[D&D 5e] Starting level should 3 not 1

In D&D 5th edition when you gain level 3, most classes can choose a subclass. These subclasses often change the mechanic of the primary class in a radical way.

---

Examples
Artificer - Battle Smith:
Bard - Lore
Bard - Valor
Fighters - Eldritch knight
Access to Spellcasting

Rouge - Arcane Trixter
Access to Spellcasting

Monk - Kensei
now trained in non-monk weapons

Ranger
adds Companions that were not available at lower levels.

---

My point is that some classes make a major shift in tone/feel when they gain the 3rd level. Many of the shifts point to you have trained long and hard and now you can do X, but your current story with your character does not reflect this training.

I know of some GM's who try and soften this shift by making some house rules, like the fighter who can cast a cantrip a few times per day, until he fully becomes an Eldritch knight.

So if you are playing a newly trained adventure I think the starting level should be 3. Unless you are playing the teenager who picks up a sword to fight the goblin invasion, then a level 1 character seems more appropriate.

That change at level 3 can be jarring and nonsensical. Take, for instance, the Bladesinger, they are master of a specific weapon and light armor, but through the first levels they can not use that weapon, no wear armor... then suddenly... poof, armor.
I would just allow them to both wear the armor and use the sword from the beginning, this makes more sense and really does not unbalance anything.
I doubt I would even say level 1 is appropriate for a teen character. Level 3 is a good starting point for most games. PCs are much less fragile (so easy to die by accident at L1), and they might not really be the character the player wants to play. The excuse is that it does not take long to get to L3, but that also means there is not much lost by jumping there.
This is a bit 5e specific. Previous editions/versions had a lot more character during the lower levels, so you will often hear people saying how those lower levels are their favorite time to play, I don't think this fits with how 5e works, though.

The only times I think starting at L1 is best is if the players are new to DnD. The intent behind levels 1 and 2 seems to be a slow onramp so people can learn the simple stuff first before adding more complexity.

The Wizard - Bladesinger is another excellent example. The shift is at level 2, but still. :)

Yeah, L2.
I have been able to make the other ones make some sense, even the Paladin 'oaths' can be worked into the story (without needing to go back home to take the oath) but Bladesinger was a bridge too far, I just skipped the restriction. :)
It can be a lot of work to try make the change fit into the fiction. Most DnD players seem fine with ignoring it. There are many levels (other than 3) where changes happen that don't make sense.
I prefer to have players play out the hints of what they are going to learn: maybe trying to practice the spells they will learn (sudden new spells doesn't make sense), or foreshadowing an ability before it comes online; but DnD often does not allow the time to do that in all cases, so it often ends up being a hat-tip at best, still better than nothing.
When I get to be a player I tend to only select options at the time they come up, allowing the fiction that came before to dictate which direction the character goes, but that can be problematic when so many things need pre-planning and earlier choices (stats, maybe).

You're not wrong, a lot of the changes when a character is granted a subclass feel strange. Generally, I just ignore the changes and pretend it was like that the whole time, at least as a player.

A few of the changes can be written away by the DM. If a Ranger is planning on becoming a Beastmaster, then let them have a pet that follows them around but doesn't interact. Eventually, it finishes its "training" and it can bite stuff now. Paladins can still hold their oath, they just don't have anything to back it up mechanically. An Eldritch Knight fighter can be tough, but they either have a reason they know spells when they come into the game (they're dating a wizard or something), or they have a story-based reason to be granted spells at level 3.

90% of the time, I'd prefer to start a game at level 3 or level 5. The only time I don't is when there is someone that's still learning the system.

I like level one, because I like that growth from zero to hero. One of my Adventurers' League style clubs has a policy of starting people at level 2, and I always miss level 1 as there are some great stories there.

I understand what you're saying, but the main problem I have with the current system isn't so much the dramatic shift in weapon proficiencies at level 3 - I'm prepared to suspend all disbelief on the combat and magic stuff because none of it makes much sense in 5e anyway. "Oh, now I'm magic? Well, I guess that's how magic works." Shrug.

What bugs me are the things that change the background in some way, because that's part of the character. Yeah, I'm looking at you, feats.

"At level 4 I was off adventuring when I suddenly became empathetic?" Or an actor? Or a linguist? Or a non-magical healer? If I wanted those feats at level 1 then I'd have to choose variant human. I can say I'm a great chef at level 1, but I have to hope to remember to actually back it up with the feat at level 4. Sure, there are skills and proficiencies - but if I'm proficient in cook's tools I get... +2. Wow.

One thing I sometimes allow is for characters to choose a free "flavour feat" at level 1. It has to be something that's not really chosen for mechanics but is there only to support the background. So, not sharpshooter or sentinal or heavy armour master or lucky or those kinda things.

But my main solution as a DM is to try to keep it looser than RAW feats by letting backstory have a strong mechanical advantage. I didn't invent this, it's briefly mentioned in the DMG and XGtE. You're a noble? Of course you'd know the history of this family - you're probably related to them - no roll needed. You were a tavern bouncer? Roll persuasion at advantage as you swap a few war stories with security to get past the velvet rope.

So I agree that there's something of a problem, I'm just less bothered about it with the mechanical stuff than the character stuff.

Although at the end of the day, it's just a game, and all games are crude models.

Hey, Adam and I agree on something ;D

I enjoy level 1. I don't think I used to, I think I used to look at it more like an obligation. But 5E has made it so it's no longer painful like it was in earlier editions (particularly thinking about casters here and Cantrips). That said, even in in-person play I don't tend to dwell on it, moving on to 2nd after a single season or two. So... is it actually important, or does it hold an inherent value?

Maybe not.

I think I just like lower level gameplay more, in general, and gravitate towards slightly lower fantasy feels to the whole D&D-thing than it might tend toward naturally.

The meta part, suddenly gaining abilities, doesn't bother me. I suspended that disbelief looooong ago. That's not what gives me immersion.

In a perfect world, I think 5E intended Downtime to fill that "mental gap". Aren't there optional rules, or guidance to this effect? Training to level up? Just doesn't seem like, in reality, Downtime comes along all nice and neatly in between levels.

I enjoy level 1. But, given that many PbP games die before you get far with advancement, I jump at any chance to start higher just because how else are you going to experience that stuff? Just to be clear, I'm perfectly happy with purely RP games with little to no advancement, but I really would like to experience what mid and high tier play has to offer as well.

Interestingly though, I've been in a cof games that started at like 10th level and yeah the PCs could all do this crazy stuff but it wasn't satisfying either for aome reason. I think the sweet spot is really 3rd level as runekyndig suggests. Unless I'm assured the game will remain stqble long enough, in which case I like starting at level 1.

As for the jarring changes, yeah I agree. Like several of you have mentioned I try to work that stuff in early on, if not mechanically then narratively.

I also like starting at three generally, but sometimes level 1 is okay. I also get irritated by the sometimes complete change in playstyle you have to undergo when you take your subclass. Going from a level one wizard to level two bladesinger is really annoying. At level one, you play like a classic wizard, but once you hit level two and get your ability to wear armor and use a sword, you totally change the character and it bugs me.

It's not a big enough deal to get me to not play, but it would be better if it had been designed slightly differently.

Is it more a case of a player not really knowing which subclass they are going to pick, and their playstyle now has to reflect that sudden change? As others mentioned, if a player has an idea of what they'd choose, they might play their level 1 character towards that goal.

To use the previous example of a bladesinger, if I knew that's what I was going for, I might RP my wizard as using a stick or wooden sword and wearing a heavy padded vest as training devices. No real mechanical benefit, just flavor. Once I reach level 3, perhaps there's a graduation or initiation ceremony where I receive a real sword and light armor.

I agree that these things CAN work, but the reason I even choose Bladesinger is because I don't want to be a standard wizard at all. And being mechanically forced to for the first level annoys me, even if I can flavor it differently to get past the narrative discord. The easiest solution, to me, is to just allow a player who wants to go that route to use a longsword and light armor before they get the class feature to do so.

Simply, I think the best thing WotC could have done would be to start subclasses at level 1. Some people say it's because the early levels are on training wheels, but this clearly isn't the case since clerics and warlocks get to pick some of their stuff right at the start.

But Clerics are such a simple class everyone can understand how to play them from level one... oh, no, wait, Cleric is one of the harder ones for new players!! :)

My problem with the 'use a stick as a ersatz sword' is that the Subclass is described as having spend years practicing. This does not fit the fiction. I would with let them use sword and armor (really no difference and they have it when they need it rather than finding themselves midway through the first dungeon and not having their gear, or needing to carry unusable items the whole time).
If we did not want to break the rules and allow the items to be used, I would avoid mentioning it completely till it is allowed, then we don't make mention of the fact that they are 'suddenly doing a new thing', we treat it as though there were able all along and just never say it on-screen.