to 'school specialist, generalist or some other third option' which means subclass doesnt have to be so directly conmected to choice of school (meaning more combo options like warmage or not-spell-school subclasses like bladesinger). 
Secondary concepts were 'what is your preferred form of wizardry' (how do you learn), and 'wizarding fighting style' (do you work best with scrolls, spellbook, pouch, focus, wand, staff, etc)

Barbarian, because the whole class basically revolves around rage, at level 2 picks how their rage is informed by their circumstances. The brute/juggernaut type can use heavy armor, the mystic type can concentrate and gains a basic ranged magic attack when raging, and the 'leader' type can share their 'infectious' rage with an ally. Also leaves room for non-strength barbarians here by having a zen-focus or hyper-reflexes rage.

Fighter just trades action surge for some maneuvers, getting that action surge at a later level.

Paladins, rangers, artificers and warlocks are already fine and can be left alone (regarding the level 2 order thing specifically), however it was noted that fighting styles should be more like interception and blind-fighting rather than dueling and defense.

Bard we didnt get full agreement on, the best we managed was your motivation 'type'. You have the speakers, the performers and the exemplars which roughly categorize the subclasses and so we felt hewed a bit too closely to them.
Another idea floated was going back to the roots and focusing on one portion of the thief-warrior-caster split.

We didnt get around to monks, rogues or sorcerers.

----------


## Psyren

> But their solution belies that as a real reason--the whole "Divine Spark" thing makes it _worse_.


Sure but that's a trivial fix, just decouple one of the scale factors (personally I picked the dice pool) from character level or PB/LR, and have it scale with class level instead. You can either have it scale with cleric level linearly (e.g. 2d8+1 per cleric level) or have it advance  at defined rungs like a Monk's martial arts die etc.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Is it your feeling that the 'real reason' is to boost power at lower level, or, to reduce the 'heal bot' tax on level 1 and 2 clerics?


I don't have a good (ie reliable) feeling as to what the real reason is. I have all sorts of ideas, but they're all extremely speculative and colored by my distaste for OneD&D as a general whole. So I'll refrain from sharing any of them.

----------


## Atranen

> Had a lovely brainstorm session with my UA playtest group yesterday, we came up with the following:
> 
> --snip--


I like a lot of the ideas in here. Renaming domain to aspect does something for me in terms of making the delayed choice palatable. If they must proceed with standardized subclass levels, I think this is the right way to go about it.

----------


## Kane0

> I like a lot of the ideas in here. Renaming domain to aspect does something for me in terms of making the delayed choice palatable. If they must proceed with standardized subclass levels, I think this is the right way to go about it.


Yeah that was almost a half-hour discussion in itself. Aspect may not be the best word, but decoupling from domain was definitely agreed on because of the baggage involved.

Another twenty minutes was on replacement names for race. The most votes went to kind, ilk and kin.

----------


## diplomancer

> Is it your feeling that the 'real reason' is to boost power at lower level, or, to reduce the 'heal bot' tax on level 1 and 2 clerics?


My feeling is that they're doing it because they want to standardize progression. Why they want to standardize progression is a different question; I suppose it's easier to design and balance... But it runs the serious risk of classes feeling too samey

----------


## Pex

> My feeling is that they're doing it because they want to standardize progression. Why they want to standardize progression is a different question; I suppose it's easier to design and balance... But it runs the serious risk of classes feeling too samey


Not necessarily samey. Standardization is a factor but not the only one. What those abilities are matters. That was the fault of 4E, not everyone getting the same number of stuff at the same time. In 4E all the powers were alike, just different in color (damage type). The riders had three types - harmful save ends, heal someone, someone moves.

In 5E right now wizard, cleric, bard, and druid get the same number of spell slots at the same rate. However, the effects of those spells are different enough plus their class features being different you cannot say they are samey.

----------


## Psyren

> Not necessarily samey. Standardization is a factor but not the only one. What those abilities are matters. That was the fault of 4E, not everyone getting the same number of stuff at the same time. In 4E all the powers were alike, just different in color (damage type). The riders had three types - harmful save ends, heal someone, someone moves.
> 
> In 5E right now wizard, cleric, bard, and druid get the same number of spell slots at the same rate. However, the effects of those spells are different enough plus their class features being different you cannot say they are samey.


Concur.




> My feeling is that they're doing it because they want to standardize progression. Why they want to standardize progression is a different question; I suppose it's easier to design and balance... But it runs the serious risk of classes feeling too samey


My bet is that universal/multifunctional subclasses will be a thing in 1DD, i.e. subclasses that multiple classes can share. And of course, in beginner campaigns everyone will get that swoosh of excitement at the same time.

----------


## BeholderEyeDr

> My feeling is that they're doing it because they want to standardize progression. Why they want to standardize progression is a different question; I suppose it's easier to design and balance... But it runs the serious risk of classes feeling too samey


I do agree that's a concern, and the pendulum could definitely swing too far that direction. I would definitely object if 6th level was the "utility level" for all subclasses, or 10th level is the "damage bump level" for all subclasses. I would even be a little wary if they try to make the subclasses too comparable, since I actually like it when classes relate to their subclasses in different ways: I like that the 5E fighter (with a more sparse base class) tend to have strong subclasses that introduce interesting and varied new mechanics, while the paladin (with a very strong base class) tend to have lighter subclasses. As long as the standardized level progression doesn't amount to standardized subclass design, though, I think it's a fine (even good!) move on its own merits.

----------


## diplomancer

> My bet is that universal/multifunctional subclasses will be a thing in 1DD, i.e. subclasses that multiple classes can share.


Which, IIRC, they've already had negative feedback on, back when Strickhaven was being play-tested.

----------


## Gignere

> Which, IIRC, they've already had negative feedback on, back when Strickhaven was being play-tested.


I am not sure if the negative feedback is necessarily against the concept but rather it was very incompatible with the different levels of gaining subclass features between classes in current 5e. 

It became a janky mess, where it replaced different subclass features of different levels between classes.

----------


## Kane0

Yeah part of that negative feedback was specifically because of how poorly cross-class subclasses translate across classes with different breakpoints and different weightings between class power and subclass power

----------


## Psyren

> Which, IIRC, they've already had negative feedback on, back when Strickhaven was being play-tested.





> I am not sure if the negative feedback is necessarily against the concept but rather it was very incompatible with the different levels of gaining subclass features between classes in current 5e. 
> 
> It became a janky mess, where it replaced different subclass features of different levels between classes.





> Yeah part of that negative feedback was specifically because of how poorly cross-class subclasses translate across classes with different breakpoints and different weightings between class power and subclass power


What they said. It was janky because 5e was never designed for it, whereas 1DnD will be.




> I do agree that's a concern, and the pendulum could definitely swing too far that direction. I would definitely object if 6th level was the "utility level" for all subclasses, or 10th level is the "damage bump level" for all subclasses. I would even be a little wary if they try to make the subclasses too comparable, since I actually like it when classes relate to their subclasses in different ways: I like that the 5E fighter (with a more sparse base class) tend to have strong subclasses that introduce interesting and varied new mechanics, while the paladin (with a very strong base class) tend to have lighter subclasses. As long as the standardized level progression doesn't amount to standardized subclass design, though, I think it's a fine (even good!) move on its own merits.


Let's look at what we have with the subclasses so far:

Lore Bard
3rd level: Offense and minor utility
6th level: Party utility
10th level: Offense
14th level: Major utility

Hunter Ranger
3rd level: Offense
6th level: Utility
10th level: Offense?
14th level: Defense

Thief Rogue
3rd level: Utility
6th level: Utility
10th level: All
14th level: Defense and Utility

(Have I mentioned I really hate the new Thief)

Life Cleric
3rd level: Defense
6th level: Defense
10th level: Defense
14th level: Defense


I'm not particularly happy with any of the subclasses so far (not that I liked their original versions any better - even Lore Bard, albeit for different reasons) but I think we can rule out standardization across classes.

----------


## BeholderEyeDr

> Let's look at what we have with the subclasses so far:


Hey, I totally agree with you, I'm just trying to be conciliatory and acknowledging legitimate potential concerns before people really start yelling about sorcerers and warlocks.  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Psyren

> Hey, I totally agree with you, I'm just trying to be conciliatory and acknowledging legitimate potential concerns.


I wasn't being confrontational, I was legitimately curious  :Small Smile:  thanks for asking the question!

----------


## Sir Chuckles

Taking a step back and looking at the discussions that have been had and discussion elsewhere, I think I still dislike the push to delay subclasses to lv3 and the "tutorialization" mentality of the first level or so. Mechanically, I'm not actually all that against it though. I think it's the cheapest and easiest and, in turn, not exactly the best way to address multiclassing. I think it'll be a case-by-case as to what exactly bugs me about each class' mechanics being delayed. I might have some mildly negative daydreams about a future where something like Rogue's Expertise gets delayed in a future update to it. Or nightmares about Fighters not getting a Fighting Style until 2nd level. If something like that happens we can assume that it was more about turning lv1 into a tutorial than about multiclassing.

I think a majority of my issues with these charges are, indeed, narrative. In fact, most of the discussion I see is about people saying that they dislike the narrative shift and the most staunch defenders coming up with chunks of fluff text to justify and retcon the narrative. While I do agree that you can absolutely spin a narrative to make just about any of these things work, it's a very messy process not supported by the current text. And, to be honest, I feel that 5e does not have a great track record of guiding DMs and players to develop their own narratives. The books have a tendency to kinda just tell players to do whatever but simultaneously give oddly specific hooks to things like Backgrounds. 

And thus I think turning the lowest levels into a new player tutorial and shifting things forward is very awkward and honestly not conducive to their own set-up. Adventurers - IE player characters with class levels - are explicitly stated to be special, unique, and different. It's implied they get feats because they are destined for greatness or something. That they're supposed to be unusual and exceptional heroes with avant-garde abilities and unique destinies. Having lv1 be a tutorial where you don't have "full" powers despite the fact that class levels are kinda intended for players and not NPC feels like some kind of high falutin' term for not lining up gameplay and mechanics. As it stand now, 1st level characters, and sometimes 2nd level, feel like they're closer to NPCs than PCs by the game's own narration. It further doesn't help that so many of the most popular modules and APs start at lv1 but often have storylines that just _end_ at lv3 so you can get to the real plot. Yes yes, you _can_ skip that... But people don't.

A lot of the changes in these packets have felt very _reactionary_ to things viewed as exploits or things that were clamored for rather than actively working towards fully realized design goals. IE, the common trap in game development of treating symptoms. And it's being mostly felt in the clunkiness of the whole thing.

----------


## Psyren

> Or nightmares about Fighters not getting a Fighting Style until 2nd level.


This one at least we know isn't happening - Fighters are in the Warrior Group, so they can spend their 1st level feat (from their background) on a fighting style just fine. And Human Fighters will be able to grab two of them.

The real question is whether they'll get a second one (or if human, third?) from their class, a general 1st level feat, or something else entirely at 1st level.




> I think a majority of my issues with these charges are, indeed, narrative. In fact, most of the discussion I see is about people saying that they dislike the narrative shift and the most staunch defenders coming up with chunks of fluff text to justify and retcon the narrative. While I do agree that you can absolutely spin a narrative to make just about any of these things work, it's a very messy process not supported by the current text. And, to be honest, I feel that 5e does not have a great track record of guiding DMs and players to develop their own narratives. The books have a tendency to kinda just tell players to do whatever but simultaneously give oddly specific hooks to things like Backgrounds.


Well... of course it doesn't fit with the current text, the current text is designed to fit with classes whose subclass acquisitions are all over the place. In order to change that, "retcons" as you term them are necessary.

On the "develop their own narratives" point, I think 1DnD is doing a much better job of that. With backgrounds losing highly specific ribbons and even set proficiencies, along with gaining feats, that frees you up to tailor them exactly the way you choose. My gregarious Farmer who is a shrewd yet friendly trader when he brings his goods to town might be uncanny at Persuasion and even Deception, while also being Skilled (the feat) at Animal Handling, his herbalism kit, and maybe Athletics. Meanwhile, your Farmer who is more focused on living out in the field to better guarding his livestock might have Perception and Survival, along with Alert in case there's trouble.




> And thus I think turning the lowest levels into a new player tutorial and shifting things forward is very awkward and honestly not conducive to their own set-up. Adventurers - IE player characters with class levels - are explicitly stated to be special, unique, and different. It's implied they get feats because they are destined for greatness or something. That they're supposed to be unusual and exceptional heroes with avant-garde abilities and unique destinies. Having lv1 be a tutorial where you don't have "full" powers despite the fact that class levels are kinda intended for players and not NPC feels like some kind of high falutin' term for not lining up gameplay and mechanics. As it stand now, 1st level characters, and sometimes 2nd level, feel like they're closer to NPCs than PCs by the game's own narration. It further doesn't help that so many of the most popular modules and APs start at lv1 but often have storylines that just _end_ at lv3 so you can get to the real plot. Yes yes, you _can_ skip that... But people don't.
> 
> A lot of the changes in these packets have felt very _reactionary_ to things viewed as exploits or things that were clamored for rather than actively working towards fully realized design goals. IE, the common trap in game development of treating symptoms. And it's being mostly felt in the clunkiness of the whole thing.


You can have the "full powers" of a 1st level character, and be exceptional, without having a subclass. Of the 13 base classes currently in the game, 10 of them do exactly that; I've never seen anyone saying their 1st level paladin is somehow lacking full power (for their level) for instance. (In fact, since they're becoming round-up half-casters in 1DnD, they're likely getting even more.)

----------


## Aimeryan

> There's a lot going on in this thread, so instead of responding to individual posts I'm just going to add my 2 cents.
> 
> WotC gave two reasons why they want to delay subclasses to level 3. The first is that they want to reduce the complexity at level 1, and the second is multiclassing power level concerns. I'll address each in turn.
> 
> Regarding the complexity issue:
> 
> I believe the vast majority of players look far enough forward during character creation to have already picked a subclass anyway. For these players, delaying the subclass provides no benefit.
> For the players who _don't_ look forward to picking a subclass at character creation, delaying the choice only makes sense if levels 1 and 2 are designed to prepare the player for making that choice. Otherwise they're just kicking the can down the road rather than fixing the perceived problem.
> Some subclasses require making choices at level 1 which wouldn't make sense _unless_ the character was designed to go for that subclass. For example, nothing in Fighter 1 and 2 lead a player to wanting Intelligence, but Eldritch Knight wants Intelligence. For the players the delay is supposed to help (those who aren't already making the choice at level 1), the delay can lead them to making choices which hamstring themselves when they get to the subclass choice. (Yes, this issue already exists in 5e for many classes, including the Eldritch Knight example.)
> ...


I agree with all of this. However, I do wish to discuss the consideration that multiclassing is even a problem.

As I see it, the problem isn't that people multiclass - WotC could always just ban it, or highly recommend against it, if this was actually the case. DMs may overrule as they like. No, multiclassing allows for far more variation on the options available to people, which is interesting and fun.

The problem here is actually the reverse - singleclassing is problematic. It is problematic because WotC put very little effort into class design after the first few levels, with most of the unique features coming at very sparse intervals. Unless a generic feature, like Spellcasting, happens to scale particularly well with each level or two then it becomes very tempting to jump ship once the levels that actually give interesting things have been achieved. Take Paladin - the best feature is gained at level 6, with a good feature gained at level 7 for _some_ subclasses. Then there is a dearth of interesting stuff. So, it is common to jump ship at 6 or 7. Wizards, on the other hand, will not jump ship for anything, and at most will take a one level amazing dip - because Spellcasting scales in interesting and powerful ways more strongly than jumping ship ever does.

So the solution is, we either make multiclassing less interesting, which makes for overall less interesting characters, or we make singleclassing more interesting. One takes a lot more work than the other, however, and I see this delayed third level subclassing as showing which direction WotC have chosen.

----------


## Sir Chuckles

> This one at least we know isn't happening - Fighters are in the Warrior Group, so they can spend their 1st level feat (from their background) on a fighting style just fine. And Human Fighters will be able to grab two of them.
> 
> The real question is whether they'll get a second one (or if human, third?) from their class, a general 1st level feat, or something else entirely at 1st level.
> 
> Well... of course it doesn't fit with the current text, the current text is designed to fit with classes whose subclass acquisitions are all over the place. In order to change that, "retcons" as you term them are necessary.
> 
> On the "develop their own narratives" point, I think 1DnD is doing a much better job of that. With backgrounds losing highly specific ribbons and even set proficiencies, along with gaining feats, that frees you up to tailor them exactly the way you choose. My gregarious Farmer who is a shrewd yet friendly trader when he brings his goods to town might be uncanny at Persuasion and even Deception, while also being Skilled (the feat) at Animal Handling, his herbalism kit, and maybe Athletics. Meanwhile, your Farmer who is more focused on living out in the field to better guarding his livestock might have Perception and Survival, along with Alert in case there's trouble.
> 
> You can have the "full powers" of a 1st level character, and be exceptional, without having a subclass. Of the 13 base classes currently in the game, 10 of them do exactly that; I've never seen anyone saying their 1st level paladin is somehow lacking full power (for their level) for instance. (In fact, since they're becoming round-up half-casters in 1DnD, they're likely getting even more.)


The nightmares are about things changing going forward, not as they are now. Things are onviously not set in stone.

And, no. I'm referring to the text presenting in the playtest packets and rules therein, like the original critical hits and the opening write up of the first playtest. The original PHB doesn't do as much to mark the PCs as special. 5e was originally pretty mild on that aspect but the zeitgeist really favors Big Dang Heroes. A lot of 5e design does not facilitate that and if you look at common houserules the popular shared once do. 1DnD acting as 5.5e feels like a .5. A half step towards supporting that narrative goal but not quite having the chutzpah to bring the mechanics along. At least not all the way. I almost feel like 5.25e would be a more apt - if silly! - moniker. It's like... two steps forward one step back and also we're gonna spin in place to randomly pick one more.

Lastly, can you please stop dismissing opinions with "I've never seen...". It feels very dismissive and like you're stating you're experiences matter more, especially given that this is the second time you've replied to me with what felt like a dismissal.
I know logically that you're not intending that, but darn do feelings make you feel things.

----------


## Deadandamnation

Imho subclasses are at 3 for a good reason and that's multiclassing.

In fact the only two that have perks at the First level are also the most common for dipping, namely Clerics and Fighters.

Starting a campaign at 3rd level Is not punishing at all and can be made easily, skipping the 'prologue' of level 1 and 2.

While having in a party an Assassin/Paladin of Vengeance/Hexblade/Battlemaster at level 4 Is really punishing, not Just for balance but coz One level can't give you a Specialization feeling and It Just feel wrong from a RP prospective

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> Imho subclasses are at 3 for a good reason and that's multiclassing.
> 
> In fact the only two that have perks at the First level are also the most common for dipping, namely Clerics and Fighters.


Cleric is still going to be a favored dip class under 1DND Playtest rules for the armor and weapon proficiencies alone.

Cleric is a good multi-class dip because the class has full spell casting and provides at least medium armor and shields, a low level spell list that adds a significant amount of options, two very good Cantrip options, and solid Saving Throws.

Barring, further changes to the Playtest, one might argue the Playtest Cleric further incentives the multi class dip by allowing any cleric to take Martial Weapons/Heavy armor and enhancing  all Channel Divinities with Smite like options/healing.

----------


## Segev

Long ago, back when 3.5 was brand new, I ran a campaign that used gestalt rules by default (your favored class had to be one of your gestalts; humans didn't exist in the setting) and where not only did players start at level 3, but level 3 was the baseline for most adult NPCs, too. Levels 1 and 2 were still kids. Needless to say, it was a higher-powered setting, but I share this mainly to say that "start at level 3" is nothing new; it's older than 5e, as I don't think my campaign was unique except in the fact that NPCs started there, too.

----------


## IsaacsAlterEgo

Personally I wish all subclasses came into being at level 1 because they are such a substantial part of your character that it's very silly from a narrative perspective.

For example, going to sleep as a level 2 ranger, and then waking up with a brand new wolf that just kind of has to appear out of nowhere is very silly. Same thing with the Drakewarden. It's such an intregal and important part of the character's story that it doesn't make sense for a dragon to just suddenly appear and start following you because you camped in the woods after a skirmish with some bandits. 

If my character is going to have a subclass, unless it's one of the designed-to-be-highly-generic ones like Champion, I want to work that subclass into the backstory as much as possible to have the character make sense and feel like a real part of the world, instead of like a collection of game mechanics that are arbitrarily coming online because we killed enough rats.

The power gained doesn't have to be substantial at level 1, but it should do whatever it needs to do to ensure you have enough of that subclass flavor that there isn't a jarring change at some point.

----------


## AssociateGreen

If we look at the guidelines for Session-based Advancement in the DMG (pg 261):




> A good rate of session-based advancement is to have characters reach 2nd level after the first session of play, 3rd level after another session, and 4th after two more sessions. Then spend two or three sessions for each subsequent level. This rate mirrors the standard rate of advancement, assuming sessions are about four hours long.



So it is 5e's intention that PCs should race through their earliest levels. Every character who has survived at least two sessions has their subclass, and with those two sessions has a far better appreciation of what type of character they're actually going to play than most white room daydreaming. For example, a player has a rogue and from the outset believes they are going to take the thief subclass but after getting a feel for the setting and the adventure types (plus maybe the death of some other characters), decides it makes more sense to take scout instead. I'm of the opinion, PC-build decisions which arrive from in-game reasons (natural ones, not ones artificially "collaborated" on) or even better necessity tend to be more rewarding in the long run. But to make those decisions you do need a few hours of play under your belt.

----------


## Psyren

> The original PHB doesn't do as much to mark the PCs as special.


The DMG is crystal clear about it, even for level 1 PCs.




> Lastly, can you please stop dismissing opinions with "I've never seen...". It feels very dismissive and like you're stating you're experiences matter more, especially given that this is the second time you've replied to me with what felt like a dismissal.
> I know logically that you're not intending that, but darn do feelings make you feel things.


I'm explaining why I disagree. Even in 5.0, as I mentioned, most classes don't get a subclass at 1st level - and they're still fully functional heroes set apart from the masses. When I say a subclass is not necessary to deliver on that fantasy at 1st level, that is a statement of fact, not a belief that my "experiences matter more."

----------


## Jophiel

> If we look at the guidelines for Session-based Advancement in the DMG (pg 261)


They also assume that you have 6-8 "encounters" in an adventuring day though and not just a social-based chat with an NPC and _maybe_ an easy combat encounter before the session is over.  Presumably you're not using four hours to talk to a guy and stab a bug unless most of your time is spent on non-game play chatter.

A 6-8 encounter session feels more like the standard Level One Dungeon: A couple NPC encounters, maybe using social skill checks to ask for more money or pump for information, a handful of combat encounters including one dangerous one (for certain definitions of dangerous) and maybe a couple of puzzle/environmental encounters for other skill checks or saving throws.  That feels like a more well-rounded introduction and movement to level two than what's been described in this thread. It also feels reasonable in the time provided (your typical 2hr AL module is a social introduction, 2-3 fights and some puzzle/environmental part)

----------


## JNAProductions

> They also assume that you have 6-8 "encounters" in an adventuring day though and not just a social-based chat with an NPC and _maybe_ an easy combat encounter before the session is over.  Presumably you're not using four hours to talk to a guy and stab a bug unless most of your time is spent on non-game play chatter.
> 
> A 6-8 encounter session feels more like the standard Level One Dungeon: A couple NPC encounters, maybe using social skill checks to ask for more money or pump for information, a handful of combat encounters including one dangerous one (for certain definitions of dangerous) and maybe a couple of puzzle/environmental encounters for other skill checks or saving throws.  That feels like a more well-rounded introduction and movement to level two than what's been described in this thread. It also feels reasonable in the time provided (your typical 2hr AL module is a social introduction, 2-3 fights and some puzzle/environmental part)


6-8 is a recommended length for an *adventuring day*-not a session.

The two are not synonymous.

----------


## Pex

> You can have the "full powers" of a 1st level character, and be exceptional, without having a subclass. Of the 13 base classes currently in the game, 10 of them do exactly that; I've never seen anyone saying their 1st level paladin is somehow lacking full power (for their level) for instance. (In fact, since they're becoming round-up half-casters in 1DnD, they're likely getting even more.)


Raises hand.

1st level is the worst for paladins. They're a poor man's fighter at this level. The only thing worth anything is heal 5 hit points once per long rest, which is not nothing at this level. No spells. No smiting. No fighting style. All he can do is "I attack". Oh, he can say there's an undead over there, whoopee.

----------


## Psyren

> Raises hand.
> 
> 1st level is the worst for paladins. They're a poor man's fighter at this level. The only thing worth anything is heal 5 hit points once per long rest, which is not nothing at this level. No spells. No smiting. No fighting style. All he can do is "I attack". Oh, he can say there's an undead over there, whoopee.


They're getting spells at 1st level in 1DnD, but still no subclass. It's not needed.

----------


## Jophiel

> 6-8 is a recommended length for an *adventuring day*-not a session.
> 
> The two are not synonymous.


Yes but, as I said, it's a perfectly reasonable number of encounters for a four hour session (which is what the DMG is speaking about).  Your standard 2hr AL module has about five encounters and usually an extra optional one in case you're not time constrained.  I don't believe the DMG's intent is to spend four hours buying rope and then going to level two.

The DMG also says this "mirrors the standard rate of advancement" which means you're actually doing things during those four hours that would generate 300 points of experience gain per character at the same general rate of standard adventuring.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Yes but, as I said, it's a perfectly reasonable number of encounters for a four hour session (which is what the DMG is speaking about).  Your standard 2hr AL module has about five encounters and usually an extra optional one in case you're not time constrained.  I don't believe the DMG's intent is to spend four hours buying rope and then going to level two.
> 
> The DMG also says this "mirrors the standard rate of advancement" which means you're actually doing things during those four hours that would generate 300 points of experience gain per character at the same general rate of standard adventuring.


Yeah. Although it may not be 6-8 encounters, it could be 3 Deadly (if you're fine with people dying, since the CR system is _most_ accurate at level 1), a couple Medium and a couple Hard, or any other combination.

One Easy encounter and one social encounter (Easy _at best_) does not "mirror the standard rate of advancement" for level 1.

----------


## GooeyChewie

> I'm explaining why I disagree. Even in 5.0, as I mentioned, most classes don't get a subclass at 1st level - and they're still fully functional heroes set apart from the masses. When I say a subclass is not necessary to deliver on that fantasy at 1st level, that is a statement of fact, not a belief that my "experiences matter more."


This is the sort of post which feels like you are dismissing people. Whether or not something (be it subclasses or something else) delivers on a particular fantasy is a matter of opinion. And while I don't totally disagree (nor totally agree) with your opinion in this case, presenting your opinion as absolute fact does feel dismissive.




> They're getting spells at 1st level in 1DnD, but still no subclass. It's not needed.


Do we *know* that Paladins will get spells at 1st level in 1DnD? Or is that an assumption based on them being in the Priest category of classes?

Also, even if subclasses are not strictly _necessary_, they can still be _helpful_ in building the fantasy. I agree with Pex that Paladin 1 is the worst level for Paladins, and getting the subclass at level 1 would fix that issue (even if it is not the _only_ potential way to fix the issue in 1DnD).

----------


## Atranen

> I think a majority of my issues with these charges are, indeed, narrative. In fact, most of the discussion I see is about people saying that they dislike the narrative shift and the most staunch defenders coming up with chunks of fluff text to justify and retcon the narrative. While I do agree that you can absolutely spin a narrative to make just about any of these things work, it's a very messy process not supported by the current text. And, to be honest, I feel that 5e does not have a great track record of guiding DMs and players to develop their own narratives. The books have a tendency to kinda just tell players to do whatever but simultaneously give oddly specific hooks to things like Backgrounds.


Yeah, this rings true to me. Of course you can make a narrative to justify anything. But I don't think you should, and some narratives are better than others.




> And thus I think turning the lowest levels into a new player tutorial and shifting things forward is very awkward and honestly not conducive to their own set-up. Adventurers - IE player characters with class levels - are explicitly stated to be special, unique, and different. It's implied they get feats because they are destined for greatness or something.


And this is a compelling point. What are 1st level PCs in the world of D&D? I don't have a clear answer to that question based on WOTCs guidance. Either they are unique and exceptional or they are apprentices who have to do a few encounters first, they can't be both. 

Based on language in the core books (AFB) and my preferences, they ought to be exceptional from level 1, not level 3. 




> This one at least we know isn't happening - Fighters are in the Warrior Group, so they can spend their 1st level feat (from their background) on a fighting style just fine. And Human Fighters will be able to grab two of them.


Spending a limited feat to get a class feature at 1 that you will also get at 2 is a poor solution to the problem. Just give the feature at 1.  




> The problem here is actually the reverse - singleclassing is problematic.


A good way to reframe the problem, and there's a lot of support for this view in the 'Clerics after tier 2' thread. 




> So it is 5e's intention that PCs should race through their earliest levels.


I recall an interview with Mike Mearls where he said he thought PCs should level up every session (at all levels). This is one of my biggest complaints about the design direction of 5e. 




> When I say a subclass is not necessary to deliver on that fantasy at 1st level, that is a statement of fact, not a belief that my "experiences matter more."


This is a statement of opinion. It may not be necessary for some people; it is necessary for others.




> Raises hand.
> 
> 1st level is the worst for paladins. They're a poor man's fighter at this level. The only thing worth anything is heal 5 hit points once per long rest, which is not nothing at this level. No spells. No smiting. No fighting style. All he can do is "I attack". Oh, he can say there's an undead over there, whoopee.


Agreed, I've felt underwhelmed when I play a 1st level paladin. It's bearable (but not fun) because 1st level has been short in the games I played (which seems to be WOTCs design). But what if I want a long 1st level?

----------


## AssociateGreen

> They also assume that you have 6-8 "encounters" in an adventuring day though and not just a social-based chat with an NPC and _maybe_ an easy combat encounter before the session is over.  Presumably you're not using four hours to talk to a guy and stab a bug unless most of your time is spent on non-game play chatter.
> 
> A 6-8 encounter session feels more like the standard Level One Dungeon: A couple NPC encounters, maybe using social skill checks to ask for more money or pump for information, a handful of combat encounters including one dangerous one (for certain definitions of dangerous) and maybe a couple of puzzle/environmental encounters for other skill checks or saving throws.  That feels like a more well-rounded introduction and movement to level two than what's been described in this thread. It also feels reasonable in the time provided (your typical 2hr AL module is a social introduction, 2-3 fights and some puzzle/environmental part)





> Yes but, as I said, it's a perfectly reasonable number of encounters for a four hour session (which is what the DMG is speaking about).  Your standard 2hr AL module has about five encounters and usually an extra optional one in case you're not time constrained.  I don't believe the DMG's intent is to spend four hours buying rope and then going to level two.
> 
> The DMG also says this "mirrors the standard rate of advancement" which means you're actually doing things during those four hours that would generate 300 points of experience gain per character at the same general rate of standard adventuring.



That was my understanding of what a session should entail. Really, time management is perhaps the second most important skill for a DM to master. Buying mundane gear in town? Really shouldn't be anything more than removing gold pieces from a character sheet and adding a piece of equipment. I think anything involving Downtime Activity should just be handled with the appropriate rolls on the appropriate tables. Even should it happen in the middle of the session: The PCs retreat from the "dungeon/adventure/quest" and spend a week+ recuperating/researching/selling/carousing before resuming gameplay and it should basically all be accomplishable with a few rolls and ten minutes of game time. Occasionally, you maybe need to RP interaction with a sage or "quest-giver" (which I'm of the opinion shouldn't even really exist past tier 1), but not as often as it tends to happen. Some players may enjoy a "shopping session" but I am not one of them.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Lore Bard
> 3rd level: Offense and minor utility
> 6th level: Party utility
> 10th level: Offense
> 14th level: Major utility
> 
> Hunter Ranger
> 3rd level: Offense
> 6th level: Utility
> ...


 Thanks for that analysis.  :Small Smile:

----------


## MoiMagnus

> Do we *know* that Paladins will get spells at 1st level in 1DnD?


It's an assumption based on the Ranger having level 1 spells despite being halfcaster.
It would be very weird for one halfcaster to have level 1 spells while another doesn't.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> It's an assumption based on the Ranger having level 1 spells despite being halfcaster.
> It would be very weird for one halfcaster to have level 1 spells while another doesn't.


Artificer gets spellcasting and cantrips at level 1 right now.

----------


## Psyren

There is zero chance they make both Ranger and Artificer into "round up half casters" and not Paladin. It's an easy selling point for 1DnD on the player side.

----------


## Segev

Giving half-casters all level 1 spells at level 1 is just a good move. It makes them feel like half-casters at level 1, rather than feeling like discount fighters who get spells eventually (even if it's just at level 2).

----------


## diplomancer

> Giving half-casters all level 1 spells at level 1 is just a good move. It makes them feel like half-casters at level 1, rather than feeling like discount fighters who get spells eventually (even if it's just at level 2).


I agree, but there is an oddity involved; theoretically, if you multi-class Ranger 1 Paladin 1 Artificer 1, you're now a level 3 caster (which you wouldn't be had you remained single classed)

----------


## JNAProductions

> I agree, but there is an oddity involved; theoretically, if you multi-class Ranger 1 Paladin 1 Artificer 1, you're now a level 3 caster (which you wouldn't be had you remained single classed)


You also need, if multiclassing requirements are the same, 13+ in every stat except Con.

----------


## Segev

> I agree, but there is an oddity involved; theoretically, if you multi-class Ranger 1 Paladin 1 Artificer 1, you're now a level 3 caster (which you wouldn't be had you remained single classed)





> You also need, if multiclassing requirements are the same, 13+ in every stat except Con.


It also means you're 2-3 levels behind on actual spell levels, even if you have 2nd level spell slots. 5e is built pretty solidly with an assumption that upcasting is weaker than casting an on-level spell from the same spell slot.

Also, nothing says multiclassing rules have to say level 1 counts as a full level for half-casters. REmember, multiclassing uses a separate table, technically, for spell slots. So you could still just be a 1.5th level caster, using the level 1 spell slot entry on the multiclassing list.

----------


## diplomancer

> It also means you're 2-3 levels behind on actual spell levels, even if you have 2nd level spell slots. 5e is built pretty solidly with an assumption that upcasting is weaker than casting an on-level spell from the same spell slot.
> 
> Also, nothing says multiclassing rules have to say level 1 counts as a full level for half-casters. REmember, multiclassing uses a separate table, technically, for spell slots. So you could still just be a 1.5th level caster, using the level 1 spell slot entry on the multiclassing list.


The ranger Multiclassing rules do say that, as a matter of fact. Round up.

Artificer already works like this (and we know  that it won't get a D&D One update for a long time). Maybe Paladin will be different, but I would not bet on it.

And while going Art/Ran/Pal is probably suboptimal, going Ranger 1/Half-Caster X could be good (Rangers are very front-loaded right now), and you're still getting your caster upgrade one level ahead. A Ranger 1 Art 3 has 2nd level slots (with spells known one level behind, true. But it's still odd).

----------


## Doug Lampert

> The ranger Multiclassing rules do say that, as a matter of fact. Round up.


But do you round up individually, or add then round fractions of 1/2 or more up as part of the new multiclassing rules?

I would not count on 3 half caster levels in different classes being more than a level 2 multicaster. Having everyone use the same rounding rule is good, but that rule need not be done one class at a time.

----------


## Segev

> The ranger Multiclassing rules do say that, as a matter of fact. Round up.


Then they still don't say the first level counts as a full level, because you don't have 1.5 levels from two levels of a half caster class; you have 1.

Three levels gets you 1.5, which rounds up to 2, not three. And a straight level three paladin vs. a multiclassed paladin / artificer / ranger would still be a level 2, not 3, caster on the multiclass table. Same as the single-class paladin.

----------


## Psyren

> The ranger Multiclassing rules do say that, as a matter of fact. Round up.
> 
> Artificer already works like this (and we know  that it won't get a D&D One update for a long time). Maybe Paladin will be different, but I would not bet on it.
> 
> And while going Art/Ran/Pal is probably suboptimal, going Ranger 1/Half-Caster X could be good (Rangers are very front-loaded right now), and you're still getting your caster upgrade one level ahead. A Ranger 1 Art 3 has 2nd level slots (with spells known one level behind, true. But it's still odd).


I think you're rounding up each half-level and then adding them together, rather than what you should be doing, which is adding the half-levels together and then rounding up the total.

----------


## BeholderEyeDr

> I think you're rounding up each half-level and then adding them together, rather than what you should be doing, which is adding the half-levels together and then rounding up the total.


Right now, the available rules do say to round first, then add the resulting integers together. But they also refer to multiclassing rules which haven't been revised yet. I'd bet money that the final result will be to add, then round, effectively just changing the "rounded down" to "rounded up" in the existing multiclassing rules.

----------


## Psyren

> Right now, the available rules do say to round first, then add the resulting integers together. But they also refer to multiclassing rules which haven't been revised yet. I'd bet money that the final result will be to add, then round, effectively just changing the "rounded down" to "rounded up" in the existing multiclassing rules.


I guess we won't know for sure (for a while) as there's only one "round up" class currently.

----------


## Witty Username

Aguing the minuta of One D&D is probably a lost cause for the moment, we just don't know enough how it is going to shake out.
Have they gotten to Warrior and Arcane yet?
Because I don't think we have finished even the first iteration of the ruleset yet.

----------


## Rukelnikov

> Aguing the minuta of One D&D is probably a lost cause for the moment, we just don't know enough how it is going to shake out.
> Have they gotten to Warrior and Arcane yet?
> Because I don't think we have finished even the first iteration of the ruleset yet.


Its definitely going slower than I expected, the deadline is sometime in 2024.

I'd expect playtest to be over at least 6 months before publication? IDR how it was with NEXT's playtest.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Its definitely going slower than I expected, the deadline is sometime in 2024.
> 
> I'd expect playtest to be over at least 6 months before publication? IDR how it was with NEXT's playtest.


6 months I think is the smallest window I would expect. Finalizing the printing once everything is done takes a darn long time just by itself. In academic publishing, the actual print date is usually several months past final acceptance (when the final proofs are in and done) at least.

----------


## Rukelnikov

> 6 months I think is the smallest window I would expect. Finalizing the printing once everything is done takes a darn long time just by itself. In academic publishing, the actual print date is usually several months past final acceptance (when the final proofs are in and done) at least.


Yeah, I imagined it'd take time, I thinking looking at how NEXT's playtest was handled could give us an idea.

----------


## Witty Username

Their might be some havoc given d&d beyond, digital releases can be tinkered with right up to the release date. If they plan a digital release and a physical printing some amount of time after that, all bets are off more or less.

----------


## Rukelnikov

> Their might be some havoc given d&d beyond, digital releases can be tinkered with right up to the release date. If they plan a digital release and a physical printing some amount of time after that, all bets are off more or less.


True, they may be going to do a digital first release.

----------


## Psyren

It might even be smart to go digital first, it gives them a means to detect and correct last minute errors or issues before they're enshrined in print. Kind of like how the Giant uses feedback on the webcomic oots for art/spelling corrections and the like in advance of the print compilations.

----------

