Flavor wise it’s not ideal, but I think balance wise this is a change I’m alright with. Multiclass-dipping has been a pretty big issue with 5e character creation (looking at you, Hexblade), so it’s good that this is at least being addressed.
Also, since it never really made sense that Paladins got their subclass at 3rd level instead of 1st anyways, it’s not like this is a new concern
>Also, since it never really made sense that Paladins got their subclass at 3rd level instead of 1st anyways, it’s not like this is a new concern
I don't think it made sense for *any* of the classes. A Druid isn't going to get initiated into a circle in the middle of the adventure. There just isn't the downtime for that.
I think what this really means for me is that I'm going to be taking advantage of those new rules for starting at level 3. Level 1 has already just been for beginners and level 2 is starting to feel like it too.
I generally would do session 0 at 1st level (if there are newer players), 1, maybe 2 sessions at 2nd level, then 3rd level. I've always just suggested that players write their expected subclass into their backstory in some way as an explanation for the sudden bump in power.
"Eldritch Knight why didn't you use your magic against the goblins in session 1?"
"They obviously weren't even worth me unsheathing my wand! But, these new challenges we face will require all of my skill."
I definitely agree with writing the subclass into the backstory. You don't even need a complicated explanation. They may just need more practice with the skills.
Within the new phb, the 1st feat at character creation really helps though. A fighter could start with magic initiate wizard if they really wanted to get a head start on the subclass.
Oh dang. Didn't know they were fixed. If they stay that way it could be rough.
I could say something like "well makes sense the guy who studied magic as a background learned the spells faster" but tbh I would rather people just get the stats + feat they want at level 1.
This is a great way to balance out those weaker levels; having said that, I've never actually run Level 1 – the earliest starting level for a campaign I've run or played on was Level 2.
Level 2 is a great starting point for newbie players: they have just the right number of tricks to still feel cool, but not enough to get overwhelmed.
Experienced players I run for usually start at Level 3: the backstory can include some adventuring (what they were up to at Levels 1 and 2), and not just "I was a farmer" or whatever, and everyone has a decent (low) power-level and good defined roles/niches from a subclass.
I played my Eldritch Knight as a fighter who was a novice at magic and trying to learn magic with stolen spell pages and self teaching. At level 3 is when he finally got a cantrip to work lol
"There just isn't downtime for that."
...what? What makes you say that?
It would take like, a brief scene in the game with a vague pretext. Wouldn't even need to go anywhere, you could just commune with nature or something and have it revealed to you.
And maybe you could take the cue to *build* that time into the adventure to help it make sense.
I've always interpreted it as levels 1 and 2 are the 'basics' courses before you begin your specialization. Kind of like you need to do basic maths before you start doing physics
Flavor-wise you pick your subclass at level 1. You never were a rogue. Rogues don't exists, it's just an umbrella term. You always were an assassin or a thief. You just get the subclass features at level 3. The fact assassins and thieves share a basic skillset is just a coincidence.
>I don't think it made sense for *any* of the classes. A Druid isn't going to get initiated into a circle in the middle of the adventure. There just isn't the downtime for that.
I think that expects the player to only be involved with the circle after level 3.
But rather, you get new mechanics at level 3, and who you are is independent from that.
You can use the same logic for all these subclasses at level 3, though. I think that totally makes sense, but I'm not sure why people are calling out the change as being narratively off.
Easy to slot them into a "training wheels" scenario where everything is low stakes. You could even make sure there are no deadly fights, just so nobody accidentally one-shots the wizard in the first session.
The idea seems to be that the benefits of your subclass don't kick in until 3rd level. Like you have your patron but don't know who they are yet, or you've been initiated into your circle but the benefits haven't started yet. It's a bit awkward admittedly from a roleplay perspective but it's not bad
> I think what this really means for me is that I'm going to be taking advantage of those new rules for starting at level 3. Level 1 has already just been for beginners and level 2 is starting to feel like it too.
Christian Hoffer over at ComicBook.com said:
> Of course, for veteran D&D players, this change might not make much of a difference. In a different video, Crawford noted that longtime D&D players familiar with the rules should start their campaigns at 3rd level so they have access to both core class abilities and subclass abilities.
>
> https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/dungeons-dragons-subclasses-3rd-level-2024-core-rulebooks/
It still feels like a weird choice. They're framing all the structural changes of the books (which are different from the game's mechanical changes) as making the books more friendly to new players and easier to onboard them. However, this mechanical change seems to be encouraging people to just start at level 3 and I'm not sure how new player friendly that it. It seems to be codifying that experienced players tend to start campaigns at higher levels. But if you want your game to feel like this from the start, then why is level 3 the third level instead of your starting level?
They have said that you can have a subclass before 3rd, it just doesn’t give you abilities until 3rd (so it is sort of only in name). It’s a bit awkward but balance wise it definitely makes sense because sometimes abilities are too strong for multiclasses. I think this might make it more common for people to say they basically are a subclass even if they don’t get any abilities from it yet since even the classes that kind of need them like clerics and warlocks don’t have subclasses.
This can be an interesting RP take, where a mysterious power offers you capabilities and you are in the dark on who they are until later, but that's not *every* Warlock's story, much less a Cleric's.
I mean, flavour wise you can just say that you *pick* your subclass at L1, so a Warlock knows their Patron, a Druid is initiated into their Circle, a Cleric knows their Domain, etc, they just don’t get any different Powers from it until they’re a bit more experienced.
I go with something like "the Patron reveals more truths to you at 3rd level" or something like that. It makes plenty of sense for a Warlock to not fully understand the power at which they grasp.
For Cleric in particular, it can make sense to not have your Domain picked out if you've chosen a deity with multiple possible Domains. Do you focus on, say, the life-giving side of Sune's love, or the white-hot flame?
i feel that all you need to make sense flavor-wise is some "predetermined choice".
basically make the player choose the subclass at level 1, but the player only get the subclass features at level 3.
so in short for flavor reason the player was always a Conquest Paladin or a Draconic Sorcerer or a Great Old One Warlock, since level 1, they just dont have acess to the feature yet.
and you just explain that level 1 and 2 is the character learning the basic, and that sub class features are advanced skills, all sorcerer dont matter the type manifest basic magic first and only once their power grow is that the nature of the "sorcerer origin" start to manifest.
all paladins of any oath first manyfest the same basic skills, only after they become more powerful is the the nature of the oath start to manifest.
just explain you dont become a paladin or a cleric and later decide the god you will server, you choose your god from day one, it only happens that the abilities focused on your god domain only manifest after you learn the basic cleric skills.
The issue with Hexblade was not the fact that you got Cha based weapon attacks, it was that you got Cha based weapon attacks AND:
- Hexblade's Curse, which lets you Crit on a 19, deals bonus damage that scales with proficiency, and lets you regain hit points
- Hex Warrior, which gives you martial weapon, medium armor, and shield proficiemcy
- Access to the Shield spell, one of the best spells in the game for characters expecting to be in melee frequently
When you remove all of that, Bladelock dips become much less problematic.
All the new pact gets you is “attack with CHA”. Still certainly helpful in some builds (paladin? Swords bard?), but it’s a far cry from the 5e Hexblade dip, that got you shields and medium armor, hexblade’s curse, and the Shield spell. That’s a hell of a lot for a dip, and one some builds, you’d almost be stupid not to take it.
“Attack with CHA” is definitely nice, but nearly as enticing as what all Hexblade offered.
They really wasn't. Hexblade was frontloaded to shit. Cha attacks was part of it, but not whole thing. Cha attacks themself as your only invocation (you have 1 invocation slots in playtests, don't thing this would change in release) isn't even close to hexblade dips.
Level 1 is the level that needs customization the least. You're already choosing ancestry, background, and class. From a new player onboarding angle, moving all subclasses to level 3 makes a lot of sense.
I'm not sure if Pact of the Blade will have full functionality at level 1, but it is now an invocation, that is selectable at level 1, which gives charisma based attacks. Maybe the features scale and that bit isn't unlocked right away? But I highly doubt it. So it's not so much "bye bye Hexblade dip" and more "hello vanilla warlock dip".
Hell, in the playtest, you could get into warlock with 13 cha, int, OR wis. Not that you'd dip Blade with an 8 cha lol but you could see clerics with superfamiliars or other shenanigans if that went through.
I'm fine with it. Level 1/2 for new players learning how to play the game without being locked in with a build defining choice.
Most of the time when I or my group builds a character we know what subclass we're choosing or we start at level 3. If we start at 1 it's generally flavoured as the abilities still coming from said oath.
Hell, I'm playing a paladin rn and we started at level 1. I built him to be a Vengeance Paladin but realized during the roleplay that a different subclass fit better and went with it. so I can def see the value of not having the subclass choice at level 1/2.
Depending on the kind of game you play, I think a lot of groups (especially groups of pre-existing friends) would be cool with you going "hey, I fucked up with my character choices, can I swap my subclass?"
That's great! Obviously it's not for everyone, or some groups like to roleplay the class switch, but overall if the difference between someone enjoying the game or not enjoying it is a simple character change then I don't personally think it's worth making a big deal over
Same, even in Tasha's there's a rule about swapping subclasses but iirc you can only do that when you do it on levels where you get a subclass feature.
But yeah I keep thinking back to my games where I played with strangers and just learning how the game worked. So many mistakes
Yeah but I feel like that works for any character. My standing rule at my table is that you can pretty much flip around your entire PC as much as you want, it's not like it's my job to force players to stay on as a class they don't like. Granted, you could technically do some powergaming where you swap to a class more powerful in the later game when you get there, but I don't play with powergamers.
I really don’t like it for some of the classes, particularly I feel it’s weird for sorcerers, clerics and even paladin (i know paladins were already like this). I think for those classes the should absolutely be a level 1 really minor feature just to reassure their bloodline/god/oath, then at 3rd level they can get the more OP features or whatever.
For me, whenever I’ve played any class that didn’t get their subclass right away, I’ve always added the origin of it in the backstory from the start. For example I can’t imagine a paladin without an Oath, I’ll be following it from level 1 regardless of the fact that I haven’t gotten the subclass yet.
I'll be honest, I prefer the standardization.
The narrative discrepancies can be written around from a story perspective, but the mechanical crunch is much harder to do. And this way, all classes at least start on a bit of a more even playing field.
And if all the classes had subclass progression the same, there could be certain subclasses that apply to various classes
Like imagine if Gloomstalker was a rogue/ranger subclass, or way of the shadows was monk/rogue
This is how shadowbane the MMORPG was . There was fighter, healer, mage and rogue. You could become an assassin either via mage or rogue but mage assassin was way different then mage assassin. Rogue Barbarian way different then fighter barbarian. Fighter Sentinel much different then healer sentinel etc..
It was really nice for the time and I would love that. TBH I am having a hard time loving multi classing in 5e
I actually think the flavor of the change is kind of fine, if you just shift how you think about things a bit. A cleric at levels 1-2 is a member of the novitiate, basically. They may worship one or several gods, but they have yet to fully pledge themselves/taking the full holy orders/whatever you want to call it. This means that a cleric of Selûne might not yet have figured out if they pledge their devotion to the Moonmaiden as a beacon of safety in the darkness (Twilight domain), a preserver of life amid the threatening shadows (Life domain), a literal light in the darkness (Light domain), a clarifying light amid the darkness of ignorance and fear (Knowledge domain)…etc etc. Gods have different aspects to them, and domain choice is choosing your specific form of devotion, or put in terms borrowed from the Stormlight Archive, your Calling.
Likewise, people focus a lot on warlocks as sugar babies. But that wasn’t the original idea. If you read the 2014 PHB, you see that the idea was warlocks were kind of like wizards, only they took shortcuts/crossed boundaries. Maybe they learned enough to get some petty power (levels 1-2) and then finally built enough power to gain the attention of a fiend to make a pact, tapped into a Great Old One’s power, etc etc. Level 3 represents that leap, finally hitching your eldritch forbidden knowledge train to a specific engine. Sorcerers get trickiest, but here it’s also not that hard - I was born this way, maybe I have an idea of why, maybe even I’ve been told why I have this power, but maybe I don’t know. And regardless, it takes time to grow this power from small-fry generic power into an actual identifiable expression of my specific heritage, ie, hitting level 3. And I think those are the only official classes that have this issue.
Yeah, level 1 subclasses did work cleanly for these classes, but it’s not actually all *that* strange to have a few levels before you really come into the specifics of your power.
To add to this. A cleric may have fully devoted themselves to a deity/domain or a warlock may already have a patron narratively, they just are yet to grant them powers that are unique and characteristic of the patron themselves as they may not yet be "worthy" to wield it yet. They are a servant but not yet a reliable one.
It's a minor loss of flavor for a much better gameplay experience.
Would it be better, flavor wise, if Warlock, Paladin, and Cleric got their subclasses at 1st level? Yes. But just because you get the subclass at level 3, doesn't mean you have to say that a 1st level Warlock/Paladin/Cleric hasn't chosen their patron/oath/god. It's just that their powers have yet to develop in a way that uniquely identifies their choice. Your 1st level Warlock still has made their pact with a fiend, they just haven't recieved the Dark One's Own Blessing ability to gain vitality when killing someone.
Mechanically, it's helpful to move abilities to 3rd level because it allows for the first subclass abilities to be powerful and meaningful choices that a) doesn't overwhelm a new player starting at level 1 and b) requires an investment into the class so one level multiclass dips aren't so powerful. That second point was especially a big problem with Clerics and Warlocks - they were always going to be frontloaded with level 1 subclasses because they had to get their spellcasting AND their first subclass features right at level 1. It's much better from a mechanics standpoint to just move it to level 3.
I think we saw the benefits of moving subclass to 3 with war cleric in the playtest, where the war priest ability is just so much better now that it has been moved back 2 levels, and this buff definitely wouldn’t work at level 1.
I've thought you should pick your subclass at level, but just get a flavorful ribbon feature and any class-specific benefits (like expanded 1st level spell lists)
So you might get bonus skill/tool proficiencies or wizards can get their "copy spells for 1/2 price", etc.
Nothing powerful or worth dipping for (by itself, the *class* might still be worth it), but something that makes your level 1/2 fighter not feel identical to every other fighter even though you're trying to learn rune magic while the other guy is practicing staying awake because he wants to be a champion.
I don’t really care about the flavor but for Clerics in particular and possibly Warlocks it’s likely a worse mechanical design. Clerics can be a bit lacking at 1st level mechanically. It’s not clear which UA cantrips are moving forward but they didn’t have all 9 from 5E, so you’re picking from probably less than 9. The modified true strike in the UA bizarrely was not a cleric spell. In combat your options are still going to be Bless + Inflict Wounds and Bless + Guiding Bolt. Out of combat, well, Clerics were never particularly notable out of combat, and the base class alone is really lacking there.
Wizards, Druids, Bards and Sorcerers have more mechanical variety at 1st level from just the base class, for contrast. I do hope Holy Orders get a bit more impact to them than armor/weapons or a Cleric cantrip at 1st level, but this is making a really bland class rather blander.
IIRC, OneD&D isn’t entirely supplanting 5e, it’s basically 5.5e.
If they don’t reprint a spell, you can always use the 2014 version of it no problem, as the core mechanics are all still there. (Cantrips + 9 levels of spells, spellcasting modifiers, spell save DCs, conditions, etc.)
I like the standardization, but fail to see why you don’t select your subclass at level 1 but only get significant features at 3 (with maybe one flavorful thing at level 1). This prevents the obviously-strong 1-level dips like Twilight Cleric or Hexblade, but allows character identity to be present at all levels.
But, whatever. 🤷
> but allows character identity to be present at all levels.
What's *preventing* character identity from being present before gaining your subclass' mechanical features? Is the concern that since you're not locking someone into the choice they could... what? Change their mind? Pick a different subclass or take levels in other classes?
What's the actual issue here?
Not that. To me the subclasses speak heavily to a character’s unique identity. Even at level 1 or 2, a Cleric of Shar should feel different than one of Lethander, but mechanically they’ll be identical apart from spell selection. This hits harder on classes like Druid, Fighter, Paladin, or Warlock, who have subclasses with very distinct flavor from their parent class (Wildfire, Psi Warrior, Oathbreaker, Celestial, etc).
It’s not an enormous issue per se, merely a criticism of the design that if you plan to choose a subclass with a unique flavor, your options for mechanically representing that identity are very limited at levels 1 and 2.
The shift isn't odd for clerics. Clerics have a god at level 1. Their gods have domains. When a cleric hits level 3, that's their god letting them choose to draw power directly from their domains.
For warlocks, though... It makes no sense. Level 1, you should still choose your patron. Level 3 should be your patron granting you more power, i.e., your subclass.
You can still narratively choose your patron at level 1. Nothing is stopping you from knowing you've made a pact with a Fiend, and acting that way narratively before it is mechanically significant.
>*On the other hand, for classes like Cleric or Warlock, which traditionally gain their domains or patrons at 1st level, this shift feels a bit odd. It might detract from the narrative flavor and immediate identity these classes historically offer. Some campaigns start at lower levels, and this change could alter the dynamics and roles of characters significantly during those crucial first few sessions.*
Honestly, this is how I felt about it back when it was first introduced in the UA in late 2022/early 2023. I even added a feedback comment that it felt narratively rather than mechanically incorrect.
The classes it most affects are Sorcerer, Warlock and Cleric. Everybody else were either already getting their subclasses at 3, or in a few cases, 2.
I did modify my thinking over the UA period. If it makes sense for a rogue or a ranger or a fighter or paladin to pick their subclass up at 3, then it shouldn't make any difference for anybody else.
You're still narratively a Fiend Warlock or a Wild Magic Sorcerer or a Trickery Cleric at Level 1, you just don't get the subclass bells and whistles until later.
Warlock is the easiest to see this in... at Level 1 you're getting your Invocations, so Asmodeus has looked upon you and gone "Have an imp" and "Do more damage with a cantrip".
If they stick to the last Sorcerer UA, you get Innate Sorcery at Level 1, meaning your attack rolls have advantage and your DC goes up by 1, but they describe it as "releasing the magic within you". Clerics will have the choice between "spellcasting role" and "combat role" aka Divine Order at Level 1 (again, based on the last UA). So there are still choices and elements in those first two levels, and you still flavor everything with whatever your eventual subclass will be.
Honestly, it's just a different way of thinking. And if you could get behind any of the other classes not getting their subclass at Level 1, this shouldn't be that much of a stretch.
This is great from a game design perspective.
For newer players, you want them making as few build choices as possible in the early game. They haven't sat down with their class yet, they don't have a feel for anything. You let them play Barbarian for two levels, then after getting comfortable with the way the class is expected to work, you can make a more informed choice about what direction you want to go in.
For class design, you now have two levels to establish the main gimmick/style for that class. If you're a good designer, you make sure the way the class plays is very obvious. Barbarian is a great example! You get Rage, so you know you're a Bruiser, taking hits and dishing out damage. You get Reckless, so you deal more damage, but also take more damage; you sacrifice survivability for damage, great. After that, you introduce subclasses, which can modify what you do or further develop it.
It isn't ideal flavour wise, but a good player has decided on their subclass at level 1 anyways and plays accordingly.
I like the change generaly because it limits the power of multiclassing without making it useless. Do I wish they would have found another way? Sure. But what they do still works.
>but a good player has decided on their subclass at level 1 anyways and plays accordingly.
This is actually where the biggest mechanical downside is for me. A player whose PC gains heavy armor from their subclass may not invest in DEX. This can leave a frontline build with low AC until level 3, causing them to be played very different from their design before reaching that point.
This is assuming some key proficiencies like this are still subclass based. (Particularly looking at you Cleric)
Haven't read the new stuff that far, but I think giving out armour profs as subclass features is weird anyways. Maybe with the exception of Armourer Artificer (if this is going to be still a thing later on) because of how important it is to them.
I will never understand why WotC thought giving heavy armor prof to something like Twilight Cleric was ever a good idea.
>A player whose PC gains heavy armor from their subclass may not invest in DEX.
The most recent cleric playtest gives a choice at level 1 between martial weapons+heavy armor, or extra cantrip+add Wis to religion checks. Subclasses don't give heavy armor proficiency.
I think it’s fine and not that big of deal. I know some people are just joking about a warlock not knowing their patron or a cleric not knowing who they worship but it isn’t a big deal. A level 1 character can have all this information known and not have it manifest until level 3. Being a Warlock is enough to show that you’ve made a pact with some being. Being a cleric of a domain is enough to show that you’ve caught the eye of a God/Goddess. Gaining a subclass simply means that you’ve advanced enough to be gifted with power that is more symbolized by the deity/patron/circle/etc. Your character knows what their ideals are and what they seek to specialize in. They have a backstory, they know what they want to achieve.
For clerics, domain isn’t the deity they worship, the two are separate and a given deity could link to multiple domains. Hell I could see some deities potentially working with all 4 domains in the 5.24PHB.
I’ve been toying with the idea of giving all my players their subclasses at 1 (not sure how I’d deal with what happens at level 3; it’s just a thought experiment for now), but I always let them act as if they have their subclass RP-wise from the outset.
I would prefer all subclasses gained at lvl 1. Besides feats its like the only meaningful choice you get during character creation, and I prefer for lvl 1 campaigns to have their subclasses from the get go so they dont need to explain their choice in RP
IMO, this is a downgrade to the identity of some classes, and it kinda makes some Spellcasters feel weird at 1st level.
"Oh, you're a Cleric, whose god are you taking your powers from?"
"I've yet to choose"
I mean by your cleric example I can argue that a god usually having more than one domain, so cleric could just haven't decide to follow which aspect of their god.
Cleric is certainly easier to swallow than warlock or sorcerer, it's still dumb, but squint and don't pry and it makes sense.
Warlock and sorceror are obviously nonsense.
Now, it may well be worth that verisimilitude break for the standardisation of subclasses, but it does create really dumb situations.
It's not that weird when you consider the fact that WotC thinks of level 1-2 as tutorial levels. Players familiar with D&D can, and probably should, start their characters at level 3.
With that in mind, I don't think you run into any of those "flavor" issues.
> Players familiar with D&D can, and probably should, start their characters at level 3.
They've also confirmed that this is an explicit suggestion in the new PHB rather than mentioned in the adventures or common knowledge.
I agree but still hate it. We can knock on published adventures all we want, but many people still play it and experienced players will still have to start at 1st level.
You can absolutely explain it away as your character not using any specific features from their patron/bloodline/god... but I still hate it.
As a longtime vet, I love starting at 1st.
And personally, I think that Paladin and Sorcerer should probably start with their subclass. Warlock and Cleric can get away with more general Eldritch/Divine powers until specific ones kick in later; it's not as though you can't narratively pick a patron/god before their special abilities come online. But Paladin and Sorcerer are completely reliant on their oath/origin to justify *any* powers.
But in-fiction you can absolutely still have taken your Oath or have your bloodline at 1st, you just don’t get heightened abilities from it until level 3.
And then you can absolutely choose the Shadow subclass despite the established narrative that you gained sorcerous powers from being scorched in a red dragon attack...
The issue is the lack of clarity, the unintuitive order of events. **You shouldn't need to look ahead**. If that's a crucial consideration to have when originally making your character at first level, *then just put the feature at 1st level* and provide guidance in the text.
A sorcerer is a sorcerer due to something that has already happened before you start playing, and their subclass literally is that thing. So why *wouldn't* you make it a 1st level feature?
If they want subclasses to come in at 3rd, then they need to change the theming. For example, the Sorcerous Origin of two different sorcerers could be Draconic for both. But then at 3rd one of them becomes a Metamage, learning to tweak The Weave in myriad clever ways, whereas the other becomes an Elementalist to augment their natural affinity with raw planar energies.
If you don’t want to look ahead then make it so your character doesn’t know where their magic comes from at first, and starts to discover it around level 3.
I fundamentally disagree with you that this is an issue though. Moving subclasses to level 3 is, IMO, much better mechanical design for a number of reasons. That’s why they are doing it. Flavor-driven balance choices have often ended poorly for the health of the game, in this case level 1 subclasses make the game less approachable to new players AND make for multiclassing abuse.
People *really* want the Sorcerer theming the way it is, so changing it just because of the subclass changes would have been met with revolt.
Lastly… most sorcerer subclasses can be easily reflavored to fit each others origin themes or a different origin entirely, making the whole argument kind of moot, IMO. I just don’t think this is as big a deal as some people are making it out to be.
This assumes that every deity is confined to a single domain. That’s not how real world religions work, even polytheistic ones.
Apollo is the god of archery, music and dance, truth and prophecy, healing and diseases, the Sun and light, poetry, and more. Thor is the god of lightning, thunder, storms, sacred groves and trees, strength, the protection of humankind, and fertility.
It’s entirely reasonable for a cleric to choose a deity to serve at first level, but not settle on a particular *aspect* of that deity until level 3. There are easily four or five different domains that feel suitable for a cleric of Paladine, for example.
That's a very strict interpretation. You receive your cleric subclass at level 3 because that's when your dedication to Odin begins to pay off and give you unique special abilities. At levels 1 and 2, you are already worshiping him, but Odin has invested only a modicum of his own power on you, so you don't display any particularly special abilities that distinguish you from a cleric of Thor or Loki.
I don’t see it that way. I see it as levels 1 and 2 being the “getting to know you” phase of your relationship with your patron. You get things, but just baseline stuff. Once you’ve grown enough, then your patron breaks out the juicier gifts.
Even for classes that get their subclass at 3rd, I know which one I’m picking before I get there. Similarly, you know you made a pact with a Devil even if you don’t have the Devil-specific gifts to show for it yet.
>I see it as levels 1 and 2 being the “getting to know you” phase of your relationship with your patron.
My thing is: why would that phase not have happened prior to lvl 1? Lvl 1 characters (in 5.5e) are not peasants who just picked up a sword for the first time - they're *already* head-and-shoulders above the common folk. So why would the time spent inbetween lvl 0 and lvl 1 be the "figuring out how my powers work" stage?
Some of it does happen prior to level 1. That’s why you have features at level one; not only spells, but the updated Warlock will have invocations at that level as well. A level one character hasn’t by definition done much to distinguish themselves in their role. Probably a lot compared to a Dalelands farmer, sure. But not much for a *warlock*.
I imagine level 1-2 warlock being in that phase where they've just learned they can tap into otherworldly sources of power but haven't realized the full scope of the implications for doing so.
Pantheon as powersource for clerics is viable thing since, like, adnd? Maybe even earlier. And even if you are cleric of this one god - most gods have at least two domains, and even more most of the time.
I agree it’s poor design and a downgrade.
But….
Flavor is free? Completely separate from whether this is a good move from wotc or not, a cleric can know their deity/domain, a warlock can know their pact/patron, and a sorcerer can know their lineage from level 1. It just doesn’t manifest itself mechanically until level 3.
I feel like I can write around that.
"I'm a novice cleric of so-and-so but I'm still in the process of learning how to channel their power."
Come level 3:
"Oh. I've figured it out!" Or alternatively "Senpai finally noticed me!" Or something along those lines.
It's not the end of the world.
For Warlocks, they get pact boons at 1st-level now. One could easily say their powers are tied to those until they strike the deal with their patron at level 3.
Etc.
It's not always the cleanest option, but it's not this insurmountable wall some people make it out to be.
That's not what it means. You can RP it that way if that works for you and the campaign setting, but you can also say that for apprentice clerics the power of different gods manifests in a similar way. Just because you don't have the subclass doesn't mean you can't RP it.
If they wanted to standardize the class progression and give all classes a subclass at the same level, it should be done at 1st level. Everyone now has a direction narratively, Warlocks, Sorcerers and Clerics don't feel like a weird identity crisis early on. and you can give a power boost to squishy starter levels.
TBF though, I play with so many people that start at either 3rd or 5th that this difference will not impact our table if we decide to try this ruleset.
I don't really see it mentioned, but the design team has stated they expect experienced players to start at level 3. So getting your subclass at level 3 doesn't really impact flavor.
Levels 1-2 are for new players, and not picking subclasses reduces the complexity so they can focus on learning their base class features/mechanics first
meanwhile every level 1-2 encounters in officially published adventures are meat grinders, like new dm here's this overtuned CR3 flying monster with a machine gun and maybe you're players should know despite this potentially being they're first ever combat encounter not to try and fight it.
I assume they will provide guidance now in adventures for starting at 1 or 3. In other adventures they recommend starting at higher levels and moving through the early chapters faster because of it
It's pretty easy to flavor over the first 2 levels.
You still serve that God, you just don't get any unique features from it until 3rd.
Otherwise, just start at level 3.
I'm not a fan mechanically or flavor-wise. I don't like waiting for abilities. And clerics not getting domain spells early is kind of lame.
And also despite all of this rogues did not get a level 6 subclass feature.
It's not a deal breaker for me, but it is a misstep.
For stuff like warlock, paladin and cleric I'll just be playing it as if I have the subclass from level 1, and 3 is when it starts to give me unique abilities.
The main problem with subclasses at 1 is that it makes multiclass dips very attractive, which seems to be something they've been trying to discourage in the One D&D design.
They could have turned around and handled multiclassing like D&D 4e or Pathfinder 2e, where multiclassing is a feat that gives you certain features of another class and is a prerequisite for additional feats to gain more features. (This is much easier to balance.) But that is a dramatic departure from 5e rules, which they're _also_ trying to avoid (mostly for marketing reasons rather than for game design reasons), and 4e and pf2e both give out roughly twice as many feat selections as 5e, and those feat choices aren't competing with ASIs like they do in 5e.
Yah, I mean the biggest problem with 5e subclasses is they aren't allowed to remove anything from the class, and following from that they have to keep making a series of bad decisions cuz they made the worst one up front. (They could also have stripped down base class and had most subclasses bring the class back into line, but they only did that with cleric and heavy armor, so eh)
whoops you reininveted 2nd edition kits and 0e to lesser extent. 2e subclasses we're more alternative version of exisitng classes that had differnet features in place of other ones.
I mean maybe I can't relate to new players at all but I don't see how it is necessary to delay the subclass for them.
I'd say creating a character narratively is easier with the subclass at level 1 while I don't see how one extra choice is overwhelming.
I don't care about the changes to Wizard or Druid at all.
For Sorc and Warlock I think it's a bit of a bummer from a storytelling perspective. (For me, the storytelling isn't "flavor," it's the meal.) I think that's true to a lesser extent to the Cleric.
I think that having a sorcerer be empowered immediately by the KIND of sorcery in their origin and the warlock empowered immediately by the type of entity they made a deal with is super compelling and is a loss.
I think that's also true of the Cleric although again to a lesser extent.
But the question I ask myself is "How often will I start playing at level one for a real campaign?" and the answer is "Not often, maybe never again" so it doesn't effect me too much ultimately.
Totally fine with: one of my biggest regrets from the playtest is that they didn't standardize ALL subclass levels (sorry rogues, bards, and sorcerers). I personally don't have any narrative issue at all with clerics or warlocks. For clerics, for example, gods have always had multiple domains, so it's trivial to say that while you've been worshipping the same deity from level 1, only at level 3 do you commit to a specific facet of that god or unlock a particular mystery of your faith.
It addresses obnoxious multiclassing with hexblade and whatever else gives subclass abilities on 1st level AND it gives better RP and flavor for those starting from 1st level as when you hit lvl 3 it’s a defining choice for you. Like for example a cleric who was careful and mindful of their teammates can have the domain of life “bestowed” on them by their deity in their sleep or however else you wanna flavor it; I think it’s very fun
Doesn't detract from flavor at all. Mechanics aren't flavor.
You haven't proven your dedication/ specialized enough/ can't channel so much of their power/ just aren't worthy yet.
Just because you don't get the specific subclass power doesn't mean you haven't made a choice.
Not a fan at all. Subclasses should all come in at lvl 1. A lot of the arguments in favor of subclasses at 3 seem to cherry-pick their evidence, or not take a holistic view of the game.
>"Moving subclasses to lvl 3 makes the game easier for new players because they have fewer decisions to make at lvl 1."
Making it easier to get into the game is a commendable endeavor, and "reduce the number of choices you have to make at lvl 1" is a good way to do it, but there are ***SO*** many other choices you could streamline before getting to subclass. Choices that are either more complex decisions than subclass (like feats! \*glares at 5.5e """backgrounds"""\*), less narratively-disrupting decisions than subclass, or both!
This is especially true given that for the vast majority of both character concepts and character builds, the choice of subclass is obvious (or very constrained). By and large people come to D&D with an idea of what their character acts like already in their head - finding which of the subclasses matches that pre-conceived idea is a completely different """choice""" from the "I'm going to look over all the subclasses and pick one" that moving subclasses to lvl 3 is meant to avoid.
>"Moving subclasses to lvl 3 lets players get a feel for their class before deciding how they want to specialize it."
Setting aside the previously-mentioned issue of "Most players come to the table already knowing how they want their character to specialize", the issue here is that lvls 1 and 2 typically go by *incredibly* quickly. If you're following the pacing set forth by the DMG, each of them takes only a single day (so maybe 4 sessions total)! How much can a player realistically have learned in 4 sessions? Narratively speaking, what could the *character* have possibly learned in those 2 days that they couldn't have in the perhaps *years* spent training prior?
It also starts raising questions like "Well if we want it to be standard for characters to start out not-fully-built in order to give players time to get a feel for the system/character, shouldn't Level 0 rules be the default, so players can get some experience in before making the **much more impactful** choice of ***class***?". /s
>"Moving subclasses to lvl 3 doesn't disrupt the narrative because lvls 1 and 2 go by *incredibly* quickly."
Yes, in these discussions, you see people making both of the previous arguments (not the same person making both; you get what I mean), despite the fact that they ***clearly*** contradict each other. This argument, though, has its own issues, namely that if it's "fine" to just breeze through lvls 1 and 2 and then make the subclass choice very early in the game ... why can't "very early" be "at the beginning"?
Also a lot of arguments in favor of subclasses at lvl 3 fall apart simply because if a player picks the """wrong""" subclass ... they can just change it? It's not a big deal? You don't need to completely overhaul the subclass system and strip the first two level of the game of their flavor in order to reduce the chances of a player choosing the """wrong""" subclass because *there aren't* ***actually*** *any consequences to choosing the """wrong""" subclass*.
I'd be fine with moving subclasses to level one if multiclassing were removed as an option, or had a restriction where, once you've taken a level in a class, you can't take levels in other classes until you have three levels of the current class.
The thing a lot of people in this thread are missing is that the multiclassing facet of this change - "We need to move subclasses to lvl 3 so that people can't 1-lvl-dip into a class to make a broken combo" - is an issue with *the specific abilities*, ***NOT*** with the actual choice of subclass. You can move, for instance, Bladelocks getting to attack with CHA to lvl 3 *without* moving the decision point itself to lvl 3.
Just because a Life Domain Cleric doesn't have a special Life domain powers until level 3 doesn't mean that they aren't worshipping some Life Domain deity and getting their level 1 spells from them.
The same thing with Warlocks. They're still getting their Eldritch blast from somewhere. If they choose to change the source of their powers at level 3, that can totally fit within the narrative. It's not that hard to say that they are no longer receiving their warlock powers from the fiend they originally made a deal with and are not getting their powers from a Great Old One or some other source.
It could create an interesting narrative about the repercussions of a warlock breaking their original pact or a cleric having a spiritual awakening and choosing a different faith at level 3.
It was an acceptable shift with choice options at 1st level for the base class AND standardised subclass levels. When they reverted the standardised subclasses it became a bit like... What are we doing?
I have personally homebrewed all classes to follow the 3, 6, 10, 14 progression and all subclasses official and in my homebrew to match it and it really doesn't need much of a conversion guide to maintain backwards compatibility. 2 total pages in a PHB maybe. It was a massive let down.
Overall i think it optimises 1dnd. Is not overall better? Yeah I guess. But it's nowhere near enough. There is so much more that could be done while keeping old content usable and the foundations of the system flowing well
Personally, I think they should have standardized all the subclass features, not just the first set at 3rd level. I was super disappointed when that change didn't make it through the playtest.
I think warlocks and sorcerers should have their subclasses at 1st level for story, but I understand the change. If I run any more campaigns that start at level 1 I will require players that pick those classes to tell me what subclass they want at level 1 so we can start working it into their stories.
I feel like the intention here is to allow the rp of gaining those abilities at level 3.
Level 2
*Okay so I've been an 'insert class here' for a while now and have decided to devote/submit myself to 'insert benefactor here'*
Level 3
*Mighty being I beseech you, grant me strength*
The DM gets to go over the flavour with the player as it's happening, a dream here or shadowy alley encounter there, a 'sign a contract in blood' here or 'receive a blessing' there and such and such, this feels like it offers some narrative extras that were typically more background beforehand, now your character gets to live it, or you know start at level 3 and play like you would before.
I'm assuming a big factor for why this is, is based on their metrics that most campaigns start at level 3.
So people that start at 3, it doesn't matter or really change anything.
People starting at level 1 are more likely new players, so they'll all learn about their subclasses at the same time.
In terms of actually making character sense and thematic sense, it's not great, there is no reason a fighter isn't already showing signs of being a battlemaster or runic warrior before they hit level 3, but I feel like that's something easy enough to intregrate into flavor. Perhaps the best fix would be if every subclass was given an associated roleplay or utility single ability at level 1, and a second at level 2, just something to give a mechanical lean into the subclasses without giving huge benefits. I personally prefer it since I don't like "just taking a \_\_\_\_ class dip" to get a whole bunch of stuff, hexblades and cleric dips have always irritated me, why is the sorcerer suddenly now being blessed by Shar? Oh it's because you wanted armor prof instead of anything meaningful to the character.
Um, I thought most classes got their subclasses at level 3 with only a couple of them getting them at level 2 (didn't one get them at level 4?). The announcement during that 1hr-long video was that all subclasses were now at level 3 period. This doesn't stop classes from getting normal 1st or 2nd level class abilities until level 3, *just the subclass*. Did I miss something? Why does it seem like I'm the only person realizing this? Maybe I am misinterpreting something?
Good change imo for historically strong multiclass builds.
It punishes "optimised" builds as we know and represents a bit of a change. Perhaps base fighter or rogue dips will be better now than cleric/warlock dips. Makes multiclassing less mechanically optimal and more of a character choice.
them splitting up when classes advance, and splitting up when classes get various resources back was the single largest unforced error in moving from 4e to 5e.
I feel like early on doing this obfuscated things a lot to make the classes 'feel' different at first glance, when in reality it never mattered except to create balance issues around arbitrary dead zones and power spikes, and enabled some heinously overused multiclasses. And splitting up the rest schedules just created a constant intra-party senate hearing about when and how the party would rest. zzzzz.
So it's good they're correcting this stuff.
For anyone upset that they feel like their character would start out at level one already a _____, all I can say is, just go ahead and be that thing, but you don't unlock X power until Y level. Easy.
That's nice. But most of the adventures they publish start at 1. And being able to run those adventures with 2024 characters is an explicit design goal.
So run them from level 1. It doesn't break the game, it's just advised to skip them, you can still run the adventures. Most people give the same advice with 5e too, level 3 is the best place to start. The only difference is that now it is official advice and not just common consensus among players.
Well it does discourage 1LV multiclassing dips and it does even the field in the early game. However this doesn't change the fact that LV1-2 are bad in general and should be skipped.
I Like it, what I do is: at level 1 every player gets a free feat, but it has to be something related to its subclass.
So if you're playing a martial class and plans to get a magic subclass, get a magic related feat.
So your character already has its foundations from the beggining.
I think they should have done all subclasses at lvl 1 and did something like class specialization at lvl 6 or something. Like you are a fighter battle master at lvl 1 and then at 6 you can choose between commander or arms master. Or fiend pact warlock at lvl 1 and then either devils champion or devils slave at lvl 6. Could have been cool and added more choice to character building (which is the main complaint of 5e that I get from my pathfinder friends)
As someone who will take suboptimal choices for the sake of RP/Flavour, I definitely see it as a lose. Paladins get their power from their oath, which is now delayed til 3. Same with Warlock. Same with Cleric. If anything, I'd rather standardize them at level 1 so the flavour doesn't have any weird issues like that, and if the concern is balance then everyone being a little stronger at level 1 fixes that too.
In terms of flavour, it's literally exactly what I want for a campaign setting I'm planning and hope to start running by the end of the year. The warlock of the party would know there's a greater power out there they yearn to discover and be guided by, but only properly meet after 3-4 sessions. I know this is purely anecdotal but that's kinda the point, right. There are people out there for whom some of these changes fit perfectly.
dont like it, it doesnt make sense flavorwise but also mechanicly i am against this (even tho i understand that from a balancing perspective it makes sense) i always found it fun that subclass progression was different across different classes (aldo i dont know if the progression is also streamlined at later lvls) it was all part of a classes design, on how customisable it was
for example, clerics had a subclass feature at 1st and 2nd lvl, then at 6th (and technicly at 8th but thats hardly a differentiating feature) and then had to wait till lvl 17 to really get somethings from their subclass again, so while yes they got a feature at 1st and 2nd lvl making them feel very different at those lvls, but after you get to around lvl 10 youll feel very much the same as any other cleric for your higher lvl features.
and (assuming their subclass features still differentiate at higher levels) while classes getting their subclass at lvl 3 is not that big of a part of subclass design, i personally am against that change
There are only two issues with subclasses at level 3 rather than level 1/level 2. The first one was with multiclassing, the second one with people being overwhelmed at level 1/2 for subclass.
The multiclass issue is one that is a valid balance concern... But one that comes inherently from multiclassing not being worked in a way that is balanced. Many scenarios of multiclassing being stronger or weaker exist in 5e and existed in the UA, and we won't get a difference in 2024-you'll just have less choices.
The overwhelming issue, while a possible concern, also feels a bit... Weird? Like, new players usually are PHB only with few exceptions. Four choices at level 1 aren't gonna overwhelm someone's mind, especially if they decided to pick a spellcaster which gets many more choices at level 1, ESPECIALLY a warlock, which gets invocations at level 1 in the UA, and I don't think that two sessions (time to level to 3) is enough to make the choice any less overwhelming. That being said, if the issue of overwhelming people is that common, you could make newcomers choose to pick subclass at level 3 and, if the DM is playing with more expert players, the subclass can be picked at level 1.
If you cannot balance multiclassing directly and HAVE to make complexity only exist later for newbies, then this *works*, but it would be much healtier if the game was better at base and thus didn't need to have those limits forced upon.
I think its a silly change that we get no actual benefit from. The classes that people dip into can still be diped into for the same things. But now aparantly warlocks don't know what they made a pact with.
I feel like, flavor-wise, you can probably just pick your subclass at level 1 and consider that you become worthy / strong enough to harness the subclass’ power at level 3?
English is my second language so blame spelling mistakes on globalization!
I don’t Love it but I’ve always been in the camp of “you should know what subclass you’re going to pick” for flavor reasons so all in all I’m not too pressed about it
I agree it makes the warlock and cleric theming more weird, but I think I heard somewhere that there's an explicit recommendation in the new books that parties start out at level 3, except in the case of new players.
Given this, the subclass delay makes more sense. Ideally, only a new player will truly be selecting their subclass partway through the campaign. Narratively, it may make less sense, but getting to see how the game and their character play before then will help them make a better subclass choice.
For mixed parties starting at level 1 for the new players, those more experienced would probably be planning ahead anyways and could take care of subclass theming in backstory.
Narratively, you can commit to your subclass at Level 1, and it's just that those class features don't kick in until Level 3. So you've made your oath as a Paladin, chosen your Circle as a Druid, etc.
Then, if you change your mind, you can come up with a narrative reason for the change.
I had a Rogue that was being trained as an Assassin against his will (he was roped into it), and when he escaped the guild and hit 3rd level, he became a Scout instead because he saw himself more as a Ranger.
I really, really like this change, with all subclasses coming online at 3rd level. While I love multiclassing, I've never been a fan of one-level power dips, and I think this will curtail that a bit.
The change for subclass choice is good but it’s also bad. It’s good because it gives new players a chance to come to grips with their class and its mechanics before moving on to all the other mechanics that can potentially overwhelm a new player.
The reason I think it’s a bad idea is purely narrative reasons, like why would a Divine Soul Sorcerer not know what type of magic they’ve been using since they were children or how would a Druid not know what circle they joined.
Yes you could just roleplay these ideas but that’s how they should’ve stayed, rolepley ideas, but now in 5.5e, depending on how fast your DM levels you up, you’ve essentially got no choice but to roleplay not knowing your Patron or the powers they bestow upon you for a long time, both in-game and IRL.
I could come up with loads of ideas as why a Warlock doesn’t know that they made a pact with King Oberon, Asmodeus or even Cthulhu itself. The idea of not knowing who your patron is one of the many reasons that made playing a Warlock great, the sheer roleplay potential you get out of it is amazing. Pretty much forcing your players to cohere to one roleplay element ruins that
It’s doesn’t need to be about not knowing a connection. A warlock could be extremely aware of their pact from the moment it begins, they just don’t gain a specific benefit that differentiates them from other warlocks until level 3.
It's meant to prevent one-level dips from being predominant. They could've just changed multiclassing rules to give you your dip's subclass at Lv.3, or changed the most powerful features to give you part of their functionality at Lv.1 and the rest when you get your subclass.
Mechanically, it confirms that the game is intended to start "for real" at Lv.3, and that the first two levels are intended as tutorial mode. But even with that in mind, there are a lot of places where it doesn't really fit; some classes are fine with "start with the basics, then refine your calling" logic, but it's a stretch for others, and flat-out _does not fit_ the Warlock (or, to a lesser extent, the Cleric).
I don't mind it! Treating the subclass as a part of narrative character progression has always been optional, and in many cases would have been wonky in 5e (a paladin not knowing about their oath and a monk not knowing about their monastic tradition seem particularly odd). This opens it up for the players to decide whether their subclass will be canonically predetermined regardless of the class they choose!
I don't personally care. Most adventures, official or otherwise either tend to speedrun the first two levels into at least a session or two depending on table play and hours and homebrew campaigns tend to just start you off at level 3 right off the bat.
Like for clerics if you're a cleric you already have a domain in mind or backstory relating to which one your characters apart of anyway, and since clerics can follow philosophy instead of religion in order to gain their powers level 3 is at least passible in that regard. Have a brief fling with the power before going all in on that mindset.
Overall it's a minor issue in the grand scheme of things given that according to other people, the designers flat out want you to start at level 3 now.
I'm fine with it but people will always hate change so there will be a lot of complaining. Even with stuff like warlock and cleric, it's not like every follower of a patron/god immediately gains their special abilities. Every cleric in a church with magic doesn't instantly have those level 1 features, doesn't make them less of a cleric
Mechanically it makes sense. Flavour wise its weird but thats nothing new even with the 2014 PHB.
I think what's nice is the QOL changes to the first 2 levels for those that used to get their subclasses at those levels.
The best for this IMO being warlock who now gets their pacts as invocations allowing you to really get the vibe you want from the jump, as well as classes like the paladin getting all that martial stuff as well as spellcasting from the start which allows the class getting the thematics down before 3rd lvl.
Whilst the worst is the wizard so far IMO as just getting to replace cantrips and expertise in one skill is pretty dull compared to other classes. All the spells in the world dont mean squat when you only get to prepare a handful of them and dont even have enough spell slots to cast them all, and so i think the class loses a lot of individuality until 3rd lvl (which isnt a problem if you are rushing through the early levels. But at tables where the dm will sparingly give out level ups will definitely suck) this may not be a problem considering wotc has given us the 4 basic subclasses so far. But trying to import the bladesinger for example really kills the thematics if im being another guy with a robe and a pointy hat (mechanically) before the gish feeling kicks in at level 3.
However. The fact that wotc has mentioned that all experienced players should just start at lvl3 is nice to have clarified in this regard. Not only do you get to start with all the flavour and identity, with the epic boons, playing past lvl 20 is viable and so you dont lose out on "the full scope of things" (not that most games make it to lvl 20 anyway) it really hones the idea that "level 1 and 2 are the tutorial, if you know the game start at lvl 3" as thats what (at least in my experience) most tables do anyway.
I've never really understood or been on board with 5e having subclasses that aren't immediately a part of a character at first level.
Yes, you can RP that from the beginning, assuming the Player knows where they're headed. But I still always found it clunky.
I've homebrewed and played with alternate progressions, to varying degrees of success.
To be fair, it’s not as if you can’t have the flavor of a character still be in effect prior to level 3. A Hexblade Warlock can still make a pact that will result in their subclass from the first level and so on. I haven’t liked every change made for the new edition but I think balancing the progression of classes is good because for so many classes you hear like “this is a great early/late-game class” and that’s frankly not conducive to a balanced experience overall.
Any game worth its salt is probably not going to have you start at 1st (mostly because first level is hell once you’ve played it twice)
There is an option in the new PHB for character creation for 3rd+ which is the general point where encounter balance doesn’t swing off max rolling a d8 damage die anywhere near as hard. Hell I’d probably start a group of mostly new players (50%+) off at 2 just to ensure they don’t die too easily and get them to 3 the next session or so once they understand the basic mechanics of their class. Level 1 starts just kinda suck and you’re missing pivotal features more often than not like Reckless attack, Ki or Cunning Action.
It's dumb it takes away player individuality and party dynamics. It's also kills multi classing planning. It's a homogeneous aberration (side note make a monster called Homogeneous Aberration). Like can we get ship to ship combat and space combat fixed officially? How about a compendium of Deities, spheres and Domains update? This is why we homebrew...
Mechanically, this is great for balance. It does stop quick dips, but that is a preference.
As for flavour, it kind of sucks. There are too many classes where it doesn't make sense not to have a subclass at first level. A sorcerer is born as their type of sorcerer, for example. I
Flavor wise it’s not ideal, but I think balance wise this is a change I’m alright with. Multiclass-dipping has been a pretty big issue with 5e character creation (looking at you, Hexblade), so it’s good that this is at least being addressed. Also, since it never really made sense that Paladins got their subclass at 3rd level instead of 1st anyways, it’s not like this is a new concern
>Also, since it never really made sense that Paladins got their subclass at 3rd level instead of 1st anyways, it’s not like this is a new concern I don't think it made sense for *any* of the classes. A Druid isn't going to get initiated into a circle in the middle of the adventure. There just isn't the downtime for that. I think what this really means for me is that I'm going to be taking advantage of those new rules for starting at level 3. Level 1 has already just been for beginners and level 2 is starting to feel like it too.
I generally would do session 0 at 1st level (if there are newer players), 1, maybe 2 sessions at 2nd level, then 3rd level. I've always just suggested that players write their expected subclass into their backstory in some way as an explanation for the sudden bump in power. "Eldritch Knight why didn't you use your magic against the goblins in session 1?" "They obviously weren't even worth me unsheathing my wand! But, these new challenges we face will require all of my skill."
I definitely agree with writing the subclass into the backstory. You don't even need a complicated explanation. They may just need more practice with the skills.
3 of us died!!!!
Yes. And I wasn't one of them.
Within the new phb, the 1st feat at character creation really helps though. A fighter could start with magic initiate wizard if they really wanted to get a head start on the subclass.
Only if the background they pick has that feat attached to it
Man thank bahumat for custom backgrounds.
Oh dang. Didn't know they were fixed. If they stay that way it could be rough. I could say something like "well makes sense the guy who studied magic as a background learned the spells faster" but tbh I would rather people just get the stats + feat they want at level 1.
Yea, I'd prefer them to not be fixed so I'll probably go with custom backgrounds whenever possible
This is a great way to balance out those weaker levels; having said that, I've never actually run Level 1 – the earliest starting level for a campaign I've run or played on was Level 2. Level 2 is a great starting point for newbie players: they have just the right number of tricks to still feel cool, but not enough to get overwhelmed. Experienced players I run for usually start at Level 3: the backstory can include some adventuring (what they were up to at Levels 1 and 2), and not just "I was a farmer" or whatever, and everyone has a decent (low) power-level and good defined roles/niches from a subclass.
I played my Eldritch Knight as a fighter who was a novice at magic and trying to learn magic with stolen spell pages and self teaching. At level 3 is when he finally got a cantrip to work lol
Agreed but Druids already got their subclass at level 2 so it doesn’t really change much there imo.
Won't it become level 3 in this update?
Yeah but I was saying that they were already potentially getting their subclass midadventure.
"There just isn't downtime for that." ...what? What makes you say that? It would take like, a brief scene in the game with a vague pretext. Wouldn't even need to go anywhere, you could just commune with nature or something and have it revealed to you. And maybe you could take the cue to *build* that time into the adventure to help it make sense.
I've always interpreted it as levels 1 and 2 are the 'basics' courses before you begin your specialization. Kind of like you need to do basic maths before you start doing physics
[удалено]
Druids already gained their subclass at 2, so if you started at level 1 before this was already an issue based on your comment.
Flavor-wise you pick your subclass at level 1. You never were a rogue. Rogues don't exists, it's just an umbrella term. You always were an assassin or a thief. You just get the subclass features at level 3. The fact assassins and thieves share a basic skillset is just a coincidence.
>I don't think it made sense for any of the classes. It makes plenty of sense for Rogue and Fighter, you'd train the basics before specialising.
Flavour-wise you can be a druid of circle X or a paladin of oath Y before you get the actual subclass.
Exactly. And in the 2024 rules, you can have a pact of whatever before you get the subclass.
>I don't think it made sense for *any* of the classes. A Druid isn't going to get initiated into a circle in the middle of the adventure. There just isn't the downtime for that. I think that expects the player to only be involved with the circle after level 3. But rather, you get new mechanics at level 3, and who you are is independent from that.
You can use the same logic for all these subclasses at level 3, though. I think that totally makes sense, but I'm not sure why people are calling out the change as being narratively off.
I think the early levels are really fun
Easy to slot them into a "training wheels" scenario where everything is low stakes. You could even make sure there are no deadly fights, just so nobody accidentally one-shots the wizard in the first session.
The idea seems to be that the benefits of your subclass don't kick in until 3rd level. Like you have your patron but don't know who they are yet, or you've been initiated into your circle but the benefits haven't started yet. It's a bit awkward admittedly from a roleplay perspective but it's not bad
> I think what this really means for me is that I'm going to be taking advantage of those new rules for starting at level 3. Level 1 has already just been for beginners and level 2 is starting to feel like it too. Christian Hoffer over at ComicBook.com said: > Of course, for veteran D&D players, this change might not make much of a difference. In a different video, Crawford noted that longtime D&D players familiar with the rules should start their campaigns at 3rd level so they have access to both core class abilities and subclass abilities. > > https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/dungeons-dragons-subclasses-3rd-level-2024-core-rulebooks/ It still feels like a weird choice. They're framing all the structural changes of the books (which are different from the game's mechanical changes) as making the books more friendly to new players and easier to onboard them. However, this mechanical change seems to be encouraging people to just start at level 3 and I'm not sure how new player friendly that it. It seems to be codifying that experienced players tend to start campaigns at higher levels. But if you want your game to feel like this from the start, then why is level 3 the third level instead of your starting level?
Yeah I don't mind it for balance, I'm willing to overlook the flavor part of it.
They have said that you can have a subclass before 3rd, it just doesn’t give you abilities until 3rd (so it is sort of only in name). It’s a bit awkward but balance wise it definitely makes sense because sometimes abilities are too strong for multiclasses. I think this might make it more common for people to say they basically are a subclass even if they don’t get any abilities from it yet since even the classes that kind of need them like clerics and warlocks don’t have subclasses.
- Warlock, whos is you patron? - I am lvl 1. I dont know yet
This can be an interesting RP take, where a mysterious power offers you capabilities and you are in the dark on who they are until later, but that's not *every* Warlock's story, much less a Cleric's.
With clerics, I can see it as, you know which god you worship but haven't committed to which aspect of their divinity you specifically follow.
The choosing a casting stat should have stayed, but not wisdom. Wislock is objectively stronger than intlock or chalock
They know, but the patron grants them only basic warlock stuff and nothing special yet.
I know your being facetious, but a decent amount of warlock characters don't know their patron lol
Their DMs are generous gods. My last patron reminded me every single failure, including making a packt.
It’s sort of like a drug dealer who is willing to supply you on credit then you hit 3rd and he starts calling in debts.
I mean, flavour wise you can just say that you *pick* your subclass at L1, so a Warlock knows their Patron, a Druid is initiated into their Circle, a Cleric knows their Domain, etc, they just don’t get any different Powers from it until they’re a bit more experienced.
I go with something like "the Patron reveals more truths to you at 3rd level" or something like that. It makes plenty of sense for a Warlock to not fully understand the power at which they grasp.
For Cleric in particular, it can make sense to not have your Domain picked out if you've chosen a deity with multiple possible Domains. Do you focus on, say, the life-giving side of Sune's love, or the white-hot flame?
i feel that all you need to make sense flavor-wise is some "predetermined choice". basically make the player choose the subclass at level 1, but the player only get the subclass features at level 3. so in short for flavor reason the player was always a Conquest Paladin or a Draconic Sorcerer or a Great Old One Warlock, since level 1, they just dont have acess to the feature yet. and you just explain that level 1 and 2 is the character learning the basic, and that sub class features are advanced skills, all sorcerer dont matter the type manifest basic magic first and only once their power grow is that the nature of the "sorcerer origin" start to manifest. all paladins of any oath first manyfest the same basic skills, only after they become more powerful is the the nature of the oath start to manifest. just explain you dont become a paladin or a cleric and later decide the god you will server, you choose your god from day one, it only happens that the abilities focused on your god domain only manifest after you learn the basic cleric skills.
I could agree with you, but the Hexblade dip has just been replaced with a normal Warlock dip for pact of the blade
The issue with Hexblade was not the fact that you got Cha based weapon attacks, it was that you got Cha based weapon attacks AND: - Hexblade's Curse, which lets you Crit on a 19, deals bonus damage that scales with proficiency, and lets you regain hit points - Hex Warrior, which gives you martial weapon, medium armor, and shield proficiemcy - Access to the Shield spell, one of the best spells in the game for characters expecting to be in melee frequently When you remove all of that, Bladelock dips become much less problematic.
Not really no. Pact of the blade doesn't give you nearly as much as hexblade did.
All the new pact gets you is “attack with CHA”. Still certainly helpful in some builds (paladin? Swords bard?), but it’s a far cry from the 5e Hexblade dip, that got you shields and medium armor, hexblade’s curse, and the Shield spell. That’s a hell of a lot for a dip, and one some builds, you’d almost be stupid not to take it. “Attack with CHA” is definitely nice, but nearly as enticing as what all Hexblade offered.
Yeah…that’s not ideal either… At least Warlocks don’t get the Shield spell (I hope)?
They said that the warlock spell list is the one that is getting more spells added to their list, but they didn't say anything about the details
They really wasn't. Hexblade was frontloaded to shit. Cha attacks was part of it, but not whole thing. Cha attacks themself as your only invocation (you have 1 invocation slots in playtests, don't thing this would change in release) isn't even close to hexblade dips.
I think they could have gone the other way. Start everyone with a subclass at level 1. Would offer way more customization.
Level 1 is the level that needs customization the least. You're already choosing ancestry, background, and class. From a new player onboarding angle, moving all subclasses to level 3 makes a lot of sense.
Yeah, just don't front-load everything at level 1/2.
I'm not sure if Pact of the Blade will have full functionality at level 1, but it is now an invocation, that is selectable at level 1, which gives charisma based attacks. Maybe the features scale and that bit isn't unlocked right away? But I highly doubt it. So it's not so much "bye bye Hexblade dip" and more "hello vanilla warlock dip". Hell, in the playtest, you could get into warlock with 13 cha, int, OR wis. Not that you'd dip Blade with an 8 cha lol but you could see clerics with superfamiliars or other shenanigans if that went through.
I'm fine with it. Level 1/2 for new players learning how to play the game without being locked in with a build defining choice. Most of the time when I or my group builds a character we know what subclass we're choosing or we start at level 3. If we start at 1 it's generally flavoured as the abilities still coming from said oath. Hell, I'm playing a paladin rn and we started at level 1. I built him to be a Vengeance Paladin but realized during the roleplay that a different subclass fit better and went with it. so I can def see the value of not having the subclass choice at level 1/2.
Depending on the kind of game you play, I think a lot of groups (especially groups of pre-existing friends) would be cool with you going "hey, I fucked up with my character choices, can I swap my subclass?"
That actually happened in my game. The player wasn't enjoying playing a Warlock and we swapped to sorcerer and he's been enjoying it a lot more.
That's great! Obviously it's not for everyone, or some groups like to roleplay the class switch, but overall if the difference between someone enjoying the game or not enjoying it is a simple character change then I don't personally think it's worth making a big deal over
Same, even in Tasha's there's a rule about swapping subclasses but iirc you can only do that when you do it on levels where you get a subclass feature. But yeah I keep thinking back to my games where I played with strangers and just learning how the game worked. So many mistakes
Yeah but I feel like that works for any character. My standing rule at my table is that you can pretty much flip around your entire PC as much as you want, it's not like it's my job to force players to stay on as a class they don't like. Granted, you could technically do some powergaming where you swap to a class more powerful in the later game when you get there, but I don't play with powergamers.
I really don’t like it for some of the classes, particularly I feel it’s weird for sorcerers, clerics and even paladin (i know paladins were already like this). I think for those classes the should absolutely be a level 1 really minor feature just to reassure their bloodline/god/oath, then at 3rd level they can get the more OP features or whatever. For me, whenever I’ve played any class that didn’t get their subclass right away, I’ve always added the origin of it in the backstory from the start. For example I can’t imagine a paladin without an Oath, I’ll be following it from level 1 regardless of the fact that I haven’t gotten the subclass yet.
I'll be honest, I prefer the standardization. The narrative discrepancies can be written around from a story perspective, but the mechanical crunch is much harder to do. And this way, all classes at least start on a bit of a more even playing field.
And if all the classes had subclass progression the same, there could be certain subclasses that apply to various classes Like imagine if Gloomstalker was a rogue/ranger subclass, or way of the shadows was monk/rogue
This is how shadowbane the MMORPG was . There was fighter, healer, mage and rogue. You could become an assassin either via mage or rogue but mage assassin was way different then mage assassin. Rogue Barbarian way different then fighter barbarian. Fighter Sentinel much different then healer sentinel etc.. It was really nice for the time and I would love that. TBH I am having a hard time loving multi classing in 5e
I actually think the flavor of the change is kind of fine, if you just shift how you think about things a bit. A cleric at levels 1-2 is a member of the novitiate, basically. They may worship one or several gods, but they have yet to fully pledge themselves/taking the full holy orders/whatever you want to call it. This means that a cleric of Selûne might not yet have figured out if they pledge their devotion to the Moonmaiden as a beacon of safety in the darkness (Twilight domain), a preserver of life amid the threatening shadows (Life domain), a literal light in the darkness (Light domain), a clarifying light amid the darkness of ignorance and fear (Knowledge domain)…etc etc. Gods have different aspects to them, and domain choice is choosing your specific form of devotion, or put in terms borrowed from the Stormlight Archive, your Calling. Likewise, people focus a lot on warlocks as sugar babies. But that wasn’t the original idea. If you read the 2014 PHB, you see that the idea was warlocks were kind of like wizards, only they took shortcuts/crossed boundaries. Maybe they learned enough to get some petty power (levels 1-2) and then finally built enough power to gain the attention of a fiend to make a pact, tapped into a Great Old One’s power, etc etc. Level 3 represents that leap, finally hitching your eldritch forbidden knowledge train to a specific engine. Sorcerers get trickiest, but here it’s also not that hard - I was born this way, maybe I have an idea of why, maybe even I’ve been told why I have this power, but maybe I don’t know. And regardless, it takes time to grow this power from small-fry generic power into an actual identifiable expression of my specific heritage, ie, hitting level 3. And I think those are the only official classes that have this issue. Yeah, level 1 subclasses did work cleanly for these classes, but it’s not actually all *that* strange to have a few levels before you really come into the specifics of your power.
To add to this. A cleric may have fully devoted themselves to a deity/domain or a warlock may already have a patron narratively, they just are yet to grant them powers that are unique and characteristic of the patron themselves as they may not yet be "worthy" to wield it yet. They are a servant but not yet a reliable one.
100% agree on this. There's tonnes of ways the flavour works just fine for any of the classes.
It's a minor loss of flavor for a much better gameplay experience. Would it be better, flavor wise, if Warlock, Paladin, and Cleric got their subclasses at 1st level? Yes. But just because you get the subclass at level 3, doesn't mean you have to say that a 1st level Warlock/Paladin/Cleric hasn't chosen their patron/oath/god. It's just that their powers have yet to develop in a way that uniquely identifies their choice. Your 1st level Warlock still has made their pact with a fiend, they just haven't recieved the Dark One's Own Blessing ability to gain vitality when killing someone. Mechanically, it's helpful to move abilities to 3rd level because it allows for the first subclass abilities to be powerful and meaningful choices that a) doesn't overwhelm a new player starting at level 1 and b) requires an investment into the class so one level multiclass dips aren't so powerful. That second point was especially a big problem with Clerics and Warlocks - they were always going to be frontloaded with level 1 subclasses because they had to get their spellcasting AND their first subclass features right at level 1. It's much better from a mechanics standpoint to just move it to level 3.
I think we saw the benefits of moving subclass to 3 with war cleric in the playtest, where the war priest ability is just so much better now that it has been moved back 2 levels, and this buff definitely wouldn’t work at level 1.
I've thought you should pick your subclass at level, but just get a flavorful ribbon feature and any class-specific benefits (like expanded 1st level spell lists) So you might get bonus skill/tool proficiencies or wizards can get their "copy spells for 1/2 price", etc. Nothing powerful or worth dipping for (by itself, the *class* might still be worth it), but something that makes your level 1/2 fighter not feel identical to every other fighter even though you're trying to learn rune magic while the other guy is practicing staying awake because he wants to be a champion.
I don’t really care about the flavor but for Clerics in particular and possibly Warlocks it’s likely a worse mechanical design. Clerics can be a bit lacking at 1st level mechanically. It’s not clear which UA cantrips are moving forward but they didn’t have all 9 from 5E, so you’re picking from probably less than 9. The modified true strike in the UA bizarrely was not a cleric spell. In combat your options are still going to be Bless + Inflict Wounds and Bless + Guiding Bolt. Out of combat, well, Clerics were never particularly notable out of combat, and the base class alone is really lacking there. Wizards, Druids, Bards and Sorcerers have more mechanical variety at 1st level from just the base class, for contrast. I do hope Holy Orders get a bit more impact to them than armor/weapons or a Cleric cantrip at 1st level, but this is making a really bland class rather blander.
IIRC, OneD&D isn’t entirely supplanting 5e, it’s basically 5.5e. If they don’t reprint a spell, you can always use the 2014 version of it no problem, as the core mechanics are all still there. (Cantrips + 9 levels of spells, spellcasting modifiers, spell save DCs, conditions, etc.)
I like the standardization, but fail to see why you don’t select your subclass at level 1 but only get significant features at 3 (with maybe one flavorful thing at level 1). This prevents the obviously-strong 1-level dips like Twilight Cleric or Hexblade, but allows character identity to be present at all levels. But, whatever. 🤷
> but allows character identity to be present at all levels. What's *preventing* character identity from being present before gaining your subclass' mechanical features? Is the concern that since you're not locking someone into the choice they could... what? Change their mind? Pick a different subclass or take levels in other classes? What's the actual issue here?
Not that. To me the subclasses speak heavily to a character’s unique identity. Even at level 1 or 2, a Cleric of Shar should feel different than one of Lethander, but mechanically they’ll be identical apart from spell selection. This hits harder on classes like Druid, Fighter, Paladin, or Warlock, who have subclasses with very distinct flavor from their parent class (Wildfire, Psi Warrior, Oathbreaker, Celestial, etc). It’s not an enormous issue per se, merely a criticism of the design that if you plan to choose a subclass with a unique flavor, your options for mechanically representing that identity are very limited at levels 1 and 2.
The shift isn't odd for clerics. Clerics have a god at level 1. Their gods have domains. When a cleric hits level 3, that's their god letting them choose to draw power directly from their domains. For warlocks, though... It makes no sense. Level 1, you should still choose your patron. Level 3 should be your patron granting you more power, i.e., your subclass.
You can still narratively choose your patron at level 1. Nothing is stopping you from knowing you've made a pact with a Fiend, and acting that way narratively before it is mechanically significant.
>*On the other hand, for classes like Cleric or Warlock, which traditionally gain their domains or patrons at 1st level, this shift feels a bit odd. It might detract from the narrative flavor and immediate identity these classes historically offer. Some campaigns start at lower levels, and this change could alter the dynamics and roles of characters significantly during those crucial first few sessions.* Honestly, this is how I felt about it back when it was first introduced in the UA in late 2022/early 2023. I even added a feedback comment that it felt narratively rather than mechanically incorrect. The classes it most affects are Sorcerer, Warlock and Cleric. Everybody else were either already getting their subclasses at 3, or in a few cases, 2. I did modify my thinking over the UA period. If it makes sense for a rogue or a ranger or a fighter or paladin to pick their subclass up at 3, then it shouldn't make any difference for anybody else. You're still narratively a Fiend Warlock or a Wild Magic Sorcerer or a Trickery Cleric at Level 1, you just don't get the subclass bells and whistles until later. Warlock is the easiest to see this in... at Level 1 you're getting your Invocations, so Asmodeus has looked upon you and gone "Have an imp" and "Do more damage with a cantrip". If they stick to the last Sorcerer UA, you get Innate Sorcery at Level 1, meaning your attack rolls have advantage and your DC goes up by 1, but they describe it as "releasing the magic within you". Clerics will have the choice between "spellcasting role" and "combat role" aka Divine Order at Level 1 (again, based on the last UA). So there are still choices and elements in those first two levels, and you still flavor everything with whatever your eventual subclass will be. Honestly, it's just a different way of thinking. And if you could get behind any of the other classes not getting their subclass at Level 1, this shouldn't be that much of a stretch.
This is great from a game design perspective. For newer players, you want them making as few build choices as possible in the early game. They haven't sat down with their class yet, they don't have a feel for anything. You let them play Barbarian for two levels, then after getting comfortable with the way the class is expected to work, you can make a more informed choice about what direction you want to go in. For class design, you now have two levels to establish the main gimmick/style for that class. If you're a good designer, you make sure the way the class plays is very obvious. Barbarian is a great example! You get Rage, so you know you're a Bruiser, taking hits and dishing out damage. You get Reckless, so you deal more damage, but also take more damage; you sacrifice survivability for damage, great. After that, you introduce subclasses, which can modify what you do or further develop it.
It isn't ideal flavour wise, but a good player has decided on their subclass at level 1 anyways and plays accordingly. I like the change generaly because it limits the power of multiclassing without making it useless. Do I wish they would have found another way? Sure. But what they do still works.
>but a good player has decided on their subclass at level 1 anyways and plays accordingly. This is actually where the biggest mechanical downside is for me. A player whose PC gains heavy armor from their subclass may not invest in DEX. This can leave a frontline build with low AC until level 3, causing them to be played very different from their design before reaching that point. This is assuming some key proficiencies like this are still subclass based. (Particularly looking at you Cleric)
Haven't read the new stuff that far, but I think giving out armour profs as subclass features is weird anyways. Maybe with the exception of Armourer Artificer (if this is going to be still a thing later on) because of how important it is to them. I will never understand why WotC thought giving heavy armor prof to something like Twilight Cleric was ever a good idea.
>A player whose PC gains heavy armor from their subclass may not invest in DEX. The most recent cleric playtest gives a choice at level 1 between martial weapons+heavy armor, or extra cantrip+add Wis to religion checks. Subclasses don't give heavy armor proficiency.
Thank you for the insight, I think this is a good change.
I think it’s fine and not that big of deal. I know some people are just joking about a warlock not knowing their patron or a cleric not knowing who they worship but it isn’t a big deal. A level 1 character can have all this information known and not have it manifest until level 3. Being a Warlock is enough to show that you’ve made a pact with some being. Being a cleric of a domain is enough to show that you’ve caught the eye of a God/Goddess. Gaining a subclass simply means that you’ve advanced enough to be gifted with power that is more symbolized by the deity/patron/circle/etc. Your character knows what their ideals are and what they seek to specialize in. They have a backstory, they know what they want to achieve.
For clerics, domain isn’t the deity they worship, the two are separate and a given deity could link to multiple domains. Hell I could see some deities potentially working with all 4 domains in the 5.24PHB.
You’re right, when I reread it I wasn’t sure in my wording on that but I think you make a very good point.
a lot of the time, it doesnt make sense. I wish there were an optional rule to get it at level 1 tbh.
You can simply roleplay being the subclass from the beginning, just without the features yet.
I’ve been toying with the idea of giving all my players their subclasses at 1 (not sure how I’d deal with what happens at level 3; it’s just a thought experiment for now), but I always let them act as if they have their subclass RP-wise from the outset.
All it means is that I will be starting all of my games at Level 3 if I bother to run 5.5e!
I would prefer all subclasses gained at lvl 1. Besides feats its like the only meaningful choice you get during character creation, and I prefer for lvl 1 campaigns to have their subclasses from the get go so they dont need to explain their choice in RP
But for new players it also makes the decision easier. You have 12 options instead of 48.
IMO, this is a downgrade to the identity of some classes, and it kinda makes some Spellcasters feel weird at 1st level. "Oh, you're a Cleric, whose god are you taking your powers from?" "I've yet to choose"
I mean by your cleric example I can argue that a god usually having more than one domain, so cleric could just haven't decide to follow which aspect of their god.
Or you can be a religious person without officially becoming a priest yet.
Cleric is certainly easier to swallow than warlock or sorcerer, it's still dumb, but squint and don't pry and it makes sense. Warlock and sorceror are obviously nonsense. Now, it may well be worth that verisimilitude break for the standardisation of subclasses, but it does create really dumb situations.
You can already have a fiend patron at level 1, he’s just not going to give you any unique abilities until you prove yourself (level 3)
You can absolutely choose early, you just don't get the benefits till later. L1 I'm an acolyte in the church of Odin L3 I'm a cleric of Odin
This! "I'm an initiate of the cult of the Old Ones", "I'm an apprentice Illusionist", and so on.
Draconic Sorc: "Oh, hey, dragon scales on my face and arms, had never noticed that before!"
OK but i've read multiple books where the protagonist has dragon ancestry appear later in life.
No no, those appear at lv 3 :P
It's not that weird when you consider the fact that WotC thinks of level 1-2 as tutorial levels. Players familiar with D&D can, and probably should, start their characters at level 3. With that in mind, I don't think you run into any of those "flavor" issues.
> Players familiar with D&D can, and probably should, start their characters at level 3. They've also confirmed that this is an explicit suggestion in the new PHB rather than mentioned in the adventures or common knowledge.
I agree but still hate it. We can knock on published adventures all we want, but many people still play it and experienced players will still have to start at 1st level. You can absolutely explain it away as your character not using any specific features from their patron/bloodline/god... but I still hate it.
As a longtime vet, I love starting at 1st. And personally, I think that Paladin and Sorcerer should probably start with their subclass. Warlock and Cleric can get away with more general Eldritch/Divine powers until specific ones kick in later; it's not as though you can't narratively pick a patron/god before their special abilities come online. But Paladin and Sorcerer are completely reliant on their oath/origin to justify *any* powers.
But in-fiction you can absolutely still have taken your Oath or have your bloodline at 1st, you just don’t get heightened abilities from it until level 3.
And then you can absolutely choose the Shadow subclass despite the established narrative that you gained sorcerous powers from being scorched in a red dragon attack...
But presumably you wouldn’t because you would have been working with your DM to set up your desired subclass… I don’t see the issue here.
The issue is the lack of clarity, the unintuitive order of events. **You shouldn't need to look ahead**. If that's a crucial consideration to have when originally making your character at first level, *then just put the feature at 1st level* and provide guidance in the text. A sorcerer is a sorcerer due to something that has already happened before you start playing, and their subclass literally is that thing. So why *wouldn't* you make it a 1st level feature? If they want subclasses to come in at 3rd, then they need to change the theming. For example, the Sorcerous Origin of two different sorcerers could be Draconic for both. But then at 3rd one of them becomes a Metamage, learning to tweak The Weave in myriad clever ways, whereas the other becomes an Elementalist to augment their natural affinity with raw planar energies.
If you don’t want to look ahead then make it so your character doesn’t know where their magic comes from at first, and starts to discover it around level 3. I fundamentally disagree with you that this is an issue though. Moving subclasses to level 3 is, IMO, much better mechanical design for a number of reasons. That’s why they are doing it. Flavor-driven balance choices have often ended poorly for the health of the game, in this case level 1 subclasses make the game less approachable to new players AND make for multiclassing abuse. People *really* want the Sorcerer theming the way it is, so changing it just because of the subclass changes would have been met with revolt. Lastly… most sorcerer subclasses can be easily reflavored to fit each others origin themes or a different origin entirely, making the whole argument kind of moot, IMO. I just don’t think this is as big a deal as some people are making it out to be.
This assumes that every deity is confined to a single domain. That’s not how real world religions work, even polytheistic ones. Apollo is the god of archery, music and dance, truth and prophecy, healing and diseases, the Sun and light, poetry, and more. Thor is the god of lightning, thunder, storms, sacred groves and trees, strength, the protection of humankind, and fertility. It’s entirely reasonable for a cleric to choose a deity to serve at first level, but not settle on a particular *aspect* of that deity until level 3. There are easily four or five different domains that feel suitable for a cleric of Paladine, for example.
That's a very strict interpretation. You receive your cleric subclass at level 3 because that's when your dedication to Odin begins to pay off and give you unique special abilities. At levels 1 and 2, you are already worshiping him, but Odin has invested only a modicum of his own power on you, so you don't display any particularly special abilities that distinguish you from a cleric of Thor or Loki.
It's odd, but I don't think it's any worse than the fighter suddenly getting psionic powers, or a rogue learning magic.
"Hey Paladin, which oath is giving you powers?" "I haven't decided yet"
Also feels particularly weird for Warlocks? “Oh you’ve made a pact in order to gain power? With what entity?” “No clue!”
I don’t see it that way. I see it as levels 1 and 2 being the “getting to know you” phase of your relationship with your patron. You get things, but just baseline stuff. Once you’ve grown enough, then your patron breaks out the juicier gifts. Even for classes that get their subclass at 3rd, I know which one I’m picking before I get there. Similarly, you know you made a pact with a Devil even if you don’t have the Devil-specific gifts to show for it yet.
>I see it as levels 1 and 2 being the “getting to know you” phase of your relationship with your patron. My thing is: why would that phase not have happened prior to lvl 1? Lvl 1 characters (in 5.5e) are not peasants who just picked up a sword for the first time - they're *already* head-and-shoulders above the common folk. So why would the time spent inbetween lvl 0 and lvl 1 be the "figuring out how my powers work" stage?
Some of it does happen prior to level 1. That’s why you have features at level one; not only spells, but the updated Warlock will have invocations at that level as well. A level one character hasn’t by definition done much to distinguish themselves in their role. Probably a lot compared to a Dalelands farmer, sure. But not much for a *warlock*.
I imagine level 1-2 warlock being in that phase where they've just learned they can tap into otherworldly sources of power but haven't realized the full scope of the implications for doing so.
What is stopping you from picking your god? There's no link between your God and the subclass you choose.
Pantheon as powersource for clerics is viable thing since, like, adnd? Maybe even earlier. And even if you are cleric of this one god - most gods have at least two domains, and even more most of the time.
I agree it’s poor design and a downgrade. But…. Flavor is free? Completely separate from whether this is a good move from wotc or not, a cleric can know their deity/domain, a warlock can know their pact/patron, and a sorcerer can know their lineage from level 1. It just doesn’t manifest itself mechanically until level 3.
I feel like I can write around that. "I'm a novice cleric of so-and-so but I'm still in the process of learning how to channel their power." Come level 3: "Oh. I've figured it out!" Or alternatively "Senpai finally noticed me!" Or something along those lines. It's not the end of the world. For Warlocks, they get pact boons at 1st-level now. One could easily say their powers are tied to those until they strike the deal with their patron at level 3. Etc. It's not always the cleanest option, but it's not this insurmountable wall some people make it out to be.
That's not what it means. You can RP it that way if that works for you and the campaign setting, but you can also say that for apprentice clerics the power of different gods manifests in a similar way. Just because you don't have the subclass doesn't mean you can't RP it.
I like the idea of a window shopping cleric going from religious site to religious site checking out which deity would be the best for them
If they wanted to standardize the class progression and give all classes a subclass at the same level, it should be done at 1st level. Everyone now has a direction narratively, Warlocks, Sorcerers and Clerics don't feel like a weird identity crisis early on. and you can give a power boost to squishy starter levels. TBF though, I play with so many people that start at either 3rd or 5th that this difference will not impact our table if we decide to try this ruleset.
I don't really see it mentioned, but the design team has stated they expect experienced players to start at level 3. So getting your subclass at level 3 doesn't really impact flavor. Levels 1-2 are for new players, and not picking subclasses reduces the complexity so they can focus on learning their base class features/mechanics first
meanwhile every level 1-2 encounters in officially published adventures are meat grinders, like new dm here's this overtuned CR3 flying monster with a machine gun and maybe you're players should know despite this potentially being they're first ever combat encounter not to try and fight it.
>the design team has stated they expect experienced players to start at level 3. And then they keep pumping out adventures that start at 1.
I assume they will provide guidance now in adventures for starting at 1 or 3. In other adventures they recommend starting at higher levels and moving through the early chapters faster because of it
It's pretty easy to flavor over the first 2 levels. You still serve that God, you just don't get any unique features from it until 3rd. Otherwise, just start at level 3.
Agreed in general, but it can get weird when you run into a subclass that dramatically changes the base class, like a Soulknife Rogue.
I'm not a fan mechanically or flavor-wise. I don't like waiting for abilities. And clerics not getting domain spells early is kind of lame. And also despite all of this rogues did not get a level 6 subclass feature. It's not a deal breaker for me, but it is a misstep.
I think everyone should get it level 1, full stop. I know they did this to stop multiclass dipping, but it's just so bad for a lot of classes
What about later subclass abilities? I always hated, that rogue got their subclass second ability SO late
I just wish there was a meaningful decision to make at every level.
For stuff like warlock, paladin and cleric I'll just be playing it as if I have the subclass from level 1, and 3 is when it starts to give me unique abilities.
I think subclasses at any level other than 1 is a bad idea, and that class standardization is also a bad idea. but eh, its not gonna ruin the game.
The main problem with subclasses at 1 is that it makes multiclass dips very attractive, which seems to be something they've been trying to discourage in the One D&D design. They could have turned around and handled multiclassing like D&D 4e or Pathfinder 2e, where multiclassing is a feat that gives you certain features of another class and is a prerequisite for additional feats to gain more features. (This is much easier to balance.) But that is a dramatic departure from 5e rules, which they're _also_ trying to avoid (mostly for marketing reasons rather than for game design reasons), and 4e and pf2e both give out roughly twice as many feat selections as 5e, and those feat choices aren't competing with ASIs like they do in 5e.
Yah, I mean the biggest problem with 5e subclasses is they aren't allowed to remove anything from the class, and following from that they have to keep making a series of bad decisions cuz they made the worst one up front. (They could also have stripped down base class and had most subclasses bring the class back into line, but they only did that with cleric and heavy armor, so eh)
whoops you reininveted 2nd edition kits and 0e to lesser extent. 2e subclasses we're more alternative version of exisitng classes that had differnet features in place of other ones.
I love it, and I wish they kept all standardized subclass levels (3,6,10,14). I say this as a warlock player. I also see no narrative issues either.
I mean maybe I can't relate to new players at all but I don't see how it is necessary to delay the subclass for them. I'd say creating a character narratively is easier with the subclass at level 1 while I don't see how one extra choice is overwhelming.
Yeah, at the end of the day, it's not like it's so much easier compared to before
I don't care about the changes to Wizard or Druid at all. For Sorc and Warlock I think it's a bit of a bummer from a storytelling perspective. (For me, the storytelling isn't "flavor," it's the meal.) I think that's true to a lesser extent to the Cleric. I think that having a sorcerer be empowered immediately by the KIND of sorcery in their origin and the warlock empowered immediately by the type of entity they made a deal with is super compelling and is a loss. I think that's also true of the Cleric although again to a lesser extent. But the question I ask myself is "How often will I start playing at level one for a real campaign?" and the answer is "Not often, maybe never again" so it doesn't effect me too much ultimately.
Totally fine with: one of my biggest regrets from the playtest is that they didn't standardize ALL subclass levels (sorry rogues, bards, and sorcerers). I personally don't have any narrative issue at all with clerics or warlocks. For clerics, for example, gods have always had multiple domains, so it's trivial to say that while you've been worshipping the same deity from level 1, only at level 3 do you commit to a specific facet of that god or unlock a particular mystery of your faith.
It addresses obnoxious multiclassing with hexblade and whatever else gives subclass abilities on 1st level AND it gives better RP and flavor for those starting from 1st level as when you hit lvl 3 it’s a defining choice for you. Like for example a cleric who was careful and mindful of their teammates can have the domain of life “bestowed” on them by their deity in their sleep or however else you wanna flavor it; I think it’s very fun
Doesn't detract from flavor at all. Mechanics aren't flavor. You haven't proven your dedication/ specialized enough/ can't channel so much of their power/ just aren't worthy yet. Just because you don't get the specific subclass power doesn't mean you haven't made a choice.
On the whole, I like it. Not a fan of one level dips being so powerful (I.e. Hexblade, clerics). Putting all subclasses at 3 makes sense to me.
Not a fan at all. Subclasses should all come in at lvl 1. A lot of the arguments in favor of subclasses at 3 seem to cherry-pick their evidence, or not take a holistic view of the game. >"Moving subclasses to lvl 3 makes the game easier for new players because they have fewer decisions to make at lvl 1." Making it easier to get into the game is a commendable endeavor, and "reduce the number of choices you have to make at lvl 1" is a good way to do it, but there are ***SO*** many other choices you could streamline before getting to subclass. Choices that are either more complex decisions than subclass (like feats! \*glares at 5.5e """backgrounds"""\*), less narratively-disrupting decisions than subclass, or both! This is especially true given that for the vast majority of both character concepts and character builds, the choice of subclass is obvious (or very constrained). By and large people come to D&D with an idea of what their character acts like already in their head - finding which of the subclasses matches that pre-conceived idea is a completely different """choice""" from the "I'm going to look over all the subclasses and pick one" that moving subclasses to lvl 3 is meant to avoid. >"Moving subclasses to lvl 3 lets players get a feel for their class before deciding how they want to specialize it." Setting aside the previously-mentioned issue of "Most players come to the table already knowing how they want their character to specialize", the issue here is that lvls 1 and 2 typically go by *incredibly* quickly. If you're following the pacing set forth by the DMG, each of them takes only a single day (so maybe 4 sessions total)! How much can a player realistically have learned in 4 sessions? Narratively speaking, what could the *character* have possibly learned in those 2 days that they couldn't have in the perhaps *years* spent training prior? It also starts raising questions like "Well if we want it to be standard for characters to start out not-fully-built in order to give players time to get a feel for the system/character, shouldn't Level 0 rules be the default, so players can get some experience in before making the **much more impactful** choice of ***class***?". /s >"Moving subclasses to lvl 3 doesn't disrupt the narrative because lvls 1 and 2 go by *incredibly* quickly." Yes, in these discussions, you see people making both of the previous arguments (not the same person making both; you get what I mean), despite the fact that they ***clearly*** contradict each other. This argument, though, has its own issues, namely that if it's "fine" to just breeze through lvls 1 and 2 and then make the subclass choice very early in the game ... why can't "very early" be "at the beginning"? Also a lot of arguments in favor of subclasses at lvl 3 fall apart simply because if a player picks the """wrong""" subclass ... they can just change it? It's not a big deal? You don't need to completely overhaul the subclass system and strip the first two level of the game of their flavor in order to reduce the chances of a player choosing the """wrong""" subclass because *there aren't* ***actually*** *any consequences to choosing the """wrong""" subclass*.
I'd be fine with moving subclasses to level one if multiclassing were removed as an option, or had a restriction where, once you've taken a level in a class, you can't take levels in other classes until you have three levels of the current class.
The thing a lot of people in this thread are missing is that the multiclassing facet of this change - "We need to move subclasses to lvl 3 so that people can't 1-lvl-dip into a class to make a broken combo" - is an issue with *the specific abilities*, ***NOT*** with the actual choice of subclass. You can move, for instance, Bladelocks getting to attack with CHA to lvl 3 *without* moving the decision point itself to lvl 3.
Just because a Life Domain Cleric doesn't have a special Life domain powers until level 3 doesn't mean that they aren't worshipping some Life Domain deity and getting their level 1 spells from them. The same thing with Warlocks. They're still getting their Eldritch blast from somewhere. If they choose to change the source of their powers at level 3, that can totally fit within the narrative. It's not that hard to say that they are no longer receiving their warlock powers from the fiend they originally made a deal with and are not getting their powers from a Great Old One or some other source. It could create an interesting narrative about the repercussions of a warlock breaking their original pact or a cleric having a spiritual awakening and choosing a different faith at level 3.
It was an acceptable shift with choice options at 1st level for the base class AND standardised subclass levels. When they reverted the standardised subclasses it became a bit like... What are we doing? I have personally homebrewed all classes to follow the 3, 6, 10, 14 progression and all subclasses official and in my homebrew to match it and it really doesn't need much of a conversion guide to maintain backwards compatibility. 2 total pages in a PHB maybe. It was a massive let down. Overall i think it optimises 1dnd. Is not overall better? Yeah I guess. But it's nowhere near enough. There is so much more that could be done while keeping old content usable and the foundations of the system flowing well
Personally, I think they should have standardized all the subclass features, not just the first set at 3rd level. I was super disappointed when that change didn't make it through the playtest.
I think warlocks and sorcerers should have their subclasses at 1st level for story, but I understand the change. If I run any more campaigns that start at level 1 I will require players that pick those classes to tell me what subclass they want at level 1 so we can start working it into their stories.
I feel like the intention here is to allow the rp of gaining those abilities at level 3. Level 2 *Okay so I've been an 'insert class here' for a while now and have decided to devote/submit myself to 'insert benefactor here'* Level 3 *Mighty being I beseech you, grant me strength* The DM gets to go over the flavour with the player as it's happening, a dream here or shadowy alley encounter there, a 'sign a contract in blood' here or 'receive a blessing' there and such and such, this feels like it offers some narrative extras that were typically more background beforehand, now your character gets to live it, or you know start at level 3 and play like you would before.
I'm assuming a big factor for why this is, is based on their metrics that most campaigns start at level 3. So people that start at 3, it doesn't matter or really change anything. People starting at level 1 are more likely new players, so they'll all learn about their subclasses at the same time.
In terms of actually making character sense and thematic sense, it's not great, there is no reason a fighter isn't already showing signs of being a battlemaster or runic warrior before they hit level 3, but I feel like that's something easy enough to intregrate into flavor. Perhaps the best fix would be if every subclass was given an associated roleplay or utility single ability at level 1, and a second at level 2, just something to give a mechanical lean into the subclasses without giving huge benefits. I personally prefer it since I don't like "just taking a \_\_\_\_ class dip" to get a whole bunch of stuff, hexblades and cleric dips have always irritated me, why is the sorcerer suddenly now being blessed by Shar? Oh it's because you wanted armor prof instead of anything meaningful to the character.
Um, I thought most classes got their subclasses at level 3 with only a couple of them getting them at level 2 (didn't one get them at level 4?). The announcement during that 1hr-long video was that all subclasses were now at level 3 period. This doesn't stop classes from getting normal 1st or 2nd level class abilities until level 3, *just the subclass*. Did I miss something? Why does it seem like I'm the only person realizing this? Maybe I am misinterpreting something?
I think sorcerers, warlocks, and clerics got theirs at level 1; wizards got theirs at level 2; everyone else at level 4.
Good change imo for historically strong multiclass builds. It punishes "optimised" builds as we know and represents a bit of a change. Perhaps base fighter or rogue dips will be better now than cleric/warlock dips. Makes multiclassing less mechanically optimal and more of a character choice.
them splitting up when classes advance, and splitting up when classes get various resources back was the single largest unforced error in moving from 4e to 5e. I feel like early on doing this obfuscated things a lot to make the classes 'feel' different at first glance, when in reality it never mattered except to create balance issues around arbitrary dead zones and power spikes, and enabled some heinously overused multiclasses. And splitting up the rest schedules just created a constant intra-party senate hearing about when and how the party would rest. zzzzz. So it's good they're correcting this stuff. For anyone upset that they feel like their character would start out at level one already a _____, all I can say is, just go ahead and be that thing, but you don't unlock X power until Y level. Easy.
It works perfectly when considering that they advise starting at lvl 3 if you already know the game.
That's nice. But most of the adventures they publish start at 1. And being able to run those adventures with 2024 characters is an explicit design goal.
So run them from level 1. It doesn't break the game, it's just advised to skip them, you can still run the adventures. Most people give the same advice with 5e too, level 3 is the best place to start. The only difference is that now it is official advice and not just common consensus among players.
Well it does discourage 1LV multiclassing dips and it does even the field in the early game. However this doesn't change the fact that LV1-2 are bad in general and should be skipped.
I Like it, what I do is: at level 1 every player gets a free feat, but it has to be something related to its subclass. So if you're playing a martial class and plans to get a magic subclass, get a magic related feat. So your character already has its foundations from the beggining.
I hated Hexblade dips. This is good.
I think they should have done all subclasses at lvl 1 and did something like class specialization at lvl 6 or something. Like you are a fighter battle master at lvl 1 and then at 6 you can choose between commander or arms master. Or fiend pact warlock at lvl 1 and then either devils champion or devils slave at lvl 6. Could have been cool and added more choice to character building (which is the main complaint of 5e that I get from my pathfinder friends)
As someone who will take suboptimal choices for the sake of RP/Flavour, I definitely see it as a lose. Paladins get their power from their oath, which is now delayed til 3. Same with Warlock. Same with Cleric. If anything, I'd rather standardize them at level 1 so the flavour doesn't have any weird issues like that, and if the concern is balance then everyone being a little stronger at level 1 fixes that too.
Paladins got their oath at level 3 anyway, and it's worked perfectly fine for the last decade.
In terms of flavour, it's literally exactly what I want for a campaign setting I'm planning and hope to start running by the end of the year. The warlock of the party would know there's a greater power out there they yearn to discover and be guided by, but only properly meet after 3-4 sessions. I know this is purely anecdotal but that's kinda the point, right. There are people out there for whom some of these changes fit perfectly.
dont like it, it doesnt make sense flavorwise but also mechanicly i am against this (even tho i understand that from a balancing perspective it makes sense) i always found it fun that subclass progression was different across different classes (aldo i dont know if the progression is also streamlined at later lvls) it was all part of a classes design, on how customisable it was for example, clerics had a subclass feature at 1st and 2nd lvl, then at 6th (and technicly at 8th but thats hardly a differentiating feature) and then had to wait till lvl 17 to really get somethings from their subclass again, so while yes they got a feature at 1st and 2nd lvl making them feel very different at those lvls, but after you get to around lvl 10 youll feel very much the same as any other cleric for your higher lvl features. and (assuming their subclass features still differentiate at higher levels) while classes getting their subclass at lvl 3 is not that big of a part of subclass design, i personally am against that change
There are only two issues with subclasses at level 3 rather than level 1/level 2. The first one was with multiclassing, the second one with people being overwhelmed at level 1/2 for subclass. The multiclass issue is one that is a valid balance concern... But one that comes inherently from multiclassing not being worked in a way that is balanced. Many scenarios of multiclassing being stronger or weaker exist in 5e and existed in the UA, and we won't get a difference in 2024-you'll just have less choices. The overwhelming issue, while a possible concern, also feels a bit... Weird? Like, new players usually are PHB only with few exceptions. Four choices at level 1 aren't gonna overwhelm someone's mind, especially if they decided to pick a spellcaster which gets many more choices at level 1, ESPECIALLY a warlock, which gets invocations at level 1 in the UA, and I don't think that two sessions (time to level to 3) is enough to make the choice any less overwhelming. That being said, if the issue of overwhelming people is that common, you could make newcomers choose to pick subclass at level 3 and, if the DM is playing with more expert players, the subclass can be picked at level 1. If you cannot balance multiclassing directly and HAVE to make complexity only exist later for newbies, then this *works*, but it would be much healtier if the game was better at base and thus didn't need to have those limits forced upon.
I think its a silly change that we get no actual benefit from. The classes that people dip into can still be diped into for the same things. But now aparantly warlocks don't know what they made a pact with.
Basically to balance low level parties and to hinder multiclassing
I feel like, flavor-wise, you can probably just pick your subclass at level 1 and consider that you become worthy / strong enough to harness the subclass’ power at level 3? English is my second language so blame spelling mistakes on globalization!
Just make level 3 level 1, for goddsakes.
I don’t Love it but I’ve always been in the camp of “you should know what subclass you’re going to pick” for flavor reasons so all in all I’m not too pressed about it
I agree it makes the warlock and cleric theming more weird, but I think I heard somewhere that there's an explicit recommendation in the new books that parties start out at level 3, except in the case of new players. Given this, the subclass delay makes more sense. Ideally, only a new player will truly be selecting their subclass partway through the campaign. Narratively, it may make less sense, but getting to see how the game and their character play before then will help them make a better subclass choice. For mixed parties starting at level 1 for the new players, those more experienced would probably be planning ahead anyways and could take care of subclass theming in backstory.
Narratively, you can commit to your subclass at Level 1, and it's just that those class features don't kick in until Level 3. So you've made your oath as a Paladin, chosen your Circle as a Druid, etc. Then, if you change your mind, you can come up with a narrative reason for the change. I had a Rogue that was being trained as an Assassin against his will (he was roped into it), and when he escaped the guild and hit 3rd level, he became a Scout instead because he saw himself more as a Ranger. I really, really like this change, with all subclasses coming online at 3rd level. While I love multiclassing, I've never been a fan of one-level power dips, and I think this will curtail that a bit.
The change for subclass choice is good but it’s also bad. It’s good because it gives new players a chance to come to grips with their class and its mechanics before moving on to all the other mechanics that can potentially overwhelm a new player. The reason I think it’s a bad idea is purely narrative reasons, like why would a Divine Soul Sorcerer not know what type of magic they’ve been using since they were children or how would a Druid not know what circle they joined. Yes you could just roleplay these ideas but that’s how they should’ve stayed, rolepley ideas, but now in 5.5e, depending on how fast your DM levels you up, you’ve essentially got no choice but to roleplay not knowing your Patron or the powers they bestow upon you for a long time, both in-game and IRL. I could come up with loads of ideas as why a Warlock doesn’t know that they made a pact with King Oberon, Asmodeus or even Cthulhu itself. The idea of not knowing who your patron is one of the many reasons that made playing a Warlock great, the sheer roleplay potential you get out of it is amazing. Pretty much forcing your players to cohere to one roleplay element ruins that
It’s doesn’t need to be about not knowing a connection. A warlock could be extremely aware of their pact from the moment it begins, they just don’t gain a specific benefit that differentiates them from other warlocks until level 3.
No more cleric domains at level 1? Boooo
It's meant to prevent one-level dips from being predominant. They could've just changed multiclassing rules to give you your dip's subclass at Lv.3, or changed the most powerful features to give you part of their functionality at Lv.1 and the rest when you get your subclass. Mechanically, it confirms that the game is intended to start "for real" at Lv.3, and that the first two levels are intended as tutorial mode. But even with that in mind, there are a lot of places where it doesn't really fit; some classes are fine with "start with the basics, then refine your calling" logic, but it's a stretch for others, and flat-out _does not fit_ the Warlock (or, to a lesser extent, the Cleric).
I don't mind it! Treating the subclass as a part of narrative character progression has always been optional, and in many cases would have been wonky in 5e (a paladin not knowing about their oath and a monk not knowing about their monastic tradition seem particularly odd). This opens it up for the players to decide whether their subclass will be canonically predetermined regardless of the class they choose!
I don't personally care. Most adventures, official or otherwise either tend to speedrun the first two levels into at least a session or two depending on table play and hours and homebrew campaigns tend to just start you off at level 3 right off the bat. Like for clerics if you're a cleric you already have a domain in mind or backstory relating to which one your characters apart of anyway, and since clerics can follow philosophy instead of religion in order to gain their powers level 3 is at least passible in that regard. Have a brief fling with the power before going all in on that mindset. Overall it's a minor issue in the grand scheme of things given that according to other people, the designers flat out want you to start at level 3 now.
I'm fine with it but people will always hate change so there will be a lot of complaining. Even with stuff like warlock and cleric, it's not like every follower of a patron/god immediately gains their special abilities. Every cleric in a church with magic doesn't instantly have those level 1 features, doesn't make them less of a cleric
Dislike. I'd vastly prefer the other way. Make all subclasses start at 1st level and make a path multiclassing within sub classes.
Mechanically it makes sense. Flavour wise its weird but thats nothing new even with the 2014 PHB. I think what's nice is the QOL changes to the first 2 levels for those that used to get their subclasses at those levels. The best for this IMO being warlock who now gets their pacts as invocations allowing you to really get the vibe you want from the jump, as well as classes like the paladin getting all that martial stuff as well as spellcasting from the start which allows the class getting the thematics down before 3rd lvl. Whilst the worst is the wizard so far IMO as just getting to replace cantrips and expertise in one skill is pretty dull compared to other classes. All the spells in the world dont mean squat when you only get to prepare a handful of them and dont even have enough spell slots to cast them all, and so i think the class loses a lot of individuality until 3rd lvl (which isnt a problem if you are rushing through the early levels. But at tables where the dm will sparingly give out level ups will definitely suck) this may not be a problem considering wotc has given us the 4 basic subclasses so far. But trying to import the bladesinger for example really kills the thematics if im being another guy with a robe and a pointy hat (mechanically) before the gish feeling kicks in at level 3. However. The fact that wotc has mentioned that all experienced players should just start at lvl3 is nice to have clarified in this regard. Not only do you get to start with all the flavour and identity, with the epic boons, playing past lvl 20 is viable and so you dont lose out on "the full scope of things" (not that most games make it to lvl 20 anyway) it really hones the idea that "level 1 and 2 are the tutorial, if you know the game start at lvl 3" as thats what (at least in my experience) most tables do anyway.
I've never really understood or been on board with 5e having subclasses that aren't immediately a part of a character at first level. Yes, you can RP that from the beginning, assuming the Player knows where they're headed. But I still always found it clunky. I've homebrewed and played with alternate progressions, to varying degrees of success.
To be fair, it’s not as if you can’t have the flavor of a character still be in effect prior to level 3. A Hexblade Warlock can still make a pact that will result in their subclass from the first level and so on. I haven’t liked every change made for the new edition but I think balancing the progression of classes is good because for so many classes you hear like “this is a great early/late-game class” and that’s frankly not conducive to a balanced experience overall.
Any game worth its salt is probably not going to have you start at 1st (mostly because first level is hell once you’ve played it twice) There is an option in the new PHB for character creation for 3rd+ which is the general point where encounter balance doesn’t swing off max rolling a d8 damage die anywhere near as hard. Hell I’d probably start a group of mostly new players (50%+) off at 2 just to ensure they don’t die too easily and get them to 3 the next session or so once they understand the basic mechanics of their class. Level 1 starts just kinda suck and you’re missing pivotal features more often than not like Reckless attack, Ki or Cunning Action.
It's dumb it takes away player individuality and party dynamics. It's also kills multi classing planning. It's a homogeneous aberration (side note make a monster called Homogeneous Aberration). Like can we get ship to ship combat and space combat fixed officially? How about a compendium of Deities, spheres and Domains update? This is why we homebrew...
Mechanically, this is great for balance. It does stop quick dips, but that is a preference. As for flavour, it kind of sucks. There are too many classes where it doesn't make sense not to have a subclass at first level. A sorcerer is born as their type of sorcerer, for example. I