Warlock has entered a deal, maybe without knowing, but hasn’t yet earned the full benefits. Cleric worships a god, but the god does not yet know the cleric enough to start giving them some powers.
Both are basically interns, they may have chosen a god/patron, but that doesn’t mean the god/patron has chosen them.
Paladins (in 5e) always got their subclass at level 3. It worked great for 10 years, now. They have an idea about what is driving them, but they don’t swear an oath to it until level 3.
Besides that, the game also recommends starting at level 3 for players who are experienced. The level 1-2 range isn’t meant to happen except for new players. And new players need the extra time to figure out what they are doing before choosing a subclass.
I kind of feel like subclass should be chosen at first level. The benefits may not kick in until 3rd, but subclass can have a lot to do with how you play the character. Cleric and Warlock are 2 that it can really effect
There is exactly nothing stopping you from knowing what your subclass will be at character generation and playing your character accordingly for levels 1 and 2. Go ahead and choose and play how you like.
The point of moving it to 3rd is to give new players a chance to understand the game before they make what is one of the most important choices in creating a character. So they can get a couple session under their belt and better understand the consequences of their choice.
And the idea is experienced players will start at 3rd, and just get around the issue altogether.
The way I see it is all Patrons / Gods / Oaths give the same basic powers with specialisation between them only at level 3
Normally alevel one character will no the source of their power (in essence a level 1 cleric can be considered a light cleric if they know they will formally become a light cleric at level 3). Occasionally they will not, but I see this as the opposite to what others have said, the god/patron has chosen them and given them powers but the PC does not know where their powers have come from yet.
The problem with the answers given here are that they don't actually hold up.
Like. OK. "Just an intern" to explain why you don't have domain powers yet.
But, I make a cleric of a life god and worship that life god and AM casting divine magic. Then at level 3 I pick the Death domain. Oh. Wait, what just happened??
I make a pact with a celestial and get to level 3 and pick hexblade and suddenly get a shadow fell sword master outta nowhere? Where'd the celestial go?
So, the intern answer doesn't work. I mean, you can MAKE it work but to do that you need to pick your 3rd level feature before getting to 3rd level.
And that is just awful game design.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The problem with the answers given here are that they don't actually hold up.
Like. OK. "Just an intern" to explain why you don't have domain powers yet.
But, I make a cleric of a life god and worship that life god and AM casting divine magic. Then at level 3 I pick the Death domain. Oh. Wait, what just happened??
I make a pact with a celestial and get to level 3 and pick hexblade and suddenly get a shadow fell sword master outta nowhere? Where'd the celestial go?
So, the intern answer doesn't work. I mean, you can MAKE it work but to do that you need to pick your 3rd level feature before getting to 3rd level.
And that is just awful game design.
Yes, you can do that. And all those issues you bring are resolved in the Narrative/RP you make while playing the game, mostly not just because or out of nowhere. Thats why many choices are taken with agreements from the DM and thinking with your world in mind. And some classes (like sorcerers, warlocks, paladins and priests) have a bigger in class narrative impact built in their choices.
For example: In every single edition or setting, gods have portforlios and domains that they represent and give access to. If you are an "intern" of a Life domain god, you 99% of the time have to pick the Life Domain subclass (most settings priest follow only 1 god, or a concept) once you can. If you pick Death domain, ¿What is the narrative reason behind that choice? ¿Did the DM agreed on that choice?
Answers for that question are nearly infinite (because each setting, game its different) but maybe: - you follow a god that represents life/death dichotomy son you have access to choose from both but your call at 3rd was to the Death Aspect. - The god you follow is a fake god of death, so thats why you get the benefits of the Death Domain instead of the Life one. - You are a fake follower, pretending to be something you are not. Your real god is a god of Death Domain and you keep the ruse going.
Same applies with other different clases and their subclasses, you are the one that answers why that choice happens for X character and the DM can help you along the way if that is what you want to play.
The problem with the answers given here are that they don't actually hold up.
Like. OK. "Just an intern" to explain why you don't have domain powers yet.
But, I make a cleric of a life god and worship that life god and AM casting divine magic. Then at level 3 I pick the Death domain. Oh. Wait, what just happened??
I make a pact with a celestial and get to level 3 and pick hexblade and suddenly get a shadow fell sword master outta nowhere? Where'd the celestial go?
So, the intern answer doesn't work. I mean, you can MAKE it work but to do that you need to pick your 3rd level feature before getting to 3rd level.
And that is just awful game design.
Option 1, the god/patron “went” wherever the story and role play decisions led it to go. Sounds like you’ve created an interesting plot hook for the DM.
Option 2, the god/patron was tricking the PC all along. Now the character needs to decide what they want to do about it. Yet another interesting plot hook.
Secret third option, everyone at the table realizes they are playing a game, not writing the next great fantasy novel, or a script for a show on Amazon. They decide that the players having fun is far more important than forcing a player to stick with a character choice they don’t like or maybe didn’t even understand in the name of some idea of character consistency.
So, counterpoint: it’s good game design because it lets everyone do what’s fun for them, and games exist to have fun. If what’s fun for you is saying you worship the life god at level 1, and sticking with it all the way through 20, you can do that. If you start at 1, with the intention of making a life cleric, but by level 3, decide death is a better fit for you, or the character, or the campaign, you can do that. Everyone gets to do what they like.
I get it, sure. You "can" patch the problem with clever narrative, DM buy-in, outside the box thinking. Yes if your DM agrees, and says it is okay, you as the player are then allowed to pick the Subclass you want to pick.
But again: that's bad game design.
Making choices you need to make at L1 AT L1 is good game design.
Making the default character options available WITHOUT having to invent elaborate storyline involving NPCs and the gods machinations... also good game design.
The options presented in the handbook not needing the DM to come up with a clever way to implement it, also good game design.
I'm not saying you can't fix it. You can.
I'm saying you shouldn't have to.
The flaws here is true for all classes and subclasses. But a couple in particular it affects more prominently. Clerics, warlocks, even sorcerers and paladins. But it affects all of them to some extent. It is just easier to ignore in some character concepts or easier to explain away.
Think of it as the Schrodinger's Subclass dilemma. Before level 3 you both need to have the storyline elements of having your subclass but not actually having selected it yet and are free to pick anything else when you do hit level 3 instead. You are simultaneously a character who is any eligible subclass until when you hit L3 and decide. Yet by narrative you must be only one of them.
Now, for a fighter this is explained easily enough in that you learn new skills and techniques as you level,and thus just happened to direct your efforts in this subclass direction. Easy enough. No mess no fuss.
But what about a sorcerer? Your powers are in your blood. The source was always the source. Whatever narrative you used at L1 is likely still true at L3, except how can that be? Your character is but one in a long line of sorcerer's whose power originated in a dragon ancestor, narrative. Then pick a different subclass at L3? Hmm. Guess we need to get real clever real quick to try to explain that one.
But with clerics especially it is the most in-your-face and egregious. Their power comes from the gods. And the god have domains. It is one for one. Can it get patched with very creative storytelling and DM buy-in? Yes, it can. But only really weird outside the box shit can explain it.
And that's the core problem with putting this character-defining choice at L3. It leaves your character in this bizarre half defined state of existence, where by in-game narrative they exist and have reasons for what they can do but they must remain sufficiently undefined such that when they reach level 3 that character choice then actually makes any cohesive sense.
You can work around this problem, but a well designed game wouldn't make you.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
This why I pick a subclass at creation. I'm a storyteller at heart and it helps define the character and how you play it.
DM's could allow new players to change once they hit level 3.
I'm being run through Curse of Strahd which starts at level 1. I know my subclass but the benefits haven't kicked in. but that choice effect spell choice and more.
The flaws here is true for all classes and subclasses. But a couple in particular it affects more prominently. Clerics, warlocks, even sorcerers and paladins. But it affects all of them to some extent. It is just easier to ignore in some character concepts or easier to explain away.
Think of it as the Schrodinger's Subclass dilemma. Before level 3 you both need to have the storyline elements of having your subclass but not actually having selected it yet and are free to pick anything else when you do hit level 3 instead. You are simultaneously a character who is any eligible subclass until when you hit L3 and decide. Yet by narrative you must be only one of them.
Now, for a fighter this is explained easily enough in that you learn new skills and techniques as you level,and thus just happened to direct your efforts in this subclass direction. Easy enough. No mess no fuss.
But what about a sorcerer? Your powers are in your blood. The source was always the source. Whatever narrative you used at L1 is likely still true at L3, except how can that be? Your character is but one in a long line of sorcerer's whose power originated in a dragon ancestor, narrative. Then pick a different subclass at L3? Hmm. Guess we need to get real clever real quick to try to explain that one.
But with clerics especially it is the most in-your-face and egregious. Their power comes from the gods. And the god have domains. It is one for one. Can it get patched with very creative storytelling and DM buy-in? Yes, it can. But only really weird outside the box shit can explain it.
And that's the core problem with putting this character-defining choice at L3. It leaves your character in this bizarre half defined state of existence, where by in-game narrative they exist and have reasons for what they can do but they must remain sufficiently undefined such that when they reach level 3 that character choice then actually makes any cohesive sense.
You can work around this problem, but a well designed game wouldn't make you.
There's easily justification for just about any/every class to get their specific powers later, though, and even sometimes to change what the initial plan was. Artificers can dabble in multiple practices before specializing. Barbarians hardly even need a reason. Clerics might choose a different domain within their god's purview, be granted exceptional abilities by their god, or change their ideals. Druids can study with a different circle or study the ways of another and become an outlier among their group. Fighters just shift their training a little. Monks, see Fighters. Paladins channel their cause into a proper Oath and choose what fits them best. Rangers learn their advanced practice through training. Rogues, see Fighters. Sorcerers get basic magic until they learn to control it; changing to a different subclass just means there's more than they thought influencing their innate magic. Warlocks are similar to Sorcerers in that regard, gaining focused power when they learn the basics; the entity they call upon may have other power than what they expected that it can grant. Wizards, see Fighters.
As for your last line, it's important to remember: A game is just that, a game. And mechanical reasoning for changes is just as important as narrative when designing a game.
I get it, sure. You "can" patch the problem with clever narrative, DM buy-in, outside the box thinking. Yes if your DM agrees, and says it is okay, you as the player are then allowed to pick the Subclass you want to pick.
But again: that's bad game design.
Making choices you need to make at L1 AT L1 is good game design.
Making the default character options available WITHOUT having to invent elaborate storyline involving NPCs and the gods machinations... also good game design.
The options presented in the handbook not needing the DM to come up with a clever way to implement it, also good game design.
I'm not saying you can't fix it. You can.
I'm saying you shouldn't have to.
The flaws here is true for all classes and subclasses. But a couple in particular it affects more prominently. Clerics, warlocks, even sorcerers and paladins. But it affects all of them to some extent. It is just easier to ignore in some character concepts or easier to explain away.
Think of it as the Schrodinger's Subclass dilemma. Before level 3 you both need to have the storyline elements of having your subclass but not actually having selected it yet and are free to pick anything else when you do hit level 3 instead. You are simultaneously a character who is any eligible subclass until when you hit L3 and decide. Yet by narrative you must be only one of them.
Now, for a fighter this is explained easily enough in that you learn new skills and techniques as you level,and thus just happened to direct your efforts in this subclass direction. Easy enough. No mess no fuss.
But what about a sorcerer? Your powers are in your blood. The source was always the source. Whatever narrative you used at L1 is likely still true at L3, except how can that be? Your character is but one in a long line of sorcerer's whose power originated in a dragon ancestor, narrative. Then pick a different subclass at L3? Hmm. Guess we need to get real clever real quick to try to explain that one.
But with clerics especially it is the most in-your-face and egregious. Their power comes from the gods. And the god have domains. It is one for one. Can it get patched with very creative storytelling and DM buy-in? Yes, it can. But only really weird outside the box shit can explain it.
And that's the core problem with putting this character-defining choice at L3. It leaves your character in this bizarre half defined state of existence, where by in-game narrative they exist and have reasons for what they can do but they must remain sufficiently undefined such that when they reach level 3 that character choice then actually makes any cohesive sense.
You can work around this problem, but a well designed game wouldn't make you.
Say you have a fighter who hates magic. They then become an eldritch knight. Same exact problem, and it works exactly the same in the 2014 rules. Was anybody complaining about that? Another example: If in the 2014 rules you play a character that follows a god, and then multiclass into cleric, you can choose a domain that, according to you, wouldn't work with that god.
I get it, sure. You "can" patch the problem with clever narrative, DM buy-in, outside the box thinking. Yes if your DM agrees, and says it is okay, you as the player are then allowed to pick the Subclass you want to pick.
But again: that's bad game design.
Making choices you need to make at L1 AT L1 is good game design.
Making the default character options available WITHOUT having to invent elaborate storyline involving NPCs and the gods machinations... also good game design.
The options presented in the handbook not needing the DM to come up with a clever way to implement it, also good game design.
I'm not saying you can't fix it. You can.
I'm saying you shouldn't have to.
The flaws here is true for all classes and subclasses. But a couple in particular it affects more prominently. Clerics, warlocks, even sorcerers and paladins. But it affects all of them to some extent. It is just easier to ignore in some character concepts or easier to explain away.
Think of it as the Schrodinger's Subclass dilemma. Before level 3 you both need to have the storyline elements of having your subclass but not actually having selected it yet and are free to pick anything else when you do hit level 3 instead. You are simultaneously a character who is any eligible subclass until when you hit L3 and decide. Yet by narrative you must be only one of them.
Now, for a fighter this is explained easily enough in that you learn new skills and techniques as you level,and thus just happened to direct your efforts in this subclass direction. Easy enough. No mess no fuss.
But what about a sorcerer? Your powers are in your blood. The source was always the source. Whatever narrative you used at L1 is likely still true at L3, except how can that be? Your character is but one in a long line of sorcerer's whose power originated in a dragon ancestor, narrative. Then pick a different subclass at L3? Hmm. Guess we need to get real clever real quick to try to explain that one.
But with clerics especially it is the most in-your-face and egregious. Their power comes from the gods. And the god have domains. It is one for one. Can it get patched with very creative storytelling and DM buy-in? Yes, it can. But only really weird outside the box shit can explain it.
And that's the core problem with putting this character-defining choice at L3. It leaves your character in this bizarre half defined state of existence, where by in-game narrative they exist and have reasons for what they can do but they must remain sufficiently undefined such that when they reach level 3 that character choice then actually makes any cohesive sense.
You can work around this problem, but a well designed game wouldn't make you.
It sounds to me like you are simply trying to force a problem when there doesn't need to be one. If heading towards Life Cleric at level 1 and then choosing Death Cleric at level 3 rubs you the wrong way... don't do it? It's your character and their story. If it doesn't fit, then the easy solution is to not try and force it to fit. For everyone else that gave examples of how someone might actually want to do that, well they have the option.
The problem with the answers given here are that they don't actually hold up.
Like. OK. "Just an intern" to explain why you don't have domain powers yet.
But, I make a cleric of a life god and worship that life god and AM casting divine magic. Then at level 3 I pick the Death domain. Oh. Wait, what just happened??
I make a pact with a celestial and get to level 3 and pick hexblade and suddenly get a shadow fell sword master outta nowhere? Where'd the celestial go?
So, the intern answer doesn't work. I mean, you can MAKE it work but to do that you need to pick your 3rd level feature before getting to 3rd level.
And that is just awful game design.
The face the rules don't cover every edge case of roleplaying is nothing new. For example you can be a soldier peace cleric who murders everybody they meet. If you decide to retcon the lore in your game, that is not the rules' fault.
I do want to be a little more fair to both the OP and Rav. It was a little jarring to have classes like the sorcerer have their subclasses moved to level 3. At first.
It certainly takes a little bit more storytelling initiative to explain it this way, but the benefits (easier onboarding for new players, limiting the power of single level multiclass dips, etc.) are well worth it.
I do want to be a little more fair to both the OP and Rav. It was a little jarring to have classes like the sorcerer have their subclasses moved to level 3. At first.
It certainly takes a little bit more storytelling initiative to explain it this way, but the benefits (easier onboarding for new players, limiting the power of single level multiclass dips, etc.) are well worth it.
You are very right. It wasn’t nothing. I just don’t think it’s that big of a deal.
But also, I understand that’s my opinion, and it’s no more correct than the folks I disagree with.
I think narratively the OP is 100% correct. End of the day its not that huge of a deal imo.
For warlocks I wish there were some small changes in their design so it fit better. Their story is that they are occultists, who are studying, researching finding hidden lore etc the first couple levels can reflect that. Heck invocations in 2014 this was their description, "In your study of occult lore, you have unearthed eldritch invocations, fragments of forbidden knowledge that imbue you with an abiding magical ability." 2024 its this. "You have unearthed Eldritch Invocations, pieces of forbidden knowledge that imbue you with an abiding magical ability or other lessons." Neither of which require a pact. And they could of held off pact magic until level 3, maybe give them one more cantrip. Or kind of merge pact of the blade, eldritch blast, armor of shadows into one feature that scales with warlock level that they all start with something so levels 1-2 isn't too rough until pact magic comes into play. But again end of the day its not that big of a deal, you hit level 3 by 900 xp, you will be there fast enough it wont matter much.
But it seems that a few should have to choose at 1st.
As a Warlock, how are you casting spell if you don't have a pact yet.
As a Cleric your Domain revolves around your deity
Same goes for Paladin
The way I think of it is, you are on a trial basis with your patron. You have a few perks while they decide if they think you're really worthy or not. Then, when you get level 3, and pick your subclass, your patron has decided you're fun enough to become a full subscriber.
But it seems that a few should have to choose at 1st.
As a Warlock, how are you casting spell if you don't have a pact yet.
As a Cleric your Domain revolves around your deity
Same goes for Paladin
Aren't these narrative/story telling/thematic issues rather than mechanical/rules issues? The rules say you get your subclass mechanics at third level, it's down to you to resolve that narratively?
Everyone gets their subclass at 3rd level.
But it seems that a few should have to choose at 1st.
As a Warlock, how are you casting spell if you don't have a pact yet.
As a Cleric your Domain revolves around your deity
Same goes for Paladin
Warlock has entered a deal, maybe without knowing, but hasn’t yet earned the full benefits.
Cleric worships a god, but the god does not yet know the cleric enough to start giving them some powers.
Both are basically interns, they may have chosen a god/patron, but that doesn’t mean the god/patron has chosen them.
Paladins (in 5e) always got their subclass at level 3. It worked great for 10 years, now. They have an idea about what is driving them, but they don’t swear an oath to it until level 3.
Besides that, the game also recommends starting at level 3 for players who are experienced. The level 1-2 range isn’t meant to happen except for new players. And new players need the extra time to figure out what they are doing before choosing a subclass.
I kind of feel like subclass should be chosen at first level. The benefits may not kick in until 3rd, but subclass can have a lot to do with how you play the character. Cleric and Warlock are 2 that it can really effect
There is exactly nothing stopping you from knowing what your subclass will be at character generation and playing your character accordingly for levels 1 and 2. Go ahead and choose and play how you like.
The point of moving it to 3rd is to give new players a chance to understand the game before they make what is one of the most important choices in creating a character. So they can get a couple session under their belt and better understand the consequences of their choice.
And the idea is experienced players will start at 3rd, and just get around the issue altogether.
Personally, I'd add multiclass dipping as another thing affected, probably for good.
The way I see it is all Patrons / Gods / Oaths give the same basic powers with specialisation between them only at level 3
Normally alevel one character will no the source of their power (in essence a level 1 cleric can be considered a light cleric if they know they will formally become a light cleric at level 3). Occasionally they will not, but I see this as the opposite to what others have said, the god/patron has chosen them and given them powers but the PC does not know where their powers have come from yet.
The problem with the answers given here are that they don't actually hold up.
Like. OK. "Just an intern" to explain why you don't have domain powers yet.
But, I make a cleric of a life god and worship that life god and AM casting divine magic. Then at level 3 I pick the Death domain. Oh. Wait, what just happened??
I make a pact with a celestial and get to level 3 and pick hexblade and suddenly get a shadow fell sword master outta nowhere? Where'd the celestial go?
So, the intern answer doesn't work. I mean, you can MAKE it work but to do that you need to pick your 3rd level feature before getting to 3rd level.
And that is just awful game design.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Yes, you can do that. And all those issues you bring are resolved in the Narrative/RP you make while playing the game, mostly not just because or out of nowhere. Thats why many choices are taken with agreements from the DM and thinking with your world in mind. And some classes (like sorcerers, warlocks, paladins and priests) have a bigger in class narrative impact built in their choices.
For example:
In every single edition or setting, gods have portforlios and domains that they represent and give access to. If you are an "intern" of a Life domain god, you 99% of the time have to pick the Life Domain subclass (most settings priest follow only 1 god, or a concept) once you can. If you pick Death domain, ¿What is the narrative reason behind that choice? ¿Did the DM agreed on that choice?
Answers for that question are nearly infinite (because each setting, game its different) but maybe:
- you follow a god that represents life/death dichotomy son you have access to choose from both but your call at 3rd was to the Death Aspect.
- The god you follow is a fake god of death, so thats why you get the benefits of the Death Domain instead of the Life one.
- You are a fake follower, pretending to be something you are not. Your real god is a god of Death Domain and you keep the ruse going.
Same applies with other different clases and their subclasses, you are the one that answers why that choice happens for X character and the DM can help you along the way if that is what you want to play.
Option 1, the god/patron “went” wherever the story and role play decisions led it to go. Sounds like you’ve created an interesting plot hook for the DM.
Option 2, the god/patron was tricking the PC all along. Now the character needs to decide what they want to do about it. Yet another interesting plot hook.
Secret third option, everyone at the table realizes they are playing a game, not writing the next great fantasy novel, or a script for a show on Amazon. They decide that the players having fun is far more important than forcing a player to stick with a character choice they don’t like or maybe didn’t even understand in the name of some idea of character consistency.
So, counterpoint: it’s good game design because it lets everyone do what’s fun for them, and games exist to have fun. If what’s fun for you is saying you worship the life god at level 1, and sticking with it all the way through 20, you can do that. If you start at 1, with the intention of making a life cleric, but by level 3, decide death is a better fit for you, or the character, or the campaign, you can do that. Everyone gets to do what they like.
I get it, sure. You "can" patch the problem with clever narrative, DM buy-in, outside the box thinking. Yes if your DM agrees, and says it is okay, you as the player are then allowed to pick the Subclass you want to pick.
But again: that's bad game design.
Making choices you need to make at L1 AT L1 is good game design.
Making the default character options available WITHOUT having to invent elaborate storyline involving NPCs and the gods machinations... also good game design.
The options presented in the handbook not needing the DM to come up with a clever way to implement it, also good game design.
I'm not saying you can't fix it. You can.
I'm saying you shouldn't have to.
The flaws here is true for all classes and subclasses. But a couple in particular it affects more prominently. Clerics, warlocks, even sorcerers and paladins. But it affects all of them to some extent. It is just easier to ignore in some character concepts or easier to explain away.
Think of it as the Schrodinger's Subclass dilemma. Before level 3 you both need to have the storyline elements of having your subclass but not actually having selected it yet and are free to pick anything else when you do hit level 3 instead. You are simultaneously a character who is any eligible subclass until when you hit L3 and decide. Yet by narrative you must be only one of them.
Now, for a fighter this is explained easily enough in that you learn new skills and techniques as you level,and thus just happened to direct your efforts in this subclass direction. Easy enough. No mess no fuss.
But what about a sorcerer? Your powers are in your blood. The source was always the source. Whatever narrative you used at L1 is likely still true at L3, except how can that be? Your character is but one in a long line of sorcerer's whose power originated in a dragon ancestor, narrative. Then pick a different subclass at L3? Hmm. Guess we need to get real clever real quick to try to explain that one.
But with clerics especially it is the most in-your-face and egregious. Their power comes from the gods. And the god have domains. It is one for one. Can it get patched with very creative storytelling and DM buy-in? Yes, it can. But only really weird outside the box shit can explain it.
And that's the core problem with putting this character-defining choice at L3. It leaves your character in this bizarre half defined state of existence, where by in-game narrative they exist and have reasons for what they can do but they must remain sufficiently undefined such that when they reach level 3 that character choice then actually makes any cohesive sense.
You can work around this problem, but a well designed game wouldn't make you.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Ravnodaus
This why I pick a subclass at creation. I'm a storyteller at heart and it helps define the character and how you play it.
DM's could allow new players to change once they hit level 3.
I'm being run through Curse of Strahd which starts at level 1. I know my subclass but the benefits haven't kicked in. but that choice effect spell choice and more.
There's easily justification for just about any/every class to get their specific powers later, though, and even sometimes to change what the initial plan was.
Artificers can dabble in multiple practices before specializing.
Barbarians hardly even need a reason.
Clerics might choose a different domain within their god's purview, be granted exceptional abilities by their god, or change their ideals.
Druids can study with a different circle or study the ways of another and become an outlier among their group.
Fighters just shift their training a little.
Monks, see Fighters.
Paladins channel their cause into a proper Oath and choose what fits them best.
Rangers learn their advanced practice through training.
Rogues, see Fighters.
Sorcerers get basic magic until they learn to control it; changing to a different subclass just means there's more than they thought influencing their innate magic.
Warlocks are similar to Sorcerers in that regard, gaining focused power when they learn the basics; the entity they call upon may have other power than what they expected that it can grant.
Wizards, see Fighters.
As for your last line, it's important to remember: A game is just that, a game. And mechanical reasoning for changes is just as important as narrative when designing a game.
Say you have a fighter who hates magic. They then become an eldritch knight. Same exact problem, and it works exactly the same in the 2014 rules. Was anybody complaining about that? Another example: If in the 2014 rules you play a character that follows a god, and then multiclass into cleric, you can choose a domain that, according to you, wouldn't work with that god.
It sounds to me like you are simply trying to force a problem when there doesn't need to be one. If heading towards Life Cleric at level 1 and then choosing Death Cleric at level 3 rubs you the wrong way... don't do it? It's your character and their story. If it doesn't fit, then the easy solution is to not try and force it to fit. For everyone else that gave examples of how someone might actually want to do that, well they have the option.
The face the rules don't cover every edge case of roleplaying is nothing new. For example you can be a soldier peace cleric who murders everybody they meet. If you decide to retcon the lore in your game, that is not the rules' fault.
I do want to be a little more fair to both the OP and Rav. It was a little jarring to have classes like the sorcerer have their subclasses moved to level 3. At first.
It certainly takes a little bit more storytelling initiative to explain it this way, but the benefits (easier onboarding for new players, limiting the power of single level multiclass dips, etc.) are well worth it.
You are very right. It wasn’t nothing. I just don’t think it’s that big of a deal.
But also, I understand that’s my opinion, and it’s no more correct than the folks I disagree with.
I think narratively the OP is 100% correct. End of the day its not that huge of a deal imo.
For warlocks I wish there were some small changes in their design so it fit better. Their story is that they are occultists, who are studying, researching finding hidden lore etc the first couple levels can reflect that. Heck invocations in 2014 this was their description, "In your study of occult lore, you have unearthed eldritch invocations, fragments of forbidden knowledge that imbue you with an abiding magical ability." 2024 its this. "You have unearthed Eldritch Invocations, pieces of forbidden knowledge that imbue you with an abiding magical ability or other lessons." Neither of which require a pact. And they could of held off pact magic until level 3, maybe give them one more cantrip. Or kind of merge pact of the blade, eldritch blast, armor of shadows into one feature that scales with warlock level that they all start with something so levels 1-2 isn't too rough until pact magic comes into play. But again end of the day its not that big of a deal, you hit level 3 by 900 xp, you will be there fast enough it wont matter much.
The way I think of it is, you are on a trial basis with your patron. You have a few perks while they decide if they think you're really worthy or not. Then, when you get level 3, and pick your subclass, your patron has decided you're fun enough to become a full subscriber.
Aren't these narrative/story telling/thematic issues rather than mechanical/rules issues? The rules say you get your subclass mechanics at third level, it's down to you to resolve that narratively?
Find my D&D Beyond articles here