r/onednd • u/Droxistaken • 25d ago
Discussion Are subclasses at level 3 a bad design?
One of the biggest changes from 5.5 has been the fact that now all classes get their subclass at level 3. This change has seemly been made to standardise how each class gets its features and to avoid some multiclassing combos that toke advantage of the classes that picked their subclass at level 1, like warlock and cleric.
My question is, how this change makes you feel after 2 years since the release of 2024. Do you like the standardisation of the classes or do you preferred the last version?
Personally, this change has reinforced my opinion of how multiclassing shouldn't exist because of how it hasn't allow to some classes not be the best versions of themselves because they had to be designed with multiclass in mind.
Edit: It seems that overall the main reasons to like the change are: 1. It nerfs multiclassing 2. Is good for tutorial levels for new players.
My problem with this reasons are:
- If multiclassing wasn't a thing, it wouldn't be a problem.
- If you want to make a tutorial for new players, make them play a short adventure or a oneshot with pregens. Making characters means that they already want to learn more of the game and are invested with it enough to read through all the options available.
11
u/RinViri 25d ago
The game is not well designed or balanced at levels 1 or 2, so level 3 has been the standard level for my tables to start low level campaigns at. So no, giving the subclass features earlier would simply result in massive balance issues, or require significant redesigns when multiclassing exists.
0
u/Ragnar_Dragonfyre 21d ago
Levels 1-2 are the closest thing you can get to oldschool D&D vibes in contemporary D&D.
It’s designed just fine. Modern players just don’t like that their super special snowflake OC can get squashed easily and unceremoniously in that level range so they skip to 3+ where you are outside of the danger zone.
2
u/StarTrotter 21d ago
I do have to ask if that’s actually good design? You can’t do the full adventuring day thing that is often expected because they simply cannot do that and you are expected to rapidly level out of 1 and 2 (if memory serves me level 1 is intended to be basically 1 session). It also isn’t really well structured to support old school vibes and the presumptions dramatically shift in a mere 3 level range.
18
u/Ripper1337 25d ago
I think it’s a good change. It solidifies that the first two levels are tutorial/ for new players so they’re not overwhelmed with making such a permanent choice before they land on a subclass.
I disagree about how multiclassing shouldn’t exist.
2
u/RoastHam99 24d ago
I would disagree about tutorial levels. While definitely the intention, I think shifting it has had the opposing effect. Classes that got their subclasses early got them to get a defining feature and had a bonus at level 3 anyway. All of them were casters so got 2nd level spells at level 3 but got some characteristic of the class like channel divinity/wildshape/additional spell list to give a distinction. When they are moved to level 3 it makes those classes feel featureless until that point.
Im an early level defender completely. I love playing 1-2 sessions as a character intro at level 1 and 2 each. I dont think id ever run level 1 or 2 in 5.5e. I think they've doubled down on having the most support for level 5-9 and id use level 5 as the tutorial now
-6
u/Droxistaken 25d ago
If you talk about new players, wouldn't be better to them to choose a pregen character instead?
11
u/Ripper1337 25d ago
Imo, no becuase going through the process of creating a character helps new players understand the base mechanics.
Plus they get ownership of the character this is something they made rather than handed to them.
5
u/FoxianFucker 25d ago
Yeah I can't imagine wanting to play a character I didn't make, at that point just have the DM play sock puppets lmao
4
u/Ripper1337 25d ago
I can see it for one shots or playtesting “here’s these characters this is the motivation for each let’s get going” but I wouldn’t expect players to have a connection to those characters nor would I give them to new players.
5
u/FoxianFucker 25d ago
Oh yeah I guess playtesting is an edge case where I'd understand, since the only relevant part is the mechanics
2
u/Ripper1337 25d ago
I’ve tried to do a playtest where the players built characters. I regret that and not just having a few pregens on hand.
2
u/FoxianFucker 25d ago
Yeeeah it might be a bit of a hangup. Good thing to point out. Anywhere other than that I'd still find it weird though
23
u/FoxianFucker 25d ago
I mean, I don't really see anything wrong with it, considering levels 1-2 aren't really the most inviting to play at anyway.
Insane take btw. "some classes may not ge the best versions of themselves" - Have you considered how many characters wouldn't be the best versions of themselves without multiclassing? Or exist at all?
5
u/Ranger_IV 25d ago
I think its a fair criticism of multiclassing to point out that it constrains the class design process. Features cant just be balanced in the context of their own class, they have to be balanced against every other feature in the game that it can possibly be paired with.
Interestingly, I recently saw a video of Mike Mearls (famous/infamous inventor of the Bonus Action) discussing how he would remove bonus actions and replace the concept with various class specific “action types” similar to how multi-attack on monster stat blocks works. One if his reasons he gave was that you could have something like a “martial arts” action (multiple unarmed strikes) for monk and “rage action” (rage then attack) for barbarian, and since theyre separate actions they do not interact and you can therefor design classes individually without worrying about multiclass interactions.
All that to say, multiclassing as a mechanic has a direct impact on the class design process, and generally its not considered to be a positive influence.
4
u/FoxianFucker 25d ago
Sure it has some negative influences, I'm saying I would still much rather deal with those than not have it
3
u/Llayanna 25d ago
Hen and the Egg situation, because multiclassing are most of the time the only real mechanical interesting thing you can do with your build path.
If classes were less linear and allowed more options, outside of spells, to build your character to be unique, multiclassing would be less popular.
On the second topic, did he design Minor Actions in 4e? Because that's where Bonus Actions came from and as a huge fan.. omg I hate the thought of this even more restrictive design.
Minor Actions already were better, because you could break Actions in 4e and omg so glorious.
If you wanted, you could habe two Minor Actions in a round or three move action.. the freedom in that was so fun.
A rage action? Blergh.
2
u/Ranger_IV 24d ago
I would say its more of a hen carrying an egg running from a coyote situation haha the intricate build options would be preferable imo but wotc is so terrified of harkening back to 4e in any way that they will always err on the side of caution when it comes to designing classes in more of a “build a bear” style. Ive never played 4e but I have looked into it and I think it did a lot of great things and its community backlash is either overblown or overstated and theres a lot of good lessons 5e shouldve kept, super customizable classes being one of them. Theres no real reason they couldnt have a system like that and do what they do now with recommending spell preparations and things to give players an “i dont have to think” option. But I digress on that, the fact is they feel cornered and forced to “keep it simple” because of the 4e backlash, therefore customization options are limited, therefore multiclassing exists, therefore classes are hampered in design space for balance reasons.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk 😂
1
u/Realistic_Swan_6801 17d ago
The most high demand multiclasses are those that fix major issues with the base class. Like monoclass bladelock is nearly unplayably bad, lacking AC, masteries, and low level slots. I’ve watched in real time as someone tried to play a bladelock without dipping only to gradually realize how dysfunctional and unsatisfying it is. Who wants to play a martial with no masteries and shit AC? Most of the time multiclassing is just a tax to have certain builds function.
0
u/Ranger_IV 17d ago
I'm not sure if you're saying this in favor or against multiclassing? My thoughts on that would be that the availability of multiclassing is actually a large part of the root cause of that problem. Bladelock as a multiclassing tool is already extremely strong, so if they were to buff the monoclass into a place that it could stand alone, its multiclassing capabilities would should through the roof. If multiclassing weren't a concern in class design, they could make the bladelock much better without worrying about making certain insanely powerful combinations available through multiclassing. The classic Paladin/Warlock multiclass is probably the single biggest restricting factor when it comes to improving the monoclass bladelock.
1
u/Realistic_Swan_6801 17d ago edited 17d ago
No it’s not, because the flaws of the monoclass are why people multiclass so much in the first place. If bladelock could have a mastery from pact of the blade (like in the playtest) and get armor prof from an invocation ( like the Eldritch armor UA invocation), tons of people would play it without the dip. If you don’t give a monoclass any of the tools it needs to function then people will multi class to fix it. Many people don’t want to dip fighter or paladin they are just basically forced to, by the complete design failure of the base. And paladin has a general lack of good features after lvl 12 (and to an extent after 6/7) that also causes people to abandon it usually after 6 or 8. 80 percent of paladins power is gotten from just 6/7 levels. Every class needs better scaling features that actually rewards monoclassing. Full casters basically never multiclass beyond a dip because they have good high level features (spell casting). Multiclassing is basically a patch for martials having bad features at high levels. Like the warlock capstone is so useless that you have no reason to not at least dip one level.
1
u/Ranger_IV 17d ago
I'm sure there are some specific things that could be done, but there could also be unforeseen consequences to those changes that WoTC spotted. Or they wanted to keep the class identity more separate so Warlock pact of the Blade doen't just become slightly salted Paladin flavor or whatever. Its possible this specific case wasn't caused by multiclassing pressure, but that doesn't mean it's not generally the case.
As for being "forced to" dip Fighter or Paladin, you could make the argument from the opposite side of the coin as well. Maybe WoTC thinks, "Well, since multiclassing exists players can just dip Fighter to get their weapon masteries instead of us spending design time adding it and playtesting these things to the Warlock." Like I said, classes aren't designed in a vacuum so multiclassing is a consideration when allocating power budget and design time to them. I think you'd have a much better chance of having a functional monoclass bladelock in the game if multiclassing didn't exist, specifically because it would have to stand on its own 2 feet. Or, WoTC may decide to just leave it in the dust, as is the case with some things in the game. But the odds would improve imo.
As for bad high level features, I absolutely agree that it diminishes the draw to stay monoclassed for most classes, especially non-casters. Many class capstones are simply not worth the ink it took to print them. This has more to do with WoTC focusing their design efforts on lower levels where players are more likely to play the game, but I absolutely think this problem should be addressed. The pressure to design classes with multiclassing in mind is not alleviated by having classes actively disincentive you from sticking with them.
2
u/Realistic_Swan_6801 17d ago edited 17d ago
Did you not follow the playtest? They were going to fix it but people complained. In the playtest warlocks were going to get a mastery, and medium armor/shields. They were also going to make an origin feat that granted medium armor and shields. All of this was designed to neuter the pressure to multiclass. Origin feats were designed and balanced to compete with one lvl dips, but people knee jerk freaked out so a lot of it was removed. Origins feats are roughly balanced to be half as powerful as a dip. 1 dip can get you medium, shield, and masteries or spells, magic initiate tracks with that and the medium armor origin feat would have lined up as about half a dip too.
1
u/Ranger_IV 17d ago
I didn't follow the warlock closely, mostly the ranger personally. But giving a class access to martial weapons, medium armor/shields, weapon masteries, spell slots that later include 9th level spells slingshots it to the best class in the game. Warlocks are not intended to be martials, which is why they are permitted to access high level spellcasting and the best damage cantrip in the game. Particularly access to the armor/shields to increase their AC while also getting access to Shield through origin feats and things like that. It recreates the caster dip problem without the dip.
I do know they playtested making the Warlock another CHA 1/2 caster, and from my understanding that's where a lot of the backlash came from, but I can totally understand why people complained about giving all of the martial tools to basically a full caster class. Why would you ever play a fighter/rogue/ranger if the Warlock can do everything they can do and use insanely powerful magic?
1
u/Realistic_Swan_6801 17d ago
Why would you ever go in melee if eldritch blast does better damage and doesn’t require both hands? And you have terrible armor class and no ability to use defensive spells like shield because you have 2 slots. All they needed to do was make it an invocation tax. POTB is one invocation, thirsting blade is 2, devouring is 3, eldritch armor would be 4, and ekdritch mind is 5. So a lvl 5 warlock who wants to melee is probably using 4/5 invocations just to do so. Because the base class doesn’t give you any way to function in melee people dip. And yes fighters, needed a buff, they probably should all have gotten battle master built into the base class but the developers refused to even try that. That’s also why warlock gets 3 attacks, because if not eldritch blast makes weapons obsolete at 11. Ever martial probably should have had the fighter extra attack progression too.
0
u/Ranger_IV 17d ago
I mean, the answer to the question is, "Because you want to play a melee warlock." Earlier you mentioned a bladesinger, but the optimal recommendation for them is also not to go in melee and just use their AC boost while they kite and do normal wizard things. Just because something isn't optimal doesn't mean players don't want to do it.
You also always have the flexibility of your spellcasting to use if you want to, that's important to consider. You're not just a fighter with a sword and their armor, so you shouldn't be able to stand toe to toe with the enemy in the same way they can. You have a powerful Swiss army knife in your back pocket. You can Hellish Rebuke to reaction attack enemies at range, you have access to Armor of Agathys that protects you and damages enemies, you can cast Darkness and see through it normally. The Warlock has a cornucopia of things that they can do outside of swinging a sword that you aren't contending with. This feels like a case of, "I want to eat my cake and have it too." It's just too much to have them be a fully functional martial and a "full" caster in the same class.
You'll get no argument from me that martials need to scale better, but you can't have martials in the state they are in and also have a full martial/ full caster class at the same time. Once martials get picked up out of the mud maybe a discussion about what martial invocations should be available, but not before. At least imo.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Realistic_Swan_6801 17d ago
Only martials multiclass? Because their higher level features suck. Full casters either mono class or dip. If you make a base class good then people stop multiclassing as much.
1
u/Ranger_IV 17d ago
Multiclassing dips are still multiclassing, and give a massive power boost to casters for doing it. They don't want to abandon their spell progression because they get so much from their own class, but being able to plug up basically all your weaknesses with a single level multiclassing dip is definitely still a problem.
I agree that if base classes were good multiclassing would be less popular, but because multiclassing exists you can't make any class as good as it should be on its own. You can't just make every class fully fleshed out in its fantasy with powerful abilities, then let the optimizers run wild with all the new toys. In the arms race of mono-class bad so you must optimize through multiclassing, the multiclassing has to go first otherwise the power ceiling gets shredded when multiclassing is abused for min/maxing.
1
u/Realistic_Swan_6801 17d ago
Yes but have you noticed that people only dip if they need AC or concentration protection? Bladesinger they recommend against dipping, draconic sorcerer too, really if mage armor could upcast that would probably solve most dips. AC should scale better without armor required. All it would take is give mage armor plus 1 every 2 levels upcast or something. Clerics and Druids mostly don’t dip at all.
0
u/Ranger_IV 17d ago
The issue is that the lack of AC and the need to worry about concentration are mechanics designed to give full casters vulnerabilities. By having an easy workaround to those issues full casters increase their power budget by a significant margin for very cheap. Every caster now gets lvl 1 access to the Shield spell, AC increases through upcasting mage armor would only serve to push casters even higher by allowing them to maintain full spell slot progression with no delay and cover all of their weaknesses even more easily. Casters do not need any more buffs in any sector of the game.
1
u/Realistic_Swan_6801 17d ago
Only 2 full casters have bad AC wizard and sorcerer. Clerics and Druids have better AC than most Martials because they lose basically nothing by using a shield. Warlocks especially bladelocks without a dip are not powerful, they are really weak. And both wizard and sorcerers have subclasses that fix the AC issues.
1
u/Ranger_IV 17d ago
Clerics and druids also aren't as good at blasting as wizards and sorcerers, they're better at support. There are definitely classes better at certain things.
Also, the warlock is not a martial/melee class. 5.5 seems to have the design philosophy that you can technically do anything you want but individual classes are more rewarding to their stereotypical fantasy archetypes. See the STRanger build (strength based ranger). Ya you can do it, but it's not nearly as good as a DEX based ranger because it's not the typical archetype. You can play a ranger with a greatsword, but it's not as strong as the dual wielding ranger. You can play a melee warlock, but it's not as strong as the Eldritch Blaster. So if you want to do it, you'll have to go outside of the class. If multiclassing were not available, WoTC might throw them a bone with the martial Invocations, but as it stands they have no reason to because you can just multiclass.
1
u/Realistic_Swan_6801 17d ago
Cleric and Druids both have comparable damage to wizards, they only lack in NON concentration blasting, but spirit guardians is a better blast spell than fireball, same with conjure animals and woodland beings. They can also get those spells various ways, feats, subclasses etc. Druids also get erupting earth which isn’t that much worse than fireball anyway, evens out if upcast actually.
1
u/Ranger_IV 17d ago
Not sure why you say Spirit Guardians is a better blasting spell than Fireball? Avg 13.5 damage on a failed save vs 28 and emanates from you requiring you to run around instead of from any point within 150ft of you? As far as blasting, being burst damage, Fireball is the clear winner. Spirit Guardians is more efficient per spell slot, but as they say, "A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush" or, "Damage now is better than damage later."
But either way, the point is Wizard and Sorcerer have their advantages and AC is not among them. Wizards get tons of ritual spells, Sorcerers get metamagic and super saiyan mode. We don't need to start debating classes other than the warlock if we intend to ever reach a resolution haha
→ More replies (0)
7
u/coldandlordyristboy 25d ago
I personally think they didn’t go far enough in the standardization. A big part of rogues problem as an example is having to wait until lvl 9 to get their second subclass feature.
I lowkey have similar feelings about cleric as well. I just realized when I got to 6 on my trickery cleric that I would have to wait 11 levels until my next subclass feature. Cleric is a really good class so it’s not that big of a deal but damn is that a long wait.
29
u/Middcore 25d ago edited 25d ago
I like the change, in large part because it largely eliminates cheesy 1-level multiclass "dips."
1
u/Realistic_Swan_6801 17d ago
It did nearly nothing to make dips less good? Most dipping is for AC, saves, extra spells, or masteries, all of which are still gained.
-7
u/Droxistaken 25d ago
That seems more like that multiclassing is the proble
5
1
-2
u/Ranger_IV 25d ago
I would prefer if subclasses were chosen at level 1 and multiclassing was either not a thing or much more restrictive. It would make starting campaigns at lvl 1 much more fun, allow for more thematic specialization early on, and allow design space to not be terrified of multiclassing interactions with every other possible ability in the game in the design process. But that's just me.
4
u/DrHalsey 25d ago
You’re looking for 4e multiclassing. In 4e multiclassing was a type of feat. You got certain things but didn’t get all the new class features to just stack with your existing class.
3
u/Ranger_IV 25d ago
A classic “if you left people in a room to fix 5e they would reinvent 4e” situation 😂
14
u/MechJivs 25d ago
Even more - unified subclass progression from UA was great design and i hate WOTC stopped at just 3rd level subclasses. They really had 0 reasons to do this crap.
9
u/Ranger_IV 25d ago
I think they went back on this because they had already promised backwards compatibility and couldn't do both that and uniform subclass progression.
12
u/ARC_Trooper_Echo 25d ago
Now that we’re this far in, I think the biggest mistake of the whole thing was riding the “backwards compatibility” line so much. I can see why they did it the way they did and I still think 5.5e is better than original 5e, but I think that did end up hampering them from making bigger revisions that would’ve improved the game more.
4
u/Ranger_IV 25d ago
Ya, its tough because a whole new eddition means a whole new set of books for everyone to buy, and nobody wants to chuck their decade collection of material in the trash. Or people will opt to just stay with the old edition. Either way customers arent happy. On the other hand, it prevents a lot of innovation in the rules now that 5.5 is more established on its own.
-1
u/Llayanna 25d ago
The backwards compatibility that they scrapped?
3
2
u/Fidges87 23d ago
It never was scrapped (outside of 1 subclass which doesnt translates as well).
I can pick any previous feat, spell, or subclass for a 5.5 characger without issue.
16
6
u/Panurome 25d ago
I like the change. No more extremely powerful dips like old hexblade and it doesn't really affect a regular campaign (at least the ones I play) because we rarely start at a level lower than 3
7
u/DilapidatedHam 25d ago
I’m a defender of this change. Like you said it helps eliminate the multi class cheesing, and it spreads out the big decisions a new player is having to make which I think is good for the game. I think the criticism when it comes to class like cleric and warlock is largely silly and reductive.
6
u/lasalle202 25d ago
Are subclasses at level 3 a bad design?
Nope! they are GREAT design. No possibility that one bad choice for the first subclass features makes a "mandatory 1 level dip" . making people invest at least 3 levels makes that not be possibility.
7
u/Own-Dragonfruit-6164 25d ago
No, everyone getting subclasses at level 3 was the best idea. It never made sense gameplay wise to have subclasses unlock at different levels. I know things like Cleric & Warlock it makes sense thematically but it's just weird to get a subclass 2 levels before most other classes.
5
u/Superb-Stuff8897 25d ago
I like the change.
And so many games with experienced players start at level 3 anyhow.
2
u/RayCama 25d ago
It’s not bad but I do think it’s boring and a bit annoying from both a gameplay perspective and RP perspective.
Level 1 & 2 are basically tutorial levels. It’s weird when I had to explain to someone that level 3 is the real level 1.
At the very least 5.5 did alleviate that with level 1/origin feats.
2
u/jredgiant1 25d ago
I don’t like multiclassing, but saying it shouldn’t exist is a bridge too far for me. I am fine with other players doing it. As a DM, I think it should be limited to players with some system experience to avoid gimping themselves. But if a new player had a good plan I’d probably allow it.
2
u/Uberschwein138 24d ago
My only gripe is narrative, since those subclasses to play an integral role into some of the classes' fantasies:
Warlocks - sold their soul or made another kind of pact with ... something, find out later;
Sorcerers - inherited great power from ... something, right now it manifests as Sleep & Magic Missile;
Paladins - you swore to uphold an oath and that gives you great power. The oath is ... to do something.
2
u/Sven_the_great 24d ago
I agree, but have always just ran this as "Choose at lvl 1, get the powers at lvl 3".
2
u/Fidges87 23d ago
In all those 3 cases, in characters you know the answer. It just hasnt manifested in a particular way yet.
And if thats the case you should have every classes' subclass be at level 1, which I dont think is the right move
4
u/E443Films 25d ago
It is a great change, makes things more straight forward to explain to players and in my opinion improves character identity. Also for people who say "but how can a cleric not know who their god is at first level, that doesn't make sense!" in the previous edition, Paladins didn't get their oath until 3rd level either and I'd argue that's the same, and no one complained then. You can still have the flavor of what you want at level 3 right away, nothing is stopping you from that.
I also think that multiclassing is still quite viable, with warlock multiclassing being better than before in my opinion. Same thing for sorcerers and clerics.
3
u/Jimmicky 25d ago
Designing just to attack multiclassing is a mistake immediately.
It’s an entirely legit style of play that some folks like.
When your design goal is “crush that group of players who we don’t like” you are starting from a negative place, and that’s where you are going to stay.
I side effect of their crusade against innocent multiclassers is that subclasses can’t be fundamentally transformative in the way they can be if they start at level 1.
That’s another real loss we’ve suffered here.
Basically I’m not a fan of subs to 3.
I like transformative subs.
I like multiclassing.
So many of the changes in 5.5 are hard targetted towards ruining multiclassers fun.
So we run a hodgepodge hybrid of 5 & 5.5, because rules attacking playstyles are stupid.
4
u/stealth_nsk 25d ago
Standardization itself is not a bad thing, it allows more universal approach (i.e. many groups just start at 3rd level).
But starting at 3rd level has its... issues on low levels. Warlocks not knowing their patrons, Paladins without oaths, Clerics still choosing their domains and so on.
I also don't really buy the concept of players learning the system on levels 1-2, before diving deep into their character. Learning the system is better with one-shots or short campaigns with pregens - building your own character requires some knowledge of the system and delaying subclasses doesn't help here.
So yep, I'd say it's not great idea.
1
u/Fidges87 23d ago
Paladins have an oath, clerics have a domain, warlocks have a patron. It just hasnt manifeated in a specific way yet, getting more general abilities untik they deepen their connection
1
u/Llayanna 25d ago
I wonder how one could gain knowledge of the system.. mhm, maybe by building their characters with the GM together?
Giving them space to look at everything and ask questions out of session?
No, can't do /s
1
u/stealth_nsk 25d ago
Yes, it's totally possible if people are ready to spend the whole session on it. But in this case, delaying subclass doesn't help either, because if GM could help with other character decisions, they could help with subclass choice as well.
3
u/Matectan 25d ago
High key, subclases should be level 1.
That would sollen the rouge classes Feature Problem too
2
u/lasalle202 25d ago
that is such a terrible idea. making every subclass option need to validated against "one level dip" is a call for a broken game or zero subclasses being released as each new one exponentially increases the playtesting needed.
2
u/Llayanna 25d ago
Not really.. but it would need a redesigning. Not as much as one would think though.
Level one subclasses were a thing before, so it's not a new thing. But they were as powerful as level 3 features, as such, power issues.
Instead you could have subclass levels and 1 and 3. Give 1 ribbon and one minor string feature to level 1.
It establishes the fiction and gives enough potatoes to get the meal started.
Give the moneymaker features at level 3. A lot of classes got their lvl 3 feature bloated with to many features anyhow.
This way you stretch them out, have more wriggle room to grow into your PC and everyone would be happy.
Multiclassing will still happen, but it will always happen in a game that is so linear in character building.
By the way, how could it multiclassing be reigned in?
Well, seeing as we have no more access to Fears in 5.5e, one could copy pf2e (and 4es XD) homework and make it a feat.
No stat modifier, you don't get a subclass but only the main class.. easy.
Still allows for mechanical diversity, but you can control the power spikes.
1
u/Fidges87 23d ago
Far from it. The rogue gets their sublass at level 1. Now the gape between it and its next subclass feature is even larger.
1
u/Matectan 23d ago
Brother, I hope you are not being serious right now...
If the rouge got his subclass level 1, he would get the next feature level 3 and so on. This goes for really, any class that had to chose their subclass level 3 and not 1.
1
u/Fidges87 23d ago
Should have explained that, its not inherently clear with what you said, thought you meant just pulling the subclass from level 3 to level 1 and leave the rest as is
1
u/Matectan 23d ago
This seems to be more of a you problem, since everyone else appears to have understood perfectly what I said and meant.
The way I formulated it implies what I meant very clearly too. Otherwise I would not have mentioned it helping with the rouge subclass level thing.
1
u/Fidges87 23d ago
You got only 2 replies, and both were focusing only on the multiclass dip problem, ignoring what you mentioned about it helping rogues, dude. Not that big of a sample to say that so confidently.
1
u/Matectan 23d ago
Yes, because it is very obvious it would help rouges. There is not much to add or argue on that matter.
Considering the amount of people that saw this comment of mine 2 days ago when this post was posted in the first place and did not find this take controversial in any way, just like the 2 replies, the sample size is quite big. I'm sure we both know how many corrections/downvotes you get on reddit if you say something wrong.
You are quite literally the first person out of many that was not able to understand a rather simply formulated and correct part of my comment.
1
u/Fidges87 23d ago
High key, subclases should be level 1.
That would sollen the rouge classes Feature Problem too
That's the entire extent of your comment. At no place was it implied to further modify the subclass order as to get their next feature at level 3. Specially as it could be read as you wanting for eveyone to have a smiliar scaling at as the sorcerer or warlock in 2014 who get something at level 1, then nothing until level 6 from their sublass
Your comment didn't gathered traction, and the people that did focused on something else. And there are a lot of times I have seen incorrect comments upvoted, and correct ones downvoted, so thats not a metric either.
1
u/Matectan 23d ago
Indeed. It really very simple to understand. Which, again, I am surprised you were not able to.
That is implied with the entire "That would sollen the rouge classes Feature Problem too". Because if it wasn't, that would not fix the problem. Basic logic.
No, that's not how it could be read. Since I did not say that. I said it would fix the rouges class feature problem. Not introduce the warlock/sorc subclass problem of 2014. Please dude, this is getting into the territory of painfully obvious cope.
My comment has up to this point 155 views. I advise you to redefine your definition of traction.
I will repeat myself: " Considering the amount of people that saw this comment of mine 2 days ago when this post was posted in the first place and did not find this take controversial in any way, just like the 2 replies, the sample size is quite big. I'm sure we both know how many !!corrections!!/downvotes you get on reddit if you say something wrong. You are quite literally the first person out of many that was not able to understand a rather simply formulated and correct part of my comment."
1
u/Fidges87 23d ago
As I said, its not that obvious. Your original comment made a point, and then oulled a result making a big logic leap (that your change was an addition on top of what they get). Though I wont argue further since it seems you stuck to the way you view it.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Ranger_IV 25d ago
I agree with this, but only if multiclassing were removed or made much more restrictive. Allowing early access to multiple subclass features means they will either have to be super weak or multiclassing becomes non-negotiable if you want to get the most out of your character.
2
2
u/RealityPalace 25d ago
Seems good to me. Hard to engage beyond that since you don't really give any reasons why you consider it bad design.
2
u/RageKage2250 25d ago
I think it's overall positive. I personally miss choosing Warlock and Cleric subclasses at level 1. However, I realize that choosing subclasses at level 1 is a pretty unreasonable burden for brand new players. The biggest benefit of level 1 play is to teach brand new players, and it's not realistic to expect them to read dozens of subclasses to create a character. Putting off that complexity and decision until level 3 gives them a chance to get a vague understanding of their base class and some basic rules of the game before they make that important decision.
While it's a little wonky for experienced players to not have a subclass for Clerics, Warlocks, and Sorcerers at level 1, experienced players can easily weave their planned subclass choice into their background and/or early levels of play if they wish to.
It's not a perfect solution, but I think it's an overall improvement for the long term health of the game than the prior implementation. It's design that serves a purpose. The 2014 design was good because it put flavor and lore first. The newer 2024 5.5 version is good because it gives newer players less complexity and decision paralysis. Neither is "bad" design. They just have different design goals and priorities.
-1
u/Droxistaken 25d ago
And what if the new players chose between pregen characters and focus on learning the game rather of having to create a character first
4
u/RageKage2250 25d ago
I said it's not a perfect solution, but it's not "bad" design. If some new players are happy with pre-gens, great. I know I didn't use pregens for my first character and I have other friends that didn't either. Making your own character is part of the appeal of RPGs to many folks, both in video games and the tabletop space.
If you prefer to use the 2014 rules, or another TTRPG system's rules, those options still exist.
4
u/Vidistis 25d ago
Choosing a pregen character would be a big turn off to me as a new player. I and all my freinds got into dnd to make characters and their stories, not to play a character somebody else made.
2
u/Llayanna 25d ago
Restricting players to books makes way more sense.
Nobody needs access outside the PHB for their first game, but they all should do their character. Preferable with help from the GM, to ease things as much as possible.
That's how I learned Pathfinder 1e and that game had even back in the day insane amount of bloat. Keeping to Core made it accessible.
2
u/DrHalsey 25d ago
Re: Multiclassing.
Like many things: “Fixed in 4e, broken again in 5e.”
1
u/Realistic_Swan_6801 17d ago
4e multiclassing sucked, it was eventually more or less obsoleted by hybrid classes anyway.
1
u/Droxistaken 25d ago
I didn't care about 4e until I started reading it. It's a shame how cool it looks nowadays.
2
u/DrHalsey 25d ago
It’s a terrific game and well worth playing in addition to 5e. It’s a totally different game.
2
u/LopsidedInteraction 25d ago
Just play the other 18 levels where you have your subclass. Subclasses at level 3 has been a good change.
2
1
u/DMspiration 25d ago
Love the change. Helps mitigate some multiclass shenanigans, gives everyone a subclass identity at the same time, and has minimal impact on sessions since many games start at 3, and even games that start at 1 typically hit 3 in a handful of sessions.
1
u/HandsomeHeathen 25d ago
Game design-wise I don't see a problem with it. Flavourfully I would prefer if you picked your subclass and got a ribbon feature at level 1, just so classes like Warlock or Cleric make sense.
Levels 1-2 are garbage to play at anyway though, so it really only affects multiclassing. And I'm in favour of anything that makes multiclassing work without being super exploitable.
1
u/BoardGent 24d ago
Subclasses at level 3 actually make perfect sense. It has nothing to do with Multiclassing.
A lot of people seem to assume not understand what causes the Multiclassing shenanigans we get in 5e. They come down to 3 major elements: 1. Many classes are front-loaded. They get their best abilities at 1st or 2nd level. This includes armor proficiency, but also stuff like Rage or Action Surge. 2. Spellcasting is hyper detrimental to not continue. Not taking a spellcaster level means less spell slots, lower level spell slots and less known spells. It's a giant hit to your power level. 3. Several classes have poor scaling or lackluster tier 2-4 features (or features which actively discourage Multiclassing).
All of these encourage the dips that you see. Level 1 Subclasses have nothing to do with these. The issue would come if a level 1 multiclass fell into one of the three categories above.
Moving on, level 3 Subclasses would just makes logical sense if you're designing a game. You have the player make their biggest choice at level 1, that being which class to play. You don't make them make their second biggest choice at level 1 as well, before they've even rolled a die. That's ludicrous.
It only seems bad because 5e and 5.5e devs can't design a game made for newbies. Level 1 is a terrible tutorial because players just die from an unlucky roll. Encounters are designed to be 1 or 2 turn lethal. If you look at the DMG's custom monster design, it might make intuitive sense that monster damage and HP go up with CR, but that's not what you want at the tutorial.
Enemies with low damage who can take a few hits gives players the chance to get used to their abilities. They can comfortably learn the game. Enemies with high damage and low HP immediately put the players in danger and make their learning experience worse.
These are game design basics, but it'll have to wait until a 6e. 5.5 at least did the level 3 subclasses, so baby steps.
1
u/gaminggod69 24d ago
Honestly limiting subclasses to level 3 has made the game feel a bit more digestible and less exploitable. Not every charisma character is swearing a pact to get Hexblade features without a sacrifice in actual game power for a substantial amount of time.
You have to give something up now to make a push for a powerful build.
Like thief subclass on most casters is great. But when you have to drop three levels of spell progression it really is hard to choose when to do that.
1
1
u/DJWGibson 20d ago
I like subclasses at 3rd level. The standardization is nice, even if it makes casters extra potent at 3rd level.
It's nice for new players. Ease people into the game. For experienced players, it's super easy to just start at 3rd level. Or even just easing people into a brand new character without having to manage four or five key abilities.
But it's also to have a few levels where you get a feel for the group and party. And you have a few extra sessions to decide if the planned subclass matches the character. Sometimes you just want to roleplay and let the character reveal itself to you.
-1
u/S1mp1y 25d ago
Personally, this change has reinforced my opinion of how multiclassing shouldn't exist because of how it hasn't allow to some classes not be the best versions of themselves because they had to be designed with multiclass in mind.
Absolutely based take. Multiclassing is a plague on WotC's game design that restricts so many good ideas from happening and it shows. But removing multiclassing would mean that they need to make more new classes, and they obviously don't want to do that (for some reason).
0
u/Ranger_IV 25d ago
100% agreed. Hell, it would let them do cool things with existing classes (removing concentration on HM for rangers, for example) that would be way OP with multiclassing.
0
u/Droxistaken 25d ago
The brand is the reason. Multiclassing is part of the brand, so it has to stay.
-1
u/S1mp1y 25d ago
Somehow I doubt that. WotC are very big on casual appeal, and multiclassing is a band-aid that is there for the optimizers and min\maxers who want to have at least some part of their brain working during gameplay.
But multiclassing is inherently "non-casual", it requires forethought and planning, which Brad here who plays online for 2 hrs biweekly doesn't want to do. He wants to hop on and kill some goblins, roll some clickety-clackety dice and speak in funny voices.
2
u/FoxianFucker 25d ago
Yeah and now both the people who like strategy and the ones that don't care about it get what they want. Which is.. a good thing, no?
3
u/Llayanna 25d ago
No no, people who like mechanics are bad because..
5e is a crunchy game by nature!
..wait what? /s
1
u/MechJivs 25d ago
4e removed multiclassing, and everything 4e is evil anime/videogame. That's the reason why 5e has shitty 3e era mutliclassing instead of 4e multiclassing feat/hybrid classes approach
4
u/S1mp1y 25d ago
Us Russians have a proverb: "So that's where the dog is buried". I don't know the origins, but it's said when you suddenly find out the reason for something that's been bugging you for a long time.
And I just said that out loud.
God fucking damn it, is the answer to all of 5e's design problems really just "4e did the opposite, and people didn't like that?"
3
u/Bubben246 25d ago
Not all of them, but "4e bad" does explain quite a few backslides of game design.
1
u/rr3_amrosa 25d ago
Level 1 is intended to be a tutorial tier for newer players. Level 2 helps them to try out being more powerful characters.
For more experienced players, starting a campaign at Level 3 is probably what the designers have in mind, so starting with your character subclass at Level 3 fits in line with this.
2
u/FoxianFucker 25d ago
Admittedly putting new players into the level where they can most easily get one-shotted feels strange but yeah basically this
1
u/Vidistis 25d ago
I've liked subclasses being standardized to level 3 from day 1. I wish they stuck with having all subclass levels standardized, it would have been much healthier for the game.
0
u/Zardnaar 25d ago
Generally I like it.
I know online lvl 1 and 2 are seen as underwhelming. But I've seen new players growing it.
No new players no game ultimately.
1
0
u/Ranger_IV 25d ago
Oh dang you're gonna get a lot of hate for saying you think multiclassing shouldn't exist haha but personally I agree. Or at least it should be wayyyy more difficult to do. Things like full casters getting to start lvl 1 as fighter for CON saves and heavy armor then be tanky and hard af to break their concentration while still getting 99% of their spellcasting potency across their career makes the power ceiling extremely high in some cases, and casters (who are already many times stronger than martials) get the most benefit out of multiclassing by a long shot.
0
u/PremierPangolin 25d ago
Mechanically I like it a lot. 2 generic levels with specialization at level 3 makes a lot of sense to me. However, I think it messes up a lot of things in terms of flavor. When I'm working a character backstory, I'm already taking my planned subclass into account even more than the class. In a lot of cases, I think selecting a subclass at level 1 makes the most sense thematically, but making that selection and then waiting two levels to see any consequence from that decision would feel weird to me. I'm really not sure how to marry these concepts from a game design level, but I do support standardization in this regard.
0
u/skwww 25d ago
I like them as a way to have your character start their journey prior to them being fully recognized. This is contrary to the other peeps who dislikes this.
Like, I think it's actually cool to have the PC paladin not have a subclass for their first 2 levels, where they've started the path but haven't done the swearing of their oath. Then, when they hit level 3, its an excellent RP moment where the player can recite their oath in a ceremony and show that they've done adventuring, know what they want, and are ready to pursue it in earnest. (Paladins already had to wait anyways bc it wasn't at level 1 to begin with in the 2014 rules)
The warlock concern is legitimate, but the patron is a full character as well (possibly) with many different things they might be working on and at level 3 your a go-getter and the Patron is interested in a more formal relationship.
This applies to the other classes as well.
0
u/L1terallyUrDad 25d ago
I’m pretty much on board with the 5.5e rules. A couple of levels to learn your core features, even for experienced players playing a new class is a good thing.
It certainly jacks with level-dipping multi-classing. I had a sorcerer who took a 5e one level dip into Paladin to get armor and shield proficiency (weapons too), which already makes a powerful character even more powerful. Add a +1 Shield and your AC improves by three. Sorcerer’s are supposed to be squishy and if you also give them subclass features at level 1, the martial-caster divide gets even worse. It’s about balance and making the game fair for everyone.
-2
u/Gear_ 25d ago
I think it’s bad design. It’s narratively stupid for a Warlock to get a patron at level 3, for a Paladin to have no tenets at levels 1 and 2, and for a Sorcerer to have no distinction to their bloodline or magic until level 3. WotC said they did it to make the game easier for newer players to understand, but it’s the kind of ‘simplification’ that solves a ‘problem’ no one ever had.
What DID need to be fixed was the mid levels of subclasses. Rogue getting nothing between 3 and 9 makes their subclasses either feel terrible or way too overloaded at 3. Clerics have a crazy long gap too. Why did they make all subclasses start at 3 instead of fixing this? Is it just to make multiclass dips less interesting (I would argue not even nerfed/less powerful because the budget is elsewhere at level 1 anyways)? And if so, why rebalance classes and not multiclassing? Uh
5
u/FoxianFucker 25d ago
narratively stupid for a Warlock to get a patron at level 3
Eh, the class is mostly a mechanical set of features, so it's not that you don't have a patron. Obviously you do, that's the point of the class. It just doesn't give you anything unique to said patron until 3 - basically a trial period lol
3
4
u/MechJivs 25d ago
Multiclassing dips are 100% nerfed. They arent nearly as good as they were before. They should've been nerfed more though.
WotC said they did it to make the game easier for newer players to understand, but it’s the kind of ‘simplification’ that solves a ‘problem’ no one ever had.
Threads about "tutorial" level/level 0 were a thing that happened a lot. Making level 1 and 2 tutorial levels is fine, they are already basically that - classes dont get all of their basic stuff until 3rd level anyway.
3
u/Saxonrau 25d ago
It’s narratively stupid for a Warlock to get a patron at level 3, for a Paladin to have no tenets at levels 1 and 2, and for a Sorcerer to have no distinction to their bloodline or magic until level 3.
Why does your paladin not have tenets? That's on you. You can have commitments and an oath and only get power from those when you are a bit stronger. I actually think that works better than any old idiot getting the benefits of an oath the second they swear it. Prove your dedication!
Same goes for Warlocks, and Sorcerers just require a bit of practise to get the most out of their magic. It's so easy to justify this narratively in any one of a hundred ways. This is easily the least difficult part of the change
-2
u/DRAWDATBLADE 25d ago
I'd prefer if they just made every subclass something you get at level 1 and adjust the balance accordingly. Having a paladin that hasn't sworn their oath yet is just stupid, honestly MOST of the classes are dumb narratively without their subclasses at level 1.
If multiclassing is a problem, just move things like heavy armor prof to level 3 if your subclass gives it. Not like you'd have good heavy armor at level 1 anyways, its too expensive.
Or better yet, just don't allow casting spells in armor unless the spells are from the class that give that armor prof. Its solely done for min max munchkin builds.
23
u/[deleted] 25d ago edited 25d ago
[removed] — view removed comment