ONE D&D: What the community REALLY thinks about the new changes...(And why they're RIGHT)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 вер 2024
- A follow-up to the breakdown of why Level 3 Subclasses are TERRIBLE for the game. How else does this HUGE change to the game effect the way we will play? There may just be 1 simple fix for it all...
📕See PART1 here! ~ • Why ONE D&D is WRONG a...
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/...
PAYPAL: paypal.me/thec...
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
dnd one 5.5e 6e How to play Dungeons and Dragons Beginners Guide What class to play in dungeons and dragons best class in D&D best subclass most powerful optimised monk build DandD Warlock Bard Dungeon Master, Fighter, Ranger, Artificer, Cleric, Barbarian, Wizard, Sorcerer, Monk, Paladin, Rogue, Adan, DnD Shorts D&D Shorts TikTok Dungeons and Dragons XP to level 3 with Davvychappy potentially a bit a Critical Role with dungeoneering tabletop community next to tabletop RPG dungeons and dragons Fjord Beau Jester Yasha Caleb Nott 5th edition dragons 3.5e dungeon dudes DM GM dungeon master game master tips sprinkle a bit of Caduceus Mollymauk in the Mighty Nein Matt Mercer Crap guide to dnd shots tiktok
As far as hexblade I fixed this by just moving the charisma for damage and attack to the pact of the blade and gave the hexblade heavy armor proficiency instead
Ooh, that sounds like a good fix!
@@TheClericCorner thanks I did it because I was trying to figure out how to keep the hexblade viable while fixing the problem and with this solution it allows any warlock to be a melee warlock while still keeping hexblade good
good idea.
@@Marpaws thank you
That’s fucking worse, free heavy armor prf is way more busted then the Chr damage, people go hexblade for the armor prf
In my opinion, the "tutorial stages" is your character's Background, that's how they got the skills, the training, the preparation, for where they are now at Level 1. They have already got armour, weapon, and skill proficiency.
Also, a pilot session for the players sounds like a fun idea, to help realise player's character fantasy, and the tutorial stage could be playing with a level 0 character who is deciding what they want to be.
If you don’t multiclass in D&D then the only truly meaningful choice you make for your character is their subclass.
Personally, and maybe with a bit of bias, I prefer having subclasses come up at different levels for different classes. It makes the puzzle element of character building a little more interesting, and works with the provided flavor of those classes. It makes sense that warlocks and clerics and sorcerers get their subclasses at first level while others don't, because in-lore their subclasses are basically tied to their backstory in a way that other classes are not; clerics getting power from the god(s) they worship, warlocks from their patron, and sorcerers from their bloodline or curse or exposure to raw magic or other planes, with each backstory choice giving similar yet inherently different power (a case can be made for classes that get their subclass later that should probably get it at first, like paladins taking a specific oath for theirs and monks getting theirs from specific training at a monastery, but it generally makes sense in-lore).
When it comes to multiclassing. I require my players to have story/role play reasons for multiclassing. Wizard taking a level in fighter? Better train with an experienced fighter. Dipping into Hexblade? Better find a powerful magic item that can give you a nee class item. Etc.
But then you have to balance that. How long do they need to train with said person? Would this be downtime activity?
Also, not all hexblades require a powerful magic item. Some hexblades have the Raven Queen as their patron. And that's in canon.
This summer I ran I DnD camp for kids, for day 1, we had pre-generated characters so we could dive right into the action. Then the second half of day 1, and first bit of day 2, we built characters for those who wanted to change. A few of the kids stuck with what I'd made, but most of them wanted to try something different. It was VERY easy for me to ask them a few questions, give them a few options, and poof, there's a character ready to go. Using standard array was a massive boon. The pre-chosen spell lists for classes will be amazing for this too.
I fully agree though, choosing the subclass isn't really a problem imo.
Heya, Ryker! I was a little on the fence on this one, but the nanosecond you mentioned subclasses and backstory, you sold me. I'm a training montage guy. I like for my characters to build their power slowly, over time, in game. Cue the "Rocky" theme, the whole nine yards.
But not being able to flesh out a concept that really needs to be developed early is a HUGE problem. Like you said, it's particularly noticeable with the Sorcerer and their bloodlines. You NEED to be able to explain where someone born to magic is drawing their power from, and that's not really something you can do at 3rd level.
So, I am now officially on the "Subclasses at 1st Level" train! ✌😎
This is a great video, even though I am disagreeing with it. Character development through adventuring is a popular style of play. Some players prefer that characters don’t come to the table fully planned but develop based on what happens to them. It’s actually an underlying assumption of levelling. Events in your backstory can be added or can cause nascent abilities that appear during levelling. I have an aberrant mind sorcerer whose back story involves the shadow fell, he gained the shadow touched feat at level four.
Subclass at level 3 allows both styles of play. You can choose to start at level one or level 3. You don’t need specific adventures to get your subclass, you just need adventuring in general.
If my players want to take a dip into another class, I make them role-play it by finding someone of that class that is at least 3 levels higher than them. The player needs to tell me at least a level before they want to take a dip, that way they find the NPC and then tell me they are practicing for x amount of hours per day in that given subject. If someone wants to take a dip into wizard, they find a wizard 3 levels higher, and they teach them 1 cantrip (players choice). Before the player can cast the cantrip they have to make an arcana check. If they pass, the spell works. If the player wants to take a dip into Warlock. They tell me before hand what type of warlock they want to be, and I add into the story for them how they meet their patron. If they want to dip into sorcerer, I again find out what sorcerer it is they want to be, and then when the time comes that the character is about to level up, I ad something into the story that triggers the sorcerers abilities. It's really no different than how they got to be what they are at 1st level through their backstory, it's just played out in game time. There's an old AD&D adventure called Treasure Hunt where the players start off at 0 level. And as they progress throughout the adventure, they pick up skills to whatever class the player wants the character to be.
Something i don't see is talked much about is the Holy Order of the Cleric and how this same choise can be given to all other classes to create "Archetypes" of classes. As like a Scholar character will focus on skills no mater what subclass, a Protector character will focus on combat, and the thaumaturge will focus on "spellcasting". Just expand this to all classes and boom "Archetype"
You're right about multiclassing for flavour. My initial wording should have been more about I Dont think 1 or 2 level dips are needed for flavour, a full on multiclass where you make a notable investment can create cool differently flavoured character types.
Pregens are also really a useful tool, I like using them for one offs. Gives even experienced rp'ers a chance to play something they would never have considered.
I only took 2 levels in sorcerer for my blood Hunter example, but your right where the more levels there are, the more it becomes a relevant shift! Appreciate you clarifying
And yeah, definitely use them all the time for newcomers!
🤨you need those 1 or 2 level exactly.... the more levels you invest into another class the weaker your first class gonna be. Missing high level spells for casters, multi attacks for melees and so on. Taking more then a couple level is suboptimal.
@@matth2283 that's why I don't like them, they give too much for too little investment.
@@jiminkpen9750 1-2 levels are already a big investment. what, that's like 20% of your levels in a game. Unless you highly optimize that's just gonna make you 20% weaker compared to full class builds.
@@matth2283 in terms of game design, for me, a single class character should be more powerful in what it specialises in,
multiclass should increase the versatility of your characters powers/abilities at the expense of that pure power.
Currently it feels like a 1 or 2 level dip just makes characters more powerful and versatile (obv not in every case, just the ones people take) which is often why they are taken by power gamers for optimal characters. Multiclass should be an option but it needs to fit in their vision of game balance.
There are many other ways they could have gone (which may have been better), such as changing many of the character level based features to class level, or limiting spell casting to certain armour types no matter your proficiencies (ie Arcane spells can only ever be cast in no armour, divine in medium for example), etc.
They've chosen this approach to try and I think it's a reasonable way of doing it.
If they wanted to disincentivize multiclassing they should make every level interesting and flavourful. If you want power it should be a tough choice, but not because it's going to be a slog until you get it, but because any choice could be meaningful and character defining. I feel like most of the time subclasses are gameplay defining and "tutorial" levels (levels previous to getting your subclass) did nothing for me when I was new to the game. Talking with my DM about what character I wanted to play was what helped me the most, if my DM can prepare to run the game for the whole group and help everyone with rules even when they were learning too, I could learn my character with their help and also by myself watching videos, reading and studying relevant rules. I would take weaker subclasses at level 1 if they were more flavourful over stronger ones at level 3.
And I would play a straight class from level 1 to 20 without multiclassing if the way between was interesting and fun, not just uninspired filler. I'm looking at you level 20 class feature for bards, sorcerers, rangers and monks.
I wish I had this comment before so it was in this video!! Well said
@@TheClericCorner aw thank you! I always tend to get too shy to actually comment something on any video I watch. I love this game so so much and a lot of the decisions that WoTC are making while they seem to contradict themselves make me really sad so I got inspired to spill my thoughts haha
Im fine with L3 Subs
I really wanna advocate for are subclass dependent 20th level features! Wayy better than The BOONs. Makes sense with the Level 18 core class capstones and we can draw wpic inspiration from 5e paladins!
Imagine this:
-Evoker L20 gets greater Overchannel to double a spell’s maxed AOE on up to 9th level spells
-Totem Barb L20 gaining immunities, Super flight or etc.
- Hexlock with Mass Curse
First! No but seriously, I really like that this conversation is happening/continuing, I think both sides have some good points. Though I am on the side of having a mix of when classes should get subclasses
Same here
Totally fair! I think I'm the only UA-camr addressing it, so I hope it gets out there! 😂
Honestly, I think it's a big and important change, and Wizards specifically wants to hear ideas and criticism (hopefully). Like you said, there are solid points on both sides, so they need to find a better compromise for both groups to be happy. Not just get rid of the one and replace it immediately
I'm 100% in the lvl 1 subclasses camp, and have been since picking up 5e. I actually believe Warlock holds both the best and worst of the L1S design already.
Well-designed is the structure of the patron vs pact. At lvl 1 you're selecting your patron, your subclass, and getting thematic powers accordingly. Fantastic. Then at lvl 3 you're making another selection, your pact, granting you additional powers that help further define your build. A series of choices throughout play that build a character over time. Again, fantastic.
So where does it fall down? In the design of these features. Perhaps the greatest offender in the multiclass dip argument is the Hexblade patron. Why is this dip bad? It's certainly not because of the thematic elements, that flavor is great. And it's not that Hexblade is giving out lvl 1 subclass features at all, because so are all the other patrons. Rather, it's because Hex Warrior is such a good feature for so many builds it stops feeling like an option and starts feeling like a requirement, just like HWM and Sharpshooter. It's the individual feature that's been poorly balanced for when and how it's obtained. It's WotC's repeated design failure that they front-load exceptional features and barely bother designing higher levels.
So lvl 1 features feel very powerful relative to higher level ones, and then you couple that with WotC not really balancing subclasses against each other very well and you get the spectrum of lvl 1 power we have now, made much more visible in L1S classes than it is in L3S classes, but if you look It's still there (hello Gloomstalker, I'm talking about you).
What's the solution? More robust design. Keep subclasses at level 1 so players of any experience level can start playing the character concept they want right away, but balance these features against each other to keep them within a margin of error and avoid FOOS. If you can do it with feats, you can do it with subclass features.
And for the whole too-complicated-for-newbies argument, I've taught a lot of first timers over the years and editions, and I'll tell you I've very rarely lost a new player to build complexity, but I have lost several to feeling like they couldn't play the concept they had in their heads. A good group/DM can get them over any complexity hump (FFS we did it in 3.5 and that was stupidly complex by comparison), but we can't make their character feel like what they want when what they want is 6 levels and a feat into a multiclass build.
YES!! Especially that last part. Well said 🙌
@@TheClericCorner thanks. 😅 Sorry it was such a long comment, I'm kinda using comments to work through how I'm going to respond to the survey.
You nailed it.
Every time I see something about "One D&D" all it seems like to me is that the designers have completely forgotten that the game isn't what it was when they were new. The game is more popular and well known than it has ever been before. Very few people are picking up the game and playing without ANY support from an outside community.
The new rules seem like they are trying to "fix" the game so people can learn the game without any outside support. A whole idea that isn't needed.
As it stands now in One d&d you can take a one level dip into ranger and have concentration free hunters mark then take a one level dip into cleric and have super healing.
All while having your full 18 levels in a single class cuz let's be honest no one is doing epic boon feats.
18:40 CR 1 is meant for a party of four first level characters, so a level one character is hypothetically matched with a CR1/4 monster, that soldier is as tough as a single level two fighter.
Thanks for the correction! Still about as strong as a trained soldier 😂
@The Cleric Corner every Fighter could be a trained soldier, but not every soldier could be a Fighter. That's even noted on the page describing the class itself. Fighters are "soldiers but more badass;" what normal person can take a deep breath and recover lost completely from almost any wounds they've received in battle?
@@CooperAATE I feel like this is possibly a bit of a problem with D&D, there is no non-home brew way to play a normal person, there is an assumption of heroisms, which limits play possibilities. I’d suggest a level zero, in which players get species abilities and backgrounds, 6hp plus con and nothing else.
I think the issues with subclasses has a lot more to do with their DMs surveys that showed most people started at 3 or lvl 2 with level 3 after session one because it was unfair for some to have their subclass rather then multi classing.
The new Cleric abilities are great for a one level dip is why I think this is the case.
The "no subclass until lvl3" reminds me of the way the SW5e ruleset does classes/subclasses. Personally, I really like the way SW5e has done the class-subclass mechanics, because so long as the subclasses are all strong in their own right, and relitively unique, it leaves a lot of freedom for character building and flavor in different ways. For example, in my SW5e campaign we had 2 operatives (SW5e's rogue counterpart). I was playing a sharpshooter operative (focus on burst damage through consistant sneak attack procs, no spellcasting) and the other player was playing a saboteur operative (has spells, a companion droid, and his build was focused on enemy debuffs and area of denial). Even though we were both playing rogues, because we picked two different subclasses it still felt like we each filled a different niche in the party and had different strengths. We also had two engineers at one point, one was an armormech and the other was a bard. Again, two compltetly different skills/niche even though they were the same base class. - *However,* we were also experienced players and started at lvl4, so we did skip those "training wheel" levels.
I do worry about WotC not being able to do that sort of class-building well though, considering their track record with having some classes/subclasses that are just objectively mechanically bad compared to other classes, and some subclasses being absurdly strong. Something tells me that they will fall into a major pit. Either: 1) making too many subclasses and have the Pathfinder issue where there is *so many* options it is overwhelming and hard to learn, especially for new players. 2) The subclasses don't have enough unique abilities, and so two characters playing the same class but a different subclass will still be filling the same niche. or 3) There will be subclasses that are really weak and others that are absurdly strong, and so there will be the Eldrich Knight problem where it is almost always a bad idea to pick that subclass compared to another.
All things to absolutely watch out for!
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH SUBCLASSES AT 1 2 and 3 especially since spellcasters only often get more spells then actual subclass abilities sorcerers are born with magic for instance and warlocks call a thing for magic, patrons wouldn't get many patrons if they put u on hold for 3 lvls
Level 0 should be the tutorial. They should extrapolate that level out to be more fun if DM’s don’t want to use a tutorial for new players. Feats at first level make this actually fun and interesting.
I change my mind. I think all subclasses should start at level 1. Let’s try it!
Wahoo!!
I like the hex blade dip. As player and dm. Great for role play at table and making bad ass characters.
And see, I like playing a Hexblade and doing a level 1 dip into sorcerer to grab a few more cantrips, since warlock spell slots are so limited.
Really makes no sense to me to pick cleric subclass later, because you need to pick a god anyway, unless you're a godless
Even more so for warlock, where are your powers coming from, you need to pick what your patron is to have any sort of backstory
You know I feel like this whole problem could be solved by giving every class a subclass at level 1 and not allowing multiclassing at level 3 as an optional rule for people who feel like certain features are overpowered
I think that's awesome! Puts the power in the DM making it an optional rule!
“One D&D is Playtest Material Only
These game mechanics are in draft form, usable in your D&D campaign but not refined by full game development and editing. They aren’t officially part of the game and aren’t permitted in D&D Adventurers League events, nor are they available for use on D&D Beyond.”
This is directly from D&D Beyond.
Why are people causing a panic about the rules change? If you do not like the rules, then fill out the survey. also, as stated above, these are not rules!
I would like these UA-cam channels to stop creating controversy where none exists.
"How dare people be passionate about the game and share their opinion. They should just read it and say nothing and never generate discourse. There's absolutely no fallout or things unconsidered that can be addressed and considered. UA-camrs should stop making videos about things I disagree on!"
They are trying to discourage one level dips not multiclassing totally. One level in cleric without subclass will be less popular because no heavy armour.
General fixes like no subclasses till level 3 are better than specific fixes like just fix hexblade because with a new edition there will new specific issues that crop up unexpectedly.
I disagree with multiclassing being required for flavour, with all the subclasses around and different feats and simple reflavouring any concept should be possible. Including a blood hunter casting fire magic
I've noticed a lot of the comments against level one subclasses are under the incorrect assumption that a level one adventurer is "just starting out" or whatever.
Lol yup 😂
I'm fine with them going to 3rd level.
Heck I'm fine with it being moved to 5th level.
Your answer about HP.
At 1st you automatically take the max HP from Hit die + Con Mod in D&D 5e by RAW.
Lol yes, I meant add an additional die roll after that
@@TheClericCorner
Okay.
Note : Pathfinder 2nd edition has a even better solution to the low HP at level one problem.
Each Ancestry has a starting HP amount that is also added to the Class & Constitution modifier amount.
Which gives all characters a decent amount of HP at level 1.
But does not result in massive HP numbers later on like several homebrew solutions people have come up with for 5e.
I still feel like a brand new cleric doesn't have the strength of faith or experience tapping into divine magic to fully summon the powers of their deity. I also feel like moving this to level 3 allows players to choose a deity they care about or that resonates with them, as opposed to explicitly tying deities to specific domains.
See, I always thought the idea of a Cleric, as opposed to simply a priest or minister, is that a Cleric is CHOSEN by the Deity in question and EMPOWERED, whether they like it or not. It’s not so much a choice as a submission to a summons by a power beyond your understanding. You can run from the call and refuse to use the power, but your deity will attempt to enforce their decision. I think of Clerics more like prophets.
Mundane ministers and priests, on the other hand, are worshippers and leaders in the religion proper, and don’t have divine magic. They don’t channel the power of their gods; they’re pastoral leaders and clergy administrators.
Now, in a world with literal prophets running around, the uppermost echelons of most religions have a Cleric at their head. It makes sense to have someone enlightened and empowered directly by your deity to be the big leader of the clergy. But not all religious leaders are (character class) Clerics. Just people who answer the call to lead the faithful.
EDIT: To be clear, the Deity is, in almost all cases, going to empower one of the faithful, whether a layperson or someone ordained. A worshipper already has a “channel” open to the deity, and is more likely than a non-worshipper to accept the powers and mission that go with being made a (capital c) Cleric.
Players can choose their deity at level one, that doesnt tie the deity to any subclass any more than it would at level 3.
I have a solution: homebrew
I have a solution 2: what the books say are only important if your not a role player.
I think one problem is that D&D nowadays focuses to much on players and not the DM.
There's a feeling that if you tell your prayers no then your doing something wrong. A DM should have no problem telling a player No you can't play a Hexblade you don't have a sentient magic Sword. No you can't join that Cleric order/domain they have no churches in this area.
What I'm trying to say is that if there's a multi-classing problem at the table the DM should have no problem with just saying NO.
I'm not trying to say that the DM shouldn't work with the players. But the players need to understand that the DM has final say.
Remove Multi-Class and replace it with Custom class using modified Multi-Class rules (Just do not know how yet)
I play my character as a Gambler. He has no armor or weapons and travels with adventurers for the fun of it. Mechanicly he is a mix of fighter/Monk/Ranger - Hoping to have a playable version when 1DD is out.
Lol you should check out my Narrative Leveling video!
12:24 in terms of the Prism Mage thing, Kobold Press do ALOT of great "Deep Magic" and subclasses for 5E, and its worth checking out.
One of my players wanted to play a Cleric to an Egyptian God; and I remembered that KP had a Deep Magic called "Hieroglyphic Magic"... I asked her if she wanted to use that with her cleric, and she jumped at it. I then added a great deal of liberty with Ritual Casting with it, so that, as a Cleric, she could Ritual Cast any of her hieroglyphic magic. I think it adds alot of flavour to have resources like Kobold Press and Paizo and Monte Cook Games who produce additional material for D&D's 5E, because WotC have done such a bad job providing for the players.
When you consider what 3.5 players had in Prestige Classes, 5E's subclasses are...frankly...pathetic.
18:40 Yeah, by definition of the Player Character, you are stronger then soldiers and city guards; because WotC had 5E set up to give players a power fantasy.
A TRUE Session Zero would have the players running a "Commoner" straight from the DMG or MM, and you'd band together and try to pursue the class you wanted...then Session One would pick up 2-3 Years later, once they've been through their Trials and Trainings.
...and if all of this sounds familiar...ITS BECAUSE THATS HOW DRAGONLANCE STARTED! ...go read the Dragons of Autumn Twilight, and gain all needed storytelling skills.
Oh yeah, I have all the Kobold Press books! Love them! But I actually used the Prism Domain cleric subclass on my own website! It's been a blast!
Great finale there. I agree. I don't really care what level they put the subclasses at. I think it's a total misfire to focus on that. They need to address the martial/caster divide primarily if not exclusively by boosting Martials at mid-high tiers. Damage dice boosts, high-end martial maneuvers, etc. That's the big "problem" in D&D 5e they should focus on.
I think if they're this scared of multiclassing, just put a multiclassing limit. Say, a character can't have more than 2 or 3 classes. Tweak the broken 1st level features to be less broken. But don't take away the first level features. If anything, every class should get the subclass at 1st level. Because if I'm trying to play an assassin, having to wait three levels to start feeling like an assassin... it's very annoying. I have a character right now, she's a bladesinger wizard. But the DM is adamant about starting the campaign at 1st level. So she's a bladesinger wizard... with no proficiency with swords whatsoever. It really robs the character of the fantasy to not have the subclass at 1st level. And by having that 2 or 3 class limit, you can have every class get their subclass at 1st level without clogging up the game with impossibly good builds that just 1 level dip into everything.
As I said in the previous video about these changes, I have a full list of subclasses at lvl1 and even one to change older subclasses (like draconic sorcerer with an expanded spell list like clockwork), or even a rule that lets you play a paladin, warlock, bard with int instead of Cha, in the recent review of the blood hunter it's stated that you can use Wis instead of int, so why other classes shouldn't do the same? I'm still new to your channel so I have to watch all videos, but I like the "play a better X", cause I like to reflavour things and I like to multiclass just to achieve a concept I have in mind if I can't reach it with a single class. I want to play a paladin of an undead but doesn't want to play an oath breaker cause I have an oath to this undead? Go paladin 2 undead warlock X, with basic rules at 3rd level, my paladin and a basic paladin could get their "sacred oath" at same time and I could even go fighter instead of paladin and achieved even at lvl2. If warlock, cleric, sorcerer and fighter (but even artificer) are so abused for 1lvl dips, why don't make other classes more appealing?
If I could make a "request", you could even create a video about these subclasses at lvl1. Your opinion could be more appreciated than mine. 😜
Honestly the subclass to level 3 is a good and not so good move. It all depends on how you view it. I am both a mechanics and flavor guy but when I multiclass which is rarely I do it for both mechanics and flavor, somerimes I do it just for some more cantrip.
I will say the sub class at 3rd level is a bit silly especially for a class like paladin or sorcerer. Overall it sounds super cool though.
waiting for toll 3rd is important because not all DM's or games are created equal. some subclasses will not be useful to fun for some types of games nor, some types of DMs, or even within some parties.
Waiting till 3rd it gives players (new & veteran) time to figure out what will be useful, fun, or effective. I hate picking a subclass that ends up not being utilized by the game it is being played within,
Your comparison of a level 1 fighter to a soldier because of its CR is incorrect. CR numbers are based on the average level of a party of 4, so by the math a typical soldier would be able to take on 2 fighters or at minimum be an even match for a one on one.
Reflavouring is basically homebrew. You can take a concept and change it but that is not RAW, that is why they should make multi-classing more viable and add more options to have a wider range of character options.
I think you might be mistaking what flavouring is. His Swarmkeeper ranger in his Spell Jammer campaign is a prime example. Whether it's a swarm nanobots or fluttering birds it mechanically the same and interacts with the rules differently in no capacity.
If you think 5e is complicated try 3.5 for a session lol
I think 5e is easier but I like the idea of 3rd level because I think it kinda makes sense as a beginning adventurer
Every ttrpg is complicated compared to UNO 😂
So the JRPG style of character design... I can get into that.
I realy like £rd level subclasses, especilly now that I have worked with introducing players to DnD. First level subclasses add too much unnecessary choices to a player that may not know what they want to be yet.
I've heard arguments on both sides, and I'm on the Lv3 train. I have yet to be convinced otherwise.
Would love to hear why!
@The Cleric Corner I'm not the most eloquent person, but I'll give it a shot.
First off, no matter what decision they make, they're NEVER going to please everybody on this subject. So, of course, they're going to go with what they think will be easiest for not just new players, but brand new DMs (which they say is a goal for this pseudo-edition, making DMing easier). You get 1-2 cool things at 1st level, again at 2nd, then you specialize at 3rd. Simple and uniform, which works for me and should be cool for newbs like we all once were.
Second, I'll always be on the side that attempts to balance multiclassing. Making it a second-thought variant rule was a mistake, because they didn't take the time to balance early (sub)class features to make sure certain combos wouldn't overpower single-class PCs (and DON'T get me started on feats, lol). Having a higher cost is fine; making sure you're committed to extra power in certain areas *should* mean you have to sacrifice both power in other areas as well as the time it takes to learn an entirely new skillset. That only makes sense to me, and if 5e had started this way I'm not sure many people would really care (and most wouldn't care for long).
In the end, though, people are gonna play the game they wanna play. 5e, OneD&D, PF, CoC, etc. If people like the OneD&D stuff but want subclasses immediately, they'll just start at 3rd level *like they already do in 5e*. This is a change in the game, but if you don't like it, just keep doing what you're doing and be happy playing cool games with your friends.
Am i crazy or would a soilder dominate a level 1 fighter?
Isnt it like 18 AC with multiattack and a longsword?
Um, if I understand CR correctly you are wrong about a guard being less than a level 1 player. CR is what the level 4 PCs would have to be for a balanced fight. So in this case, a CR 1/2 NPC would be equal to 4 1/2 level characters, or 2 level 1 characters, or twice as powerful as a level 1.
Feedback is important, I hope Wotc watches this video, nice Data Gathering haha
Keep It Simple Stupid. Pregenerated characters is by far the simplest way to solve the issue for sure. That's what they did in 3.x
Yep! No need to do any better than that 😂
For the people that always start at 3rd level, why do you care?
Ok. You have convinced me. On the other hand, I think that the issue that this is highlighting to me is scaling. I think that I would feel more comfortable with earlier subclasses if all class/subclass options scaled a little better.
enjoyed the discussion despite i disagree with you.
I really appreciate you giving your thoughts and continuing this important discussion on onednd. My only thought is if people want to play with subclasses at lvl 1 for all classes. How would you balance it? A monk at lvl 1 with their subclass or barbarian with totem? I'm fine with 3rd lvl because it could make all classes equal. But if the game could be balanced with 1-3 spreading the subclass abilities across them could work fine.
So many good comments I had to!
Most classes have a couple features to begin with. Just replace one with a small subclass feature, and there you go!
@@TheClericCorner very fair. Could fix alot of issues if you did that, and you could just put an optional rule that you don't have to choose subclass until 3rd for beginners too if people worry about it
Instruction unclear: new player left after only seeing pregens and not being allowed (so they say) to make their character even though they can.
Honestly im still sticking with level 3 or heck level 2 as a compromise since while i understand your case, im uncertain if its worth the Abserdity level 1 subclasses are gonna cause. Also bear in mind features at level 1 for subclasses are likely going to he hampered as to avoid hexblade/life cleric shenanigans (best case scenario something decent albeit slightly gimmicky, worst case its gonna trump phb ranger's level 1 features as being ribbons at best) whereas level 2 and definitely level 3 are allowed to earnestly have that extra oomph for its subclass features to compensate for how long it took.
I feel like you're measuring the shenanigans to current subclass features. Obviously they would be rebalanced to level 1
I'm a standardized level 3 person. Level 3 means if you start at level 1 characters you get to play a few sessions with the characters to get a feel of the party and even your own character. For new players for cleric as an example they might go in pick the class thinking they want to support and heal because either that's what they think they want to do or even just what that class does but level 2 they learn they like the damage dealing of cleric so instead of going into life they instead pick light or some different. For more experience they might go in with one concept but find a different aspect of their character more appealing to focus on and as such take their character down a different direction. As a personal example I've been playing since 4e and in my latest campaign that started from level 1 I originally went in with the plan of tiefling battle master fighter but the 2 levels gave me time to figure out I much rather go rune knight and focus more on the infernal nature by reflavor the giant theme features as her tapping deeper into her devilish blood.
Another thing I find interesting with the move of cleric subclass is that it's moving towards the way of old D&D where level clerics didn't even have spell casting and those early levels were the cleric proving they were worthy of the boons from their god.
For subclass side quest, I have never seen one actually happen, it's always been just a thing a character can do now, a recton, or something the character level 1-2 has been working on in downtime. So like your swarmkeeper ranger in that situation it be just as simple as in the down time between level 2 and 3 they were able to finish their design for the nano machines. I do not like the concept of side quest for character class mechanics, especially ones in which it's implied the character is working on between sessions. If subclasses require side quest to acquire mid campaign, a wizard likely needs to do 1-2 side quest per level to gain their new spells for that level, especially at higher levels. "Sorry wizard I know at 15th level you're supposed to be able to pick 8th level spells as part of your 2 new spells but does it really make sense in character for why you suddenly demiplane. If you want that spell you're going to need to drag the party around until you can find an arch wizard willing to teach you that spell."
Good wizard nerf but bad martial nerf bro, the non casters need subclasses instantly and like a free plus 3 weapon and armor
Woo hoo 17:40
This video felt like "I still haven't convinced some people my position is the best. I shall beat these people into submission by using the comments of others who agree with me. " Heheheh. I shall continue to disagree. Also, I loathe pre-generated characters.
I just think that Subclasses get too many features early. Obviously you need some things at level 1, but front loading classes has always been the problem imo. I've played only one game of "3.5" E DND and not having so many abilities in the first level was really nice.
If you really need a class feature that isn't covered by a feat (which you now get at first level) or by 3rd level with all the myriad of options available, you are a Roll-player, not a Roleplayer. For those who want to play superheroes from the get-go, start campaigns at level 3. Personally, my players get a lot more enjoyment with the feeling of character growth, and learning how to be a great adventurer, not just starting out as one. Also, Multiclassing is a vestigial aspect of the game that isn't needed anymore at all. The rules or your combat abilities don't need to always match your 'head-cannon' 1:1, the same feel for any multiclassing can be accomplished by a feat and a subclass, and if you disagree you're thinking more about "builds" which 5e isn't meant for, ya'll better off playing pathfinder or 4e.
Going Classless is just a better idea for flavor and optimizing!
All subclasses should come at the same time, whether at level 1 or 3!!
Everyone will have an opinion and it's good you have one. The new Cleric still needs significant adjustment if it isn't going to be badly exploited by multiclassing and the higher level features are misguided nonsense for high level play (WotC hasn't fixed this). Your view sounds like it's reflective of only playing with your generation and the current community, rather 5 to 65 years of age. The classes and rules need to be even more simple for the hobby to grow. As you might know I teach D&D 5e six days a week on my channel and neither WotC or your views will help the game. All the best :)
I humbly disagree. And subclasses at level 1 doesn't necessarily mean more complicated at level one. The hobby will grow. If my views or wotc won't help the game, whose will? Yours?