Why ONE D&D is WRONG about Subclasses starting at 3rd level...🟥
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 дек 2022
- One D&D recently announced they were making ALL subclasses start at level 3 INSTEAD of level 1. But here's why that will ultimately be TERRIBLE for the game....
Part 2 Here! ~ • ONE D&D: What the comm...
📕See the original video here! ~ • Cleric, Life Domain an...
Whether it be Homebrew, Worldbuilding, World Setting, Roleplay, Narrative, Character Building, or other elements of Dungeons and Dragons, let's all strive to create stories that we will carry with us for years to come!
🔗🔗🔗🔗🔗🔗LINKS🔗🔗🔗🔗🔗🔗
WEBSITE (now combined with Patreon): / shop
DISCORD: / discord
PATREON: / theclericcorner
TWITTER: / theclericcorner
TIK TOK: vm.tiktok.com/ZM8HYcm9h/
PAYPAL: paypal.me/theclericcorner
EMAIL: theclericcorner@gmail.com
If you think this video adds value to you, like and subscribe!!! 🎉
🔧🔧🔧🔧🔧🔧CREDITS🔧🔧🔧🔧🔧🔧
Created with Premiere Pro
Graphics: canva.com
Music: Voyage by @iksonmusic
Sound Effects: storyblocks.com
#dnd #dnd5e #dungeonsanddragons #ttrpg 
Игры
![XO (Only If You Say Yes) - ENHYPEN エンハイプン 엔하이픈 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 240712](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wBT1bKKwPTo/mqdefault.jpg)
![NoCap - Yacht Party [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/rm_lvDln8kE/mqdefault.jpg)
I just struggle the most with Warlock.
"I summoned a ... something and made a dark pact with it. In a few more encounters I'll be able to tell you exactly who. Oh! Maybe it was an angel and it was a light pact... I can't wait to find out."
I mean, that's probably the least of the issues. Your pact was ALWAYS with Mammon, it's just that at level 1, you're merely an acolyte, unworthy of power that distinguishes you from other warlocks.
you entered into a pack with the Abyssal chaos Abomination known as Jeremy.................. Its why you are weak and don't know what you are anymore. for you are what HE decides you are.
This video is similar to my opinion on this topic, but another point you could've brought up is that the official adventures usually have the party start at 3rd level with an optional intro adventure for the first three levels if the group chooses. So their statement of wanting players to first play their classes before choosing their subclass kind of falls flat if they don't even plan to support gameplay for those levels either.
That's very true! I'll definitely be putting that in the One D&D feedback!
Your statement is contradictory because you gave an example of WotC supporting 1st level gameplay by providing 1st level adventures for modules.
@@sam7559 is it really supported if these 1-3 level intro adventures are optional where the actual adventure starts at 3rd level.
@@fallenphoenixiv yes because that means groups who wish to characters who start at level 1 have a place to start and groups who prefer starting at level 3 have a place to start. The level 1 start for those who want a slower and level 3 for those who wish to hit the ground running.
Except that those adventures were designed for 2014 5e, not for Ond D&D... future releases may be different.
I feel like moving subclasses to level 3 is one of those things that *technically* fixes a problem (if you consider dips a problem) by just removing the context. Best analogy I can think of is treating an infection by amputating the limb. Yeah, the patient is no longer infected, but you didn't actually treat the problem directly.
The reason Hexblade dips (let's face it, that's what they're talking about) happen so much isn't because Hexblade is a level 1 subclass per se; it's because the "substitute Cha for Str/Dex" feature was designed without any thought given to multiclassing at all. Yeah, reducing MADness is generally good, but when you make MADness reduction a feature of a single class, it's going to heavily incentivize taking that class for however many levels it takes. And if that level is 1....
That's a fantastic analogy! I'm going to use that!
Multiclassing is the side effect of having fewer vague broad classes. If I want to play a character who belongs to an order of holy assassins, I'm not unlikely to mix rogue and cleric or paladin together, and I'm then going to use the subclasses to give my character individual personality beyond their holy order (like say, order domain and soul knife, to give them a sort of sharp theme and personality). 5e classes are too vague to give precise flavours really, which is why multiclassing is important.
You can't really sum up a detailed character's powers as "fighter" or "sorcerer", etc. without being quite simplistic.
certain multiclass combos being overpowered is a balance problem, not a problem of multiclassing in the first place. And hey, straight-classed wizards and druids are still destroying mountains that even high OP multiclasses can't deal with
Exactly this. Whenever multiclassing comes up as an "issue" of being too OP I'm always asking compared to what? Full Casters past level 10 pretty much run the game. Pure martials never catch up.
Also most capstone abilities are bad to meh. But access to 9th level spells is one of the best abilities in the game. You get that at level 17. What incentives you to get to 20?
I agree. Most players know what subclass they want to play when they first make their characters but that’s for players that have played at least once. We actually have a new player in our group and they described to our dm what kind of character they were wanting to play and the dm told them what subclass is closest to what they wanted.
Yeah! It really does come down to the subclass for class fantasy!
so they already had an idea for a character, thus "feeling out the class" is redundant. They know what they wanted they just didn't know the subclasses, which can be remedied with a bit of reading.
@@matth2283 Well that was towards the end of session 0. In the beginning they said they wanted to cast spells and the dm told them about all these classes that can cast spells and then they decided on wizard. The dm asked what kind of school of magic were they interested in and they liked abjuration and evocation but couldn’t decide which one. I mentioned that war magic wizard has a little of both or they could do either abjuration and evocation and use both kind of spells. Then they asked is there a more bookish wizard and the dm told them about the order of scribes wizard and that’s what they chose.
I guess the most important thing from game design is consistency. Whether you get a subclass at 1st or 3rd it should probably be the same for all classes.
I personally like 3rd as if you want a experienced adventurer most often the party seems to start at 3rd anyway, but if you want a group of noobs figuring their way in the world you have that option as 1st levels.
Most of my players throughout the years have come to the table with a character that has had past adventures. This leads us to start at 3rd or even 5th level, so that they feel like seasoned adventures.
The majority of the time, we only start at 1st level because we have a new player.
Yes, starting at 1st level as a new player is the whole point of the change from a 1st level subclass to a 3rd level subclass. This entire change is only for new players who arnt sure what they want or how to play that.
Spellcasters still get a lot of customization at early levels through spell choices. If you want to be a death cleric, you just pick Toll the Dead, Bane, and Inflict Wounds att level 1. Plus, you pointed out that they gave you a customization choice at level 1, and remember that everyone gets a level 1 feat now.
Another thing to remember it's that not everyone has a specific long term plan for their character at creation. Some people might want to just create a bare bones character at the beginning of the game, and figure the character out as they go.
I'm not that way though, I like to build with a specific subclass in mind. And when I have started at level 1, I get to roleplay my way to achieving the goal my character aspired to. It basically gives you a free personal quest that you know that you can complete, and makes for some nice roleplay opportunities.
Yeah it's weird that they got rid of level 1 subclass for less choices that can complicate things....then added 1st level feat choices that complicate things
@@TheClericCorner I think the level 1 feat is less impactful on complication, because it is just one thing, and it won't necessarily be a core function of your character (in fact, they specifically started that they don't want feats to be something you focus your character build around), so they basically replaced a single high stakes choice with several low stakes choices.
@@TheClericCorner That choice was already there for variant human which was a commonly used option. There are far fewer feats at level one now and they are less likely to imbalance the game at low levels.
Mind explaining now I can play a cleric of a trickster god without trickery domain? Cause disguise self and charm person are not on the cleric spell list. You need domains to get those spells
I prefer to start at 1st level to kinda get a feel for the character
I think WotC is just trying to please more newcomers than anything else
I get what Jeremy Crawford is saying, but I have always seen helping new players figure out what they want to do as part of the DMs job. Also, taking time to read some of the rules or subclasses ahead of playing helps. My group were very upset when I started them at level 1. They don't want to start below level 3 and wpuld rather start around level 5. I like the consistency but level 1 would be better in my opinion.
Since the 1st and 2nd levels are just 1 session each on my tables (i put at least one combat on each session for these first levels) is not too much of a hussle to play them. I like this approach for newer players, and most modules can be played even starting at 5th level if you want.
I agree totally. It's not that big a deal. DMs should also try to give more XP for non-combat play as well which will make these levels smoother.
The way they made it, you still has some level of choice at the early levels, that you can tie in your character. And level 1 and 2 are very nice for me as a sort of training wheels for the characters. No one is their full realized self yet, the fighter has no maneuvers, the warlock has no boon, the ranger has no beast, but then they might be working on it, and it finally pays on level 3. Actually, to those who always start at level 3, this change won't change anything. And for those tho like the early levels, you get to experience the progression of your character to your subclass. That also makes multiclass require more commitment, so all in all I think it's a good change.
True! But once the training wheels are off, you don't really ever want to ride your bike with them again. I don't really like making 1-3 levels obsolete after a few times of playing. As a DM, I also like to play with those low levels, but keep getting pushed back by players who think that they are "no fun"
Yeah it doesnt have to change the flavour, just flavour it as "unlocking" the stored potential. Still, it just adds to my desire to not play before level 3 since from experience level 1-2 is less fun mechanically. You have less things that impact your character flavour
@@TheClericCorner it's only 2 levels (1st and second) and it's no different to now really as most classes don't subclass until 3rd. So if you have a group feeling that way... no difference except to bring the anomalous classes into line.
It would be a lot more work to make all classes have a subclass at 1st and open up a lot more janky multiclass power builds so is probably better done this way round?
@@TheClericCorner I have to ask, are the people that give you this push back actual new players though? I feel like this change is being made specifically for the new player experience which I honestly don't think a lot of people that watch this kind of video truly understand. I'm not talking about a gamer who is used to these kinds of systems either im talking about normies that have never played a rpg in their life. I see no reason why levels 1-2 can't be the learning experience for new players, while experienced players start generally at level 3. It's my hope that they generally rebalanced the game for levels 10-20 so that its more enjoyable to play as right now I'm pretty sure most groups die out around level 10-12.
@@AlonneKnight You're right, I don't get that pushback from new players obviously. But the problem is turning levels one and two into tutorial levels. After it's done once, no one really likes to redo the tutorial levels and is skipped entirely. I don't like rendering a full two levels of the game to be obsolete after the first run. If ease and uncomplication was really their goal, they probably wouldn't have added feats at first level. As it still one more option for newcomers to figure out. But I do too want to see all levels be relevant for play for both beginners and veterans.
I find it a little silly as well that they present the movement of subclasses to level 3 as making it simpler for newer players, but then codify level 1 feats, and add on a new level 1 choice for clerics. I don't know if they actually believe their own statement.
EXACTLY
One big potential story moment that comes with getting subclasses at level three is unlocking that subclass. Your paladin being knighted and swearing their oath, the sorcerer finding something draconic to unleash the hidden potential within. These are all cool moment and would be impossible to happen if subclasses happen at level 1, as they would be all backstory. Your eldritch knight already knows magic rather than trying to master it etc. And having it all happen at the same time (level 3) allows for dedicated session(s) around at the level rather than spreading it out and not being able to do it with others.
I 120% agree that this is amazingly good for story telling, there is only 1 problem that apears 4 times and they are Paladins, Warlock, Cleric, and Sorcerors. A warlock dosen't become a warlock untill they make that pack, so am i supose to be a pactless warlock at level 1 and 2 aka a normal guy? Cleerics devote themself to a god and most gods in 5e are asosiated with 1 or 2 domains so if you aren't following them are you devoting your self? I guess clerics have the greatest excuse to not have the subclass at level 1 with 1 and 2 being an "acolyet" stage. Paladins get thair powers from the Oath the same way a Warlock forms a pact except 5e fumbled on this simple concept. And then Sorcerors, thair entire power comes from thair magical blood, so if one would need to unlock that power then your just a normal guy untill you unlock it
@@theprinceofawesomeness Paladins would be in a squire stage, Sorcerer would have magical blood that's mostly dormant or hasn't shown any uniqe traits yet (if draco sorcs gets wings at 18th level, why would there be issue with getting scales at 3rd?) Warlocks can go similar, their pact didn't give them any special boons of their patron, they might need to do quests to get those gifts or find a way to contact the patron directly if that's something they haven't done (say pact by a dream or proxy like a stat spawn or imp). Clerics could be devoted to a god and have to pick between it's domain based on what resonates, or might be a pantheon and needing to pick a god that resonates with them.
Perhaps for the multiclassing issue, they could place a new rule that says you have to have a certain amount of levels in your base class before you can multiclass. It seems like it might be a jumping off point for how to deal with all classes getting their subs at first and potentially abused combos at least
I honestly hope that there are some sub classes that are for multiple classes. There are some sub classes that this probably won't work for, but I would like there to be more overlap. Make a few specific ones, but also keep some general ones. Why can't my monk be a Champion? Why can't my cleric take an oath of devotion? I love that idea personally
I 100%disagree with Crawford and the rest of the people:
-Even with a lvl 1character, you have to make several choices (race, subrace, Background and class).
-Magic its always complicated.
-Every lvl you have new feartures, and can also swap fighting styles and spells, not to mention Feats.
The Game IS already complicated, but the reason they make are BS.
I think that most of the things they change did not needed to be fixed.
At least for me, changes should make the game better for anyone who plays it.
Definitely the goal is the betterment for everyone!
@@TheClericCorner i think they idea of "betterment" is not the best idea; if you want me to stay in the class, give me more reasons to do it, not punish me for playing my character the way i want to.
Thanks for the videos.
I think they are moving subclasses to 3 becuase it hampers multiclassing that's the real reason.
@@barcster2003yea but why limit that, its creative and fun to make combinations. I don’t understand why they want to limit our options
@@tacovoltage creative? Every multiclass is either is a hexblade for CHAsters or clerics for their armor proficencies and their subclass features. Multiclassing for martials was more restrictive always, but no one complained, because it is understandable. But suddenly It's impossible for casters to have the same restrictions?
My biggest problem, in this case, would be with Warlocks and Sorcerers, how does a Warlock without a patron or a Sorcerer without a specific bloodline even work when that is where they get literally all their powers?
I would say as a warlock you haven't gained enough respect from your patron for it to reveal it's true nature. Or you know it but he waits to give you the boons associated with the pact you have with it. Like lvl 1 and 2 is a "i give you a chance mortal, prove yourself worthy."
The bloodline might be less conscious. It might still be dormant or barely awakening and you transform at lvl 3. Obviously still has problems like you still have to de facto choose a bloodline if it matters to your backstory, so you don't actually choose at lvl 3. But for example this allows you to have things like a sorcerer that doesn't know why he can do magic until mid story. A friend tried making this kind of story with a draconic bloodline sorcerer and... Well, the scales make it pretty obvious.
@@Blackdracko7 I think this is the issue that we have to 'make up' why it's the way it is. But we don't have to be forced out of our subclass for levels in order to create those stories we want
@@TheClericCorner paladins had to make up that they need to recieve their God's respect at level 3, but no one complained
@@user-uv6qu3wb5d Trust me, plenty of people don't get why Paladins get their subclass at 3rd level and not 1st like clerics since they tend to have similar power sources.
Maybe you have already chosen but you're in a trial period. Once you hit level 3 you have to commit for real.
I honestly thought the standardisation of subclass progression is due to multiclassing shenanigans in 5e (looking at you CHAster classes). I do see the reason why lvl 1 subclass is good but on the other hand this is just asking for multiple dips, leading to those builds youd see in 3.x edition, or at least someone trying out abserd. While it may seem slow to have to go through three levels for a subclass it helps players get to grasps on the general way the class works before having those subclass perks.
Also if you opted for subclasses at level 1, they will likely be lean/ribbon features to compensate for getting the subclass early (im sure wotc's not gonna try to repeat mistakes), whereas in level 3 it can come out swinging hard right out of the gate.
I'm all for more multiclassing in the game! So many more fun and interesting character concepts will emerge, let alone for mechanics :)
@@TheClericCorner True but then again, there will always be murderhobos or Timmies who exploit multiclassing for big boi numbers of damage, at the expense of everyone else who would feel they are not contributing or getting their rp interrupted by the roll of initative. Also not all gms support multiclassing, hence the reflavours you promoted.
@@rpgchronicler if that's the case then you can easily remove toxic player that are doing it
@@ECWscorpion209 Ymmv for that case. Yeah you could save the session but what if there was damage done already? I know what you mean though.
Also removing the problem player isn't always that simple, let alone dealing with the aftermath of said removal.
I do prefer the concept of consistency for subclasses. I want every class to get their subclass choice at the same level. There are pros and cons for when that level should be though.
I agree with you, level 1 is very deadly and I start most campaigns at Level 3.
Moving subclasses to Level 5 would sort a lot of these problems of “too much choice “ or go down the pathfinder 2E where you start with extra hit points from your race.
Sorcerers subclasses don’t make sense to be 3rd level. Warlocks, Clerics and maybe druids need to know where there power is coming from.
PF2E had the best selution to this problem, as a GM i love to start games at level 1 and i use PF2E race HD in all my games
Not to mention the new level 1 Cleric feature is one that scales exponentially off of something invariant to your class level, which is exactly the sort of feature you take a 1 level dip for. It's literally why Forge and especially Peace Cleric dips are so strong.
I don’t have strong feelings one way or the other for most classes, but this is going to feel really weird for warlocks.
There are ways to go about it, the patron doesn't give any special gifts until level 3 or it's only by proxy (say from a imp) and isn't a full package. Perhaps your patron needs you to prove your worth before getting their big gifts. Or the first levels are more of a flavour rather that mechanical.
I think it might be handy if we had some guides on character backstory, not unlike xanathar, but perhaps more expansive.
Something to point out is that with magic initiate as a 1st level feat it gives you 3 spells, 3 more if your a human, so its getting easier to get the magic that you want for any character regardless of class. Also, I can see a level 1 character who is supposed to be unexperienced having to gain at least 1 more level to choose a subclass, it does feel clunky for the cleric but it also makes sense that you have to be a stronger cleric to channel a Domain or a God. I dont see it for the Sorcerer and the Warlock, but given how this UA was presented, maybe with the features you get at earlier levels it reimagines what the vanilla class is suppose to be (?)
Yeah maybe! All in all, we are imaginative people and we can work out how the narrative works in our heads. Just don't want it to depart from player expectations
@@TheClericCorner Im scared/excited about the sorcerer, and what the 2 other subclasses will be. Man, so many changes are coming, I hope by the end it ends up being an improvement overall 😅
@@raziel5835 ugh, we are all feeling it 😂
@@raziel5835 I think they might give sorcery points and metamagic at 1st (hope so even if only 1 point) same way they have given channel divinity to 1st level. Its the iconic ability for sorcerers.
I expect every class to access their most iconic ability at first, something else at 2nd and subclass at 3rd.
(Not sure how Warlocks will work. It might be pact option at 1st, invocations at 2nd, and the specific patron at 3rd? Seems odd but could easily be flavoured that the patron doesn't reveal itself until your a proven adventurer?) Really interested in how they will redo the warlock, but all the other classes fit into the template easily.
you are already a stronger cleric, you are not some priest or simple believer. You are a classed individual... Are you a rogue or just some bandit? Maybe rogues should not get their sneak attack before level 3 because they don't know how to sneak yet....
How do we send feedback to Wizards of the Coast if we don't like the one d&d changes
Feedback dates will be posted usually two weeks after the playtest. All on dndbeyond!
That's what the surveys are for
I'm very scared about what they have planned for sorcerer. My go to classes are fighter and sorcerer. The majority of the time I multiclass. I really hope they don't make the choice of dragon ancestry wait until 3rd level😬
unfortunaly they did, getting subclasses at level is not something I am looking forward to
My friend was 11 his first character was a cleric and he enjoyed choosing a cleric subclass.
If all subclasses were level 1 gane balance would be a nightmare with all the starting combinations.
Multiclassing would basically be required to have an effective charecter.
It would be almost impossible to account for all the class combinations by level 2. 13 classes each with like 7 subclasses.
Ryker: Flavour is free, take what's there and make it your own. The same mechanics don't have to have the same aesthetics.
Also Ryker: Every level 1 and 2 character will be the same now!
They're clearly focused on the game design element, rather than the narrative design element. I think it's going to be down to us to provide the flavour.
Yeah, but saying you can attach new flavor to a set of mechanics is different from saying mechanics and flavor are 100% separate.
@@Anisozygoptera Oh yeah, definitely. I'd like to see some more room in the mechanics for customisation. Different damage types, maybe an extra creature type on turn.
Definitely agree! Lol
I do think that there is a point where they have to intersect. You still can't make a wizard an effective full melee just with flavor. Plus, a lot of newcomers aren't familiar with flavor and take descriptions as they are. Subclasses help them do that
@@TheClericCorner challenge accepted, my “wizard” is actually a barbarian. I cast punch :3 edit: joking aside I’m with you on this. I think that if Wizards wants to cut down on level dip multiclassing, there are better ways than what they’re doing here. For example they could require you to take levels in batches of 3 or 4 before they can take levels in another class, and if they do then they have to take 3 or 4 levels in that class before switching back. Just an idea.
Indeed, and some minor things could be done with a feat, the elemental adept feat would work for their character focusing on fire.
Yeah, my first thought when I heard this rule was the sorcerer issue. I'm a pretty new DM, with new players, and there is admittedly a lot of explaining to do, but it would put my new sorcerer off the class in general if she couldn't even select her sorcerous origin at level 1. People don't really play DND for simplicity, they play for escapism, fantasy etc. it should be up to the DM to help the player understand their subclass. Also, I plan on doing an early 'pilot' session for my players, to give them a taste of the campaign where I've set up the framework for things but haven't full figured things out yet, where they can test their character builds, then we still have the chance to change things before launching into the campaign
There's no reason you can't choose your origin or any other subclass type at 1st level. You're just too weak to use any of them so get out there and level up! Or just start at 3rd and go from zero to hero in one day. Meh.
You usually DO take pre-requisites at college (100-200 levels) before taking the classes you really want to (300+).
Maybe its because thats the way I've known these classes, but I like it better the way 5e already did it: some classes have their subclasses from lvl 1, such as warlocks or sorcerers, because their powers come from the subclass; others like fighters or bards get them later because they dont need to start with them. Its great that they are looking into ways of changing/improving the leveling, but i dont think the same model can fit all classes equally
I had some trouble picking a character the first time I made one. The second time and every time there after I knew what I wanted by the time I made the character. Most times I know what I want to be by lvl 10 when I start may character. This chage mostly feels like the designer think that a lot of people are playing the game the wrong way and they are trying to force people to play it the way they think you should. I think for the long life of the game, encouraging multi classing will help keep the game from getting repetitive and create more content for the player while cutting down on the content that WOTC needs to makes.
This makes things less repetitive? The only multiclasses that I saw were the ones that chose a subclass at level 1 or 2. It's the same hexblades, divine souls, peace clerics and etc. Atleast if someone is multiclassing he is going to level up for more levels to get the power
This resonates with my criticism as well. I think shifting all subclasses to level 1 is a better choice. They can make that initial choice a smaller impact, but I think it'd serve the game well. Spellcasters get a spell list at level 1 that reflects their subclass. Martials get a minor combat tweak or a skill upgrade.
If the worry is for new players. Just stick with rule #1: Don't be a D. If a new player chose Death Domain and didn't know what that meant, let them switch. If they chose ranger and it's not the class fantasy they expected, let them switch. Moving the choice back 2 levels just impacts when buyer's remorse happens.
If the worry is multiclassing, then the change needs to happen in the multiclassing rules. Make a second subclass a feat, you can multiclass into Rogue, but to be an arcane trickster you have to take a feat. Or make it so that a second multiclass requires 3 levels in the class at all. Heck, make it like FFXIV and require a certain investment in one class before you take another.
I think we saw in 4e how well the community received heavily restricting how rewarding multiclassing was (along with everything else folks hated about that edition).
Just because you have the same options as every other level 1 cleric, doesn't mean you will be the same as every other level 1 cleric. With a to-be life domain cleric, you'd expect them to take spells like bless and cure wounds, whereas a cleric worshipping a god of death will make greater use of inflict wounds. This is just combat-wise anyway, in my experience the first 2 levels of the game are much more about establishing characters and inter-party relationships, with probably around 3 real combats before you hit level 3.
The only place I see this being a problem is subclasses that rely on level 1 spells from spell lists they don't have access to, though with level 1 feats you have access to magic initiate from level 1.
For sure! Just don't want to rely on a feat to play my class fantasy 🤷
I thought Jermey said he doesn't want people to be dependent on picking feats to play out their fantasy or to not fall behind in power?
Great video! While I agree that is might be a lot for new players to have to decide a subclass right away, most of the time it seems like the DM helps guide new players to a subclass that is fitting the fantasy they are describing. If WotC are wanting to avoid multiclass dips being too powerful for classes that get subclasses at level 1, maybe they could make it so you have to get to 3rd level in a class to get the subclass.
Yeah, put the power in the DMs to input simplicity instead of wotc forcing everyone into simplicity
@@TheClericCorner they’re not gonna… they made it clear in their most recent vid that they want to have as little “mother may I” mechanics as possible…ie they don’t want mechanics relying on the dm to function. This 1DnD is very much about not trusting or leaving too much to the DM. With how many horror story & cringe DMs there are I get it, so having mechanics to circumvent shitty DMs is nice.
But I’d say to that, those players need to leave those types of games, not fundamentally change the game to circumvent shitty DMing. No DnD is better than bad DnD.
Restricting DM affected aspects of the game only serves the lowest common denominator… it builds the game around bad DMs and preventing them from being dicks instead of rewarding creativity & cooperation from a DM & players.
I think the other unspoken issue is that they want to have all sub-classes follow the same rules. Start at 3rd and advance at specific levels. Much easier to program into a computer game or VTT...
You can still start at level 3 if you want to. People mostly want to skip level one because of the hit points not because of the lack of subclass.
I think it makes sense for new players and also old ones who want to roleplay how their cleric became dedicated to healing or became enamoured by the trickery goddess.
Multiclassing is still an option what is less appealing is one level dips and frankly that's good for the narrative a character with a couple of mini dips is always, in my experience, a bit of a narrative mess designed only to game the system. I found the change unsettling although after the previous playtest not entirely unexpected but I'm on board with it for Clerics now seeing how they have handled the first two levels. Sorcerers I agree although again discovering your bloodline and unleashing it's potential could be interesting . I wouldn't be surprised if Sorcerers were the exception to the rule, and maybe warlocks too.
I think it's a narrative gift, not a narrative mess :)
I'm inclined to agree that all subclasses should start at Level 1. There is no such thing as a vanilla Cleric in 5e. Having an interesting spin on the healer archetype at 1st Level also entices players who would otherwise shy away from the archetype to use it.
Additionally, the new Channel Divinity is a must have 1-level dip for all healer builds, so they've already failed at making them unenticing. It's just less diverse a la every warlock multiclass being Hexblade.
I was talking about how wizard getting their subclass at third was absurd cause their early level benefits aren’t even benefits. they just give some fun tools that help differentiate the early levels. illusion can use two effects of minor illusion while a transmuter can change the metal hinges on a cell in to a brittle stone or wood. I also have a gripe with the scribe spell cause R.A.W the spell needs to be completed for the new spell is added into you spell book. what happens if your ambushed trying to scribe a spell. well you just lost out on the time you put in cause the spell was interrupted and have to start over, where as in current dnd the dm can allow you accumulate the time necessary for the new spell
The first campaign I played we, our DM asked us if we wanted to start at lvl1 or 3, we picked 1 as we were all either completely new or had very little experience with D&D. It helped us work out what we were doing without being overwhelming. But... I found that being new, and not being entirely sure which subclass I wanted initially, I didn't plan for it. Making the character with the subclass can affect things like stats and weapon choices. I had planned to go Arcane Trickster at the start and wasted a great stat on one of the magic abilities... 2 lvls later I picked assassin, and my Dex could have been so much higher 😅
Not the worst thing, but I definitely would pick lvl3 or 5 as a starting point going forward! My second campaign I joined partway through, and was able to make a lvl 3 character, character creation was far more fun and a bit more optimised!
I did love my mismatched first character, and learnt a lot about the game from her though 😊
As you said, spellcasters are more complicated for begginers and they are the ones getting subclasses before lvl 3 ( lvl 1 or 2). So removing low level subclass is making spellcaster more easy to play. Adding that they are now all prepared spellcasters, in one dnd isn't that bad for a new player to choose an spellcaster.
Starting at higher level is always posible, but starting below lvl 1 is a lot harder. This way new players can choose their subclass after knowing the class, and advanced players can start at 3rd level.
I like to start at level zero, as a player & DM. I also just don;t fundamentally agree with jeremy that a subclass complicates anything. I agree that it's strange to get into fantasy of your character after several levels.
Yeah! Weird that you have one fantasy for 3 levels, then it turns into quite another
@@TheClericCorner but it doesn't have to, same as every other class that subclasses at 3rd.
If you are a cleric following the death god just because you don't have a particular ability until 3rd that doesn't change any of the fantasy, except you've gained a power. Non of the rp/flavour etc has to change... unless you want it to. Could this not be used to add flavour?
Most of your vids are great in pointing out how to rp so many options with a single class/subclass amd I don't think will reduce that.
@@jiminkpen9750 at the end he is literally talking about how they cut the 1st level cleric spells, it does change the fantasy a lot... you are missing those flavour spells
@@matth2283 seriously... not getting bless and cure wounds for free breaks the life domain cleric? You can prepare them if you want.
It might have a bigger effect on other cleric subclasses when we see them, but really?
(If two 1st level spells make or break the flavour of a subclass it needs rewriting)
I like the 3rd level ramp, but tell my players to start including the flavor of their subclass from level 1. My biggest reason to support the change is that it makes sub-classes interchangeable. Many home-brewers assume that a beefy ranger sub-class and a flimsy wizard sub-class are equally powerful when the proportioning of power between core-class and sub-class are wildly different. Standardizing sub-classes as all being roughly the same power level should slow power creep from those false assumptions. ... And the easier on-boarding is good too, not that it really comes up often.
I think experienced players can get the character into their class by training for the subclass. That way the GM could give a feature of the subclass in a weaker way and/or let the player use them in critical moments. As for the spellcasters who have the power within themselves: knowing how to control the brute is different from having full control and knowledge of its nuances. These are the ways I see these changes working together with the themes!
Fighter I have trained my whole life and I still don't know what armor weapon or specialization (subclass) I will be
Makes no sense to see this even from a real world perspective you are already your class which means you already are trained for your style (subclass)
Yep! 'nuff said!
@@TheClericCorner we need enough people to buck this decision sadly they still might not listen
Fully agree, I'd rather see them make level 1 and 2 worth playing rather than ensure that every campaign starts a few levels in. Imo the reason people want to start at level 3 isn't just the subclass, it's also just because that's when every class has also gotten all their basic features up and running. Compact that down into level 1 and then build up from there.
I understand the "problem" of multiclassing dips that they're trying to avoid, but this is not the ideal solution imo.
Definitely. I hope they hear us in this and come up with a better solution
This subclass at lvl 3 stuff makes no sense for Clerics, Paladins, Sorcerers, or Warlocks, at the very least, imo.
Not narratively, your right!
It doesn't but I'm guessing they don't want people multiclassing.
IDK I think their reasons are sound. It stops people from dipping in a single level or two with multiclassing to make their characters stronger. For new players it is a lot to dump on them when they are learning the game. For seasoned players starting a new campaign just have everyone start at level 3 if they want to.
Yeah but now if you want the multiclass for any concept, you have to invest 6 levels 🤷
Just moving this introduced wonkyness with holy order. Ok I go protector the way its written I don't have access to heavy armor or martial weapons......
Pro tip: If they want a greater commitment to a class, they can ONLY do that best if they don't have to take more levels in other classes just to get the feature they want from that class.
Honestly subclasses at level 3 always made sense to me. Like when you pour a few drops of a liquid into a container you can't tell what color it is. Level 1 and 2 feel like even if you know what subclass you will chose, you have not hit a level of power as a character to make those powers stand out. Tier 1 is, narratively to me, the point in the heros journey where their powers haven't taken shape yet.
At the end of the day I firmly believe in starting campaigns at 3-5 level if the players are experienced. I only see tier 1 play as something newbies should play, or if that's the specific story you want to tell. If it's the later, just pick your subclass at session 0 and flavor your level 1 and 2 abilities around your subclass early
I guess if I learn how to play football real well, I don't want to then skip the first quarter just because it's 'not the good part'. If the first quarter isn't fun for veterans, then let's not push everything up to the 2nd quarter, let's fix the first quarter.
@@TheClericCorner fair enough. I think the changes they are making are those changes to the first quarter in your analogy. I'm excited to see what comes of the rest of the classes. I'm shaky on the experts, but I love mostly everything they've done for the cleric and as a full caster main I'm really hyped for everything to come
I believe that 3rd level for subclasses is the right choice. Many classes have that power level where characters are learning about their abilities. You start learning how to control magic before you can fully master the 9-tail fox .... I mean phoenix magic that you were born with. In D&D terms, levels 1-2 are teenagers, 3-6 are young adults, 7-10 are professionals, and 11+ are experts in their craft - at least that is how I understand the impact of the mechanics. I personally prefer tier 2 as a starting point because you have the defining abilities of your class and the basics of spellcraft and martial prowess mostly proficient. new players at level 1 is ... something people need to not be overwhelmed. I love multiclassing, and have dipped a few levels into every class at some point. when dipping into a class with similar needs (ie dex+wis requirements for example) then I can spend 1-5 levels picking up what I want. I have noted that a 13 to multiclass for constitution proficiency or heavy armor is less about the roleplay than the mechanics. As a grave cleric / druid hybrid, I chose to multiclass 1 level draconic sorcerer just for the 13+dex natural armor! To be fair, my tiefling was in hell and becoming more fiendish, so .... yeah... but really it was for +1/2 AC when I knew I wouldnt have druid-safe armor available. nothing else from the sorcerer class fit, it was armor only that I could get for 1 level dip. a feat for the same effect would have been a 4 level investment, so definately not worth.
Meh, that's what cantrips and low level spells are for.
the biggest problem they wanna resolve is multiclassing... but i think any that multclass with cleric (1 lvl) is "not" one of the higher tier multiclasses out there
I say good for the multiclassers! 😂 Let's not punish that style of play
It's just easier to play level 3 characters with experienced players and just leave levels 1 & 2 as intro for new players and quick one-off adventures. I agree with Crawford.
I can see the rules-lite logic for 'everyone into the pool at 3rd' but I don't think play benefits from this. Cleric and Sorcerer loose all their flavor. If Clerics go this way they need to have it function more like Warlocks (which feel clunky to me, frankly) where they choose a realm of patron at 1st and get flavored benefits and then get an enhanced relationship/subclass at third. I've looked through the UA for this one and they didn't go that route. I like that at 2nd in this UA set that Clerics choose a "Holy Order"; 'Protector' (aka martial), 'Scholar' (aka Skill focus), and 'Thaumaturge' (aka arcanist). But it's weird that none of the flavor of a Cleric's patron divinity are there until 3rd.
I agree with you, if i'm playing a cleric at LVL1 i need to pick which god i'm a worshipping, it would be insane to go into a table and be asked who i worship and failing to reply.
so, if i have to pick the god, i kinda have to pick the subclass as well since they are limited. I feel like acomodating new players would be easier by making a mechanism to allow them to change subclass up until lvl3, that way they don't really commit untill then and get to know what they are picking.
this would probably fall on the DM's shoulders, something like a difrent god contacts you and offers you more power if you reject the older god.
but yeah, that will simply be another nail in the coffin of lvl1 and lvl2, might as well call them tutorial levels, maybe make a lvl0 so that campaigns would normally start at lvl1, but if there's new players they would start at lvl0
Lvl1 and lvl2 ARE tutorial levels, so people get the feel for their characters and can choose their subclass more easily
I'm not a big fan of all subclasses being at level 3, most of the games I play in start at 3rd bc it doesn't make much sense without requiring unlock missions or training time skips.
The thing that bothers me most is pushing the subclass channel divinity to 6th and the old 6th level feature to 10th. This causes a few subclasses where their only good feature was at level 6 now become level 10 which is far too late. This makes older subclasses that don't get revised become even worse.
Yeah this is very wonky.
Hexblade is the only thing that actually makes any sense as a "complaint" about dipping. And of course that is because they made a really unique mechanic that a lot of characters want then made it easy to get, and stacked a bunch of other bullshit there with it. It's not a first level path problem. It is Hex Warrior is a mechanic every Charisma character wants a way to do problem. If you just gave every Charisma caster a "Cha melee" and "Cha range" attack spell (like Shillelagh and Magic Stones), and eliminated Hex Warrior altogether, a once per day enhanced crit range and damage rider is only "pretty good" not "so good you have to take it."
am I seriously the only player that enjoys levels 1-3?
it's not like I'm new, I've been playing for 6 years now....
skipping levels 1-3 just seems too important
I agree! I love those levels! I don't want to see everything pushed away from them.
I think in the case of the cleric it is massive whiplash to change what you belive in instantly instead of starting with it.
For example sorcerer. What your blood wasn't there before?
my take is I really only want 2 changes out of cleric,
1) make them (along with everyone else) have first level subclasses
2) move medium armor to the protector holy order and remove heavy armor from cleric entirely
why for number 2? because currently, the Cleric does everything the Paladin does and arguably better, they have Heavy Armor and Martial weapons regardless of subclass, they have a miniature divine smite in the form of Blessed Strikes, they have all of the spells that were Paladin specific before, they also have the very good cleric end of the Divine List, it feels like a lot for a fullcaster when it really should mostly be a white mage
if they keep cleric as is, they have to buff Paladin by a lot to compensate, and I can't see them doing that and I'm genuinely worried it'll go the way of 2014 Ranger, in that the best way to play a paladin is to not choose the Paladin class
I ask the player to tell me up front so I can fore shadow them for lvl 3. Lvl 1 and 2 is forming the team to work together. Lvl 3 they come into their true form but work together to help each other.
Since the start of 5e they've basically said level 1 and 2 are apprentice levels. Idk, I see your point, but keeping complexity low at level 1 is so worth it when you can start an experienced game at level 3
Yeah...if only it was possible to play with or without as an option? Depending on if you play with beginners or veterans?
@@TheClericCorner Agree. Making it an option instead of a straight replacement sounds better. Official games can run it as they wish and personal dm games can do either or.
Thematically lvl1 subclasses make sense, mechanically they give too much in terms of multiclass for a 1 level dip. I would argue all classes should get a sub at level 1 but with very few tangible perks kicking in till level 3 and an ability to swap out subclasses for some classes, perhaps with some locked behind level 3. Example a level 1 warlock might get an imp patron. By level 3 they have the choice to work for the imps boss and go for a fiend or devil instead or stick with the imp for entirely different perks. In that sense a subclass can evolve in multiple ways.
A rogue might be able to pick from sneak, deadly, arcane, or crafty (but with better names) and that for the most part gives them access to a profiency and a cantrip, fighting style or battle master like ability but level 3 sneaks can turn to sneak thief or sneak assassin, or maintain the way of stealth. Thematically these things just seen like a true evolution of ones experience
WotC: all classes will get their subclass at level three.
DnD players: ok so we’ll just all start at level three so that we can play the characters we want.
Me: well that just sounds like subclass at level 1 with extra steps
YES!!!! THANK YOU!!! This has been my Argument for ever. It's why my table ALWAYS starts new games at L3! you should always START as your subclass!
Also the ONLY REASON they are doing this is because they want to squash the entire viability of Multi class dips in particular a certain warlock dip every charisma bases class takes least one level in...................
And "New comers" if they even exist, will almost universally..... PLAY WITH AN EXPERIENCED GROUP!!! This is how I was introduced to the game. Its how I introduced many more after me. and Ive been playing since 2nd ed Grew up with Mystra as my campaign setting!!!
Nearly every player knows what subclass they want to play ahead of time. I think this is almost entirely because of multiclass exploits like the Hexblade Warlock or heavy armor Cleric dips.
That being said, the subclass spell lists get hit really hard here and I think this idea needs serious smoothing out.
If they do have some kind of universal subclass options, I would not be surprised if it’s tied to species/race/lineage and/or class group much like paragon paths in 4e. Maybe elven warriors can choose a special option and maybe a Dragonborn mage has a set for them as well. Who knows, but take those surveys, people!
Great video topic and discussion points!! I love this stuff!
Thanks for all your comments and insights!
@@TheClericCorner Always a pleasure discussing the game with those that want to see it succeed!
Cleric Domains: “Am I a joke to you?”
I would like it to be. Starting class gets its subclass at level 1. And multi classing later gets it at level 3. Essentially making multiple 1 level dips not very useful.
Honestly if I asked my group what level they want to play at, it's probably 5th. Martials have Extra Attack, and Spellcasters have access to 3rd level spells.
I am on Crawford's side, you need a couple of levels to let new players figure out how to actually play a class and get to know it's core features.
Your argument mostly boils down to "I am a veteran player, and I want all my toys now". If you know what subclass you want to go towards, you can easily flavor things you do at level 1 and 2 build up to that. Maybe that Beast Master Ranger has a young animal they are caring for, and by 3rd level it is strong enough to be a true companion. GM buy in can easily mane this a thing. For a creepier example, maybe a Swarmkeeper ranger has some kind of insects living inside them and there numbers just aren't enough to give you a mechanical benefit until level 3. It's just lazy character thought up. Flavor is free.
Couldn't we just look at how some cheesy multi-class combos work and rework the phrasing to mitigate or undo them? I mean the One DND UA for the cleric did that by altering the phrasing of the life domain cleric's Disciple of life feature in which the additional hit points are gained only when the spell is cast not after which prevents the 40 hp heal from a lvl 1 Goodberry spell.
Also I like warlocks and I don't know how this design change will affect them, because their 3rd level is devoted to the Pact boon, not their subclass. It makes me wonder where the pact boon will be moved to, because it does not make sense at 1st level, because that would feel front loaded, and I don't want it pushed further, because it hinders progression of boon invocations. So I would support all subclasses being moved to level 1 to get to the meat of the class.
You know, that's actually a very good point!
The big offenders for dipping are
1: artificer dips on wizards - which can’t be fixed here since artificer isn’t changing.
2: life cleric dips on druids - which is already fixed in the new UA
3: hex blade dips on bards, sorcerers, and paladins - they could just rerelease hex blade and make its medium armor and charisma attacks part of pact of the blade.
I feel like that solves 99% of the problematic dips without requiring this change to subclass level progression.
@@jacksonletts3724 THIS
@@jacksonletts3724 it feels very silly since they made a feat which gives u light and medium armor training at 1st level. As someone who loves the theme of storm sorcerer, it is now mechanically dead if I need 6 levels just to get the storm domain channel divinity. That was the only way to make it viable.
I think subclass at 3rd is *probably* good for the game. For me it does 2 things:
Let's people play as new adventurers trying to find their path. (Level 1 will always be tough due to so few hp, so giving subclass at 1st won't change that)
Multiclassing isn't needed for flavour and this will hopefully reduce the difference in power level between non/optimised characters.
One thing I have noticed is I think they will be giving class iconic abilities to all classes at 1st (channel divinity is now 1st).
Your looking at the game like it's a video game where you start fresh
in all actuality why give us a background especially ones like soldiers but you somehow don't have a specialized fighting style
In the real world a soldier is trained in special combat methods in castle times this was with bows swords shields guns (yes early guns) before they step on the battlefield and to use a bow required more training than a gun
If we look at it like a game most player and even new ones like me when I started picked at minimum a rough out draft of their character
My first 3.5e a dwarf fighter with a hatred of all doors who used an axe and heavy armor (so my character was dwindled dow ln to not use bows and runs into combat of course I did not know the rules but having a goal to eventually get a dragon mount (never got one) but all that helps flesh out a character before you even talk about what he would do)
In all a game like d&d being open ended that late leaves mistakes to be made especially since races don't give asi and now you have to
1 roll stats
2 pick a race oooh no water races on a desert map (won't say $93@(!3$ RUclips hates when I type that word and it sounds more 7@(!$+. )
3 pick a background (your asi)
4 pick a class
5 Pick an alignment
6 level 3 pick a subclass
Your already making 5 character defining choices at level 1 and with the rules they stated in Tasha's that you can swap subclasses with dm approval it breaks their new point even further
I respect your decision and hope you read all of this but by what they already design the game around it's more they think it should be this way we want fans don't matter we want @7$3kissers
@@westernjustice3824 the majority of the decisions would be centered around class, the game informs players on what stats each class should usually invest in so the majority of your stat choices is determined by picking cleric. The pre made backgrounds are mostly geared towards the common fantasy expectation and are mechanically built to support that like acolyte is a background that mechanically works to support cleric. Is acolyte the best background mechanically, maybe, maybe not, but for a new player all that matters is that it's good enough to work with. Alignment is usually a flavor pick but given the nature of heroic fantasy and likelihood of having a more experienced player in the form of the DM, it's likely to be a flavor of good.
The decision then is mostly race, class, and subclass, and as such by kicking subclasses down to 3rd level it means a new player has 1/3 of important choices moved to a point where they have a greater sense of the game and how their class works. This also means if a player doesn't like the play of a when they first start out, it is easier to learn a base class quickly instead of having to learn a new class and all of it's subclasses.
@@sam7559 but a player almost always even new players have a goal for their character if my backstory is that I was trained as a monk of a monastery that dates it's teachings to dragons why do I all of a sudden not have that or a sorcerer who gets their powers from day 1 and is predetermined
At best it should be level 1 at worst a choice for the player to get it at level 1 or 3 (not a dm choice)
@@westernjustice3824 Not agreeing with your last point. Dm should always have the power to decide such things about the game so long as its applied equally. Never take away the DM's power and give it to players, for the DM is the rules.
@@TrixyTrixter dms already have enough power plus it's the players character I have been in games where players never go past level 1 because the dm doesn't give out experience and don't plan too and that happens too often
If a player chooses to have that at level 1 not game breaking choosing feats at level 1 when not in base rules without dm permission is
Everyone either rides wizards meat to much and thinks they are gods among men or think dms should decide everything why don't players get much choices
Yeah we get to pick race class and feats if applicable but everything is up to dm ooh that weapon you want you can never have
Players need more of a choice like optional abilities that can replace other abilities and the ability to pick subclass at level 1
If there’s anything I’ve learned from your videos, it’s that flavor is unstoppable! I like where your head’s at but I’m gonna disagree. 1st level subclasses would do something cool but it’s way too frontloaded to make it worth it.
Well that's the point! If we are redoing it, then let's make it viable from the get go, but not overloaded like it would be if we just pushed what we had back :)
I always play from level 1 because i want the character arc to start with them as close to a nobody as is feasible. Also the game being harder at level 1 is a good thing. I don’t want to play a Marysue.
It sounds like you’re an experienced player who has specific fantasies for what you want your character to be and you would like all of your powers as early as possible. In my experience this is not how new players see the game. they are already overwhelmed by the plethora of classes and races and weapon proficiencies. do you those May be very Monday in things but to a new player it’s a whole New World.
*experienced DM
And I've seen both veterans and newbies have specific class fantasies. It's overwhelming just by nature of being a ttrpg. And if that was really their intention, they wouldn't have put the EXTRA option of free first level feats
If I make a character I have a class and subclass in mind all other stuff comes later
It's not like it's an mmo
I think that level one subclasses would work well only if they made multi classing work like Pathfinder 2e did with archetypes.
Aw hell naw! Never playing one dnd ever!
I agree about starting at 3rd lvl for most games. But I like 3rd lvl subclass. Multi classing takes forever to get the good stuff for other classes. Like fighter, barbarian, paladin, ranger or monk. 2 lvl dips for cool abilities then one more for subclass means putting classes on equal footing for muti class. No more 1 or 2 lvl dips for the best stuff. Like cleric, druid, wizard, warlock.
I do agree. But I think if you wanna fix multiclass. Just make Multiclassing get their sub classes at level 3. and if people start taking their dip at level 1 just add that no secondary class can be higher than your starting class.
I feel Sorcerer - Power in blood- and Warlock - I became and warlock by making a pact will be 1st level options. Other classes and like training to be a class and after 2 levels of training know a path to take. (, I want to be a wizard, but I am taking one level Cleric/Fighter to get armor proficiency and sone top heavy boons. but do not want to be a cleric or fighter). As for cleric you are training how to be a cleric as opposed to a priest and at level 3 this is how you move from servicing your congregation to serving the deity.
Honestly I agree with subclasses starting at level 3 but not for the reasons given.
Me and my group all started at the same time. Nobody had any experience the players, the dm, and those who did say they had "experience" watched a single episode of Dimension20. So obviously we started at level 1, and even then we all struggled learning but still had a lot of fun.
Subclasses starting at level 1 will needlessly make the learning curve higher for new *groups* of players imo.
It sounds like every class will come online at 3rd level to make it all standardized
Yep! Just wish they would standardize at level 1
A priest who goes out into the world as a generic follower of gods and then chooses one after a few weeks is rather a strange concept to me. ;)
I don't mind subclasses af 3rd level. It doesn't take that long to get to level 3 anyway.
I think overall the original system was fine. If they are worried about new players, I don't think stuff like the cleric was too intimidating. You could literally tell them the names of the domains and they would have an idea from the thematic names what sounded most fun. A player would know if trickery sounded more fun to them than life right away. If they are worried about multiclassing, they could reorder when they get things. How about this:
Level 1: Spellcasting + Domain (but just the bonus spells)
Level 2: Holy Order + 1 Domain feature (like disciple of life)
Level 3: Channel Divinity
This way multiclassing 1 level would only get you 1st level spells, 2 levels would get the heavy armor most people multiclass for, and 3 levels would get the new channel divinity.
Love this alternative!
That would be fine by me.
I think this is a much better way of doing it hopefully making the channel divinity your good one.
Just because a spell is not in a subclass list does not mean you cannot not prepare it - It does save a spell choice, but you can pick it as your spell.
Might want to check that divine spell list again
As a fan of light cleric I lost my key support spell in faerie fire and my one area damage spell in burning hands. Trickery loses charm person and storm losses one of their very few thunder/lightning spells.
The complains I see about his opinion is just that experienced players wanting to start at higher levels, but the point is for new players who are starting at level 1 to make all classes more easy. Like now experienced player will just start at level 3 like they do now, and new players who need to start at 1st level.
And for mutliclassing complaints can be fixed with feats and working with your DM instead of multiclassing.
If they fix dnd at higher levels, despite 90% of my characters being multiclass dips, I wouldn't be too bothered by this change. However, if most games still don't get to level 10 then it will be a terrible decision that kills the replayability of dnd.
I would argue that for newer players it is MORE important that the subclass starts earlier. In my experience most new players don't really re-flavor abilities for their character to fit into their theme and heavily lean on the pre-given descriptions, so most of the people I saw learning the game had a pretty strong break when their Character suddenly had all this new flavor of a subclass while not really changing between 1 and 2.
Additionally a lot of the pre-written adventures start at level 1 and only go to like 10. So the later the subclass starts the less time you have to enjoy it in those.
Both fantastic points I didn't think of!
Honestly, I really don't like the "all at 3rd level". I have a complete list of house rules to get all subclasses at 1st, for every class, just a "light" version of it, and at 3rd you get all of it.
I never got the whole "it doesn't make sense that your a cleric/sorcerer/etc and you don't get your powers right away at level 1". If level 1 is supposed to be the bottom your just starting out... Why would a god just hand out its magic to someone who hasn't shown true devotion to them yet? The same goes for Warlocks. As for a Sorcerer, they are just now starting to learn to use and control the magic that is their being and it's true power may not show right away.
As for people wanting to start at 3rd? Yeah more veteran players want to start there and skip the early game it's true but plenty of modules released by WotC have you start at 3 or the first few levels don't really have much to do with the overall plot of the story, ei. Curse of Strahds Death House or all of Baulders Gate in Descent into Avernus.
For Multiclassing, there really should be some commitment to get those cool subclasses abilities. It takes time for someone who was a fighter to suddenly turn around and learn magic by being a wizard or such, you don't just pop into a store but a spell book and learn how to cast a certain school better or something.
But those are just my thoughts on the subject personally
I think all subclasses should be chosen at level 1 however i do belive you shouldn't get the "devotion" ability of devoting your self in the class untill level 3 however you should get a thematic and sensical token ability at level 1
Wouldn't a typical PC level up from level one to level three in just a few four hour sessions?
Definitely depends on the table!
If it's experience based its around five sessions and they are atleast 6+ hour sessions in my experience. Alot of people I know naturally turn to milestone levels and that can extend it to around 6-7 sessions.
Whenever multiclassing comes up as an "issue" of being too OP I'm always asking, compared to what? Pure martials?
Full Casters past level 10 pretty much run the game. Druids are full Casters and at level 20 near infinite hp.
Pure martials never catch up.
Also most capstone abilities are bad to meh. But access to 9th level spells is one of the best abilities in the game. You get that at level 17. What incentivzes you to get to 20?
I honestly don't have a problem with subclasses at 3rd level, it just means you're an apprentice until then.
In fact, many classes are already built like that (Paladin oath, Barbarian totem, Ranger, Rogue, Fighter subclasses...).
Only the Warlock patron and Cleric deity should be chosen at first level, but that does not mean that the pact magic and cleric domain can't wait until 3rd level, when the hero have already proven himself.
Even Wizard specialisation happened later in earlier editions.
Besides, it would make 1 level dips less outrageously powerful from the get go, requiring a bit more commitment.
And the argument that "most games start at 3rd level" actually proes the point that veteran players will already start with their class fully online anyway, so why not make it more interesting for apprentice players?
People want to start at level 3, because they don't randomly die at level 3.
Moving subclass to level 1, will not help this. Just look at the cleric, channel divinity with healing is probably better at keeping the first level party alive than any subclass feature gained at level 1.
The reason why subclass at level 1 is powerful for multiclassing, is that you get so many options that you can pick what combos with your build, but a character that is starting at first level, doesn't really have a whole lot to combo with. And thus it doesn't matter if it is a base feature or subclass feature at level 1. (Power wise that is).
Anyway, the fix for level 1 is more hit points, if everybody just started with 10 more hit points (monsters too ofc), level 1 combat would not be as swingy.
However, I have to agree, that this is a flavor loss. Shadow Sorcerer should start with shadow powers, you can always flavor your burning hands black if you know you are going shadow sorcerer later, but it is still weird.
What I think they should do, is fix the HP at level 1, so it is no longer the deadliest level.
Then clearly recommend that experienced players start at level 3. And clearly state that level 1-2 are tutorial levels. Absolutely nothing wrong with starting at level 3, most campaigns don't run out of levels regardless.
My friends and I will not to be touching one dnd
They need to make everyone get their subclass at level 1 or level 3! Why should a Death Domain Cleric get their subcalss at level 1, but a Necromancer has to wait till level 2!
I like level 3 for subclasses, since experienced groups don't start at level one unless they are a role play heavy group, because not all classes get a subclass till level 3!
I started watching your videos because of your reflavouring tips and in building my character, I noticed how I can't do everything I want thru reflavouring alone. It did irk me that some things I wanted were locked behind a level 3 subclass feature. I'm in a campaign now, delaying my main class juss to go thru the motions and reach a simple subclass feature and carry on with my main class. I expressed annoyance about this but ultimately didn't push too much against it, thinking it would be op. What you're saying here makes a lot of sense and I definitely agree, though I might be biased, hah. Curious to see other's opinions, as I know nothing about balancing and game design/mechanics and the like
I think mechanics aside, that is what we are after! What you expect and how it feels. Totally valid :)
This is honestly an extremely out of touch approach to class design, and it needs to be nipped in the bud now. Subclasses at 1st level. Full stop. Multiclassing should not be gatekeeped just because power gamers are going to min max character builds. They're going to do that anyway. Don't punish the power gamers because that leads to collateral damage and crossfire. Instead, accommodate the roleplayers and let the community police itself. We've been doing that for years without you, and I frankly don't like that you feel that you can't trust us.
**slams desk**
THANK YOU 🙌
Subclass at 1 makes all the sense in the world.
It DOES!!
It's because they are trying to reduce multiclassing. Honestly it's kind of lame to play without subclass.
I agree with OneD&D. I think subclasses at level 3 makes sense narratively. You can choose your deity at level 1 but then learn to manifest their divinity a specific way at level 3. I also think it helps to stop a lot of the power gaming multiclass dips that just take armor etc.
They also said that they would be making subclasses available at level 3 for most classes... not all. I would wager Sorcerer is an exception to this.
Why only Sorcerer? Still doesn't make sense narratively for Clerics, Warlocks or heck, even Paladins. Even though they are currently set up to get subclass at level 3. I love these changes mechanically, but as far as flavor & story-telling, they're awful.
Paladins get a subclass at level 3, but no one really questioned that until ONE D&D where everyone is moved to 3rd level, so it seems to me that spellcasters are crying why are we not more flavorful and powefull at 2nd or 1st level.
There's no reason Sorcerer's can't 'awaken' their full powers at 3rd level just like every one else. They can always know their origins since an earlier time, but that doesn't mean they can tap that power before they're ready.
@@user-uv6qu3wb5d people have questioned it not just for Paladin but for all martial/half casters
@@jorgewilks1440 only spellcasters were having subclasses before lvl 3, so they were the exception
As someone who absolutely loves Clerics & Warlocks. I HATE this change narratively. If it's a multi class issue, then just move the proficiencies/features up in levels. Don't let the mechanics of the game ruin the flavor & narrative. I'm genuinely baffled that people are happy with this.