Level 1 should be where the feature that makes the class the class is picked up and it should only scale by taking more levels in that same class plus never be picked up by taking another class. Otherwise, we end up with a situation where people don't see the class as that class like how the Ranger class in the Experts U.A. is seen as a Gish class and not a Ranger class.
What's wrong with ranger being a primal gish? It's pretty natural. Primal spells/rituals fill out much of exploration needs, and expertise covers the mundane aspects. Besides, sorcerers' thing is metamagic, not subclass.
Because of the way the class is set up, it is possible to build a so-called Ranger that is exactly 0% useful in exploration. And the main reason to pick the ranger class would be to know that your character gels well with a certain environment.
Considering the only real benefit of being a wizard IS having the full access to the arcane spell list, and the way they are doing prepared spells.... I am not sure. Because, at the end of the day, the wizard is still only going to be able to prepare and cast the same number of spells as everybody else, in the same way as everybody else, minus the flexibility of things sorcerers get like font of magic. The flexibility and versatility of their list is the only thing that really defines them as a class, it is why they have a d6 for health and no armor training. Not to mention, the "buying scrolls" thing is another "Mother may I" mechanic, which they have specifically stated they want to move away from. Some GM's can go an entire campaign and the wizard will never get a scroll and other games the Wizard fills the book with every spell. Further, the wizards were already picking a lot of spells on level up as it was, more than they could prepare at any given point in time. Which means they were already picking their "best" spells from level up anyway and anything they got from scrolls was just icing. Which is what would happen if you just let them know the entire list. Preparations are the real limiter, not so much spells known.
Though being able to always cast ANY ritual spell without having to prepare it MAY be a bit much.
I think they might make some kind of exclusion for wizards in terms of memorizing spells. Right now in 5e a wizard can memorize more spells than a sorcerer or warlock knows at all (25 vs 15).
Because of the way the class is set up, it is possible to build a so-called Ranger that is exactly 0% useful in exploration. And the main reason to pick the ranger class would be to know that your character gels well with a certain environment.
How so? You'll always have primal rituals to locate stuff, speak with animals, purify food and drink, commune with nature, etc. And is it even a problem that you can do a 0% exploration ranger? You can make a law-abiding rogue with no stealth or sleight of hand, but with expertise in investigation, insight, and perception, and play as a detective that catches assassins and thieves. Is it wrong to play like that?
Considering the only real benefit of being a wizard IS having the full access to the arcane spell list, and the way they are doing prepared spells.... I am not sure. Because, at the end of the day, the wizard is still only going to be able to prepare and cast the same number of spells as everybody else, in the same way as everybody else, minus the flexibility of things sorcerers get like font of magic. The flexibility and versatility of their list is the only thing that really defines them as a class, it is why they have a d6 for health and no armor training. Not to mention, the "buying scrolls" thing is another "Mother may I" mechanic, which they have specifically stated they want to move away from. Some GM's can go an entire campaign and the wizard will never get a scroll and other games the Wizard fills the book with every spell. Further, the wizards were already picking a lot of spells on level up as it was, more than they could prepare at any given point in time. Which means they were already picking their "best" spells from level up anyway and anything they got from scrolls was just icing. Which is what would happen if you just let them know the entire list. Preparations are the real limiter, not so much spells known.
Though being able to always cast ANY ritual spell without having to prepare it MAY be a bit much.
I think they might make some kind of exclusion for wizards in terms of memorizing spells. Right now in 5e a wizard can memorize more spells than a sorcerer or warlock knows at all (25 vs 15).
To be fair, the wizard is the only one of those three that gives a damn about their Intelligence score.
That's honestly a game design issue. The Wizard is pretty much the only class that makes use of intelligence outside of a couple of skill checks here and there.
I am not sure that the mage classes will be restricted by preparation in the same ways cleric bard and ranger will be. They could get 2 per slot or a set amount of extra options. It's almost obvious that 1 per slot won't work with current warlock design.
Considering the only real benefit of being a wizard IS having the full access to the arcane spell list, and the way they are doing prepared spells.... I am not sure. Because, at the end of the day, the wizard is still only going to be able to prepare and cast the same number of spells as everybody else, in the same way as everybody else, minus the flexibility of things sorcerers get like font of magic. The flexibility and versatility of their list is the only thing that really defines them as a class, it is why they have a d6 for health and no armor training. Not to mention, the "buying scrolls" thing is another "Mother may I" mechanic, which they have specifically stated they want to move away from. Some GM's can go an entire campaign and the wizard will never get a scroll and other games the Wizard fills the book with every spell. Further, the wizards were already picking a lot of spells on level up as it was, more than they could prepare at any given point in time. Which means they were already picking their "best" spells from level up anyway and anything they got from scrolls was just icing. Which is what would happen if you just let them know the entire list. Preparations are the real limiter, not so much spells known.
Though being able to always cast ANY ritual spell without having to prepare it MAY be a bit much.
I think they might make some kind of exclusion for wizards in terms of memorizing spells. Right now in 5e a wizard can memorize more spells than a sorcerer or warlock knows at all (25 vs 15).
Memorize is their word for "prepare". Clerics could prepare the same number as wizards in current. They are normalizing this. Everyone is going to pretty much have the same number of spells ready. The only exception may be th warlock.
I hate the idea of all subclasses starting at 3rd level for the same reason I hate some of them doing it now. However, I also acknowledge that most of my concerns would be resolved if a PC had to choose their subclass at 1st level but didn't get abilities associated with it until 3rd, and I wonder how much that is fueling other players' resistance to the change.
For me, it is all about the narrative. 1st through 3rd level go by very quickly; the game does not treat subclasses like D&D4 used to treat paragon paths or epic destinies, where they were something your character grew into over the course of many levels. It's a decision you still have to make almost immediately after character creation, and affects your early build as well as the dungeon master's starting narrative, but you still spend two levels without it.
Particularly in cases where membership in a subclass explicitly indicates membership in some in-universe organization, like the cleric's church or the warlock's pact, this is pretty awkward during those early sessions when you're trying to establish your character and the dungeon master is trying to weave you into the campaign. There's this 'are you/aren't you' energy that feels very unnecessary.
Easily houseruled. But given how emotional people tend to get about their characters' stories, I do wonder how much of the pushback on the 3rd-level subclass start has more to do with identity than mechanics.
I don't believe we should be treating the patron and the subclass as the same thing. This will be a redesign after all. The pact symbol could be granted at a deeper connection symbolized by what you take. (For reference I am not normally a warlock player)
Sorcerer is a little harder to justify but I justify itin terms of narrative progress it's a deeper manifestation rather than a choice.
I would love to see cleric domains and wizard schools separated from subclasses the way warlock pacts and fighter styles are currently separated from subclasses, so we can have healing priests of conflict deities and abjurer war mages as character options. It could be done pretty simply, but Wizards is unlikely to take the initiative. I never considered the approach for warlocks or sorcerers, because warlocks already have a secondary customization and sorcerer power source has always seemed to be more about their abilities than their spell list, but it is feasible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
J Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
I hate the idea of all subclasses starting at 3rd level for the same reason I hate some of them doing it now. However, I also acknowledge that most of my concerns would be resolved if a PC had to choose their subclass at 1st level but didn't get abilities associated with it until 3rd, and I wonder how much that is fueling other players' resistance to the change.
For me, it is all about the narrative. 1st through 3rd level go by very quickly; the game does not treat subclasses like D&D4 used to treat paragon paths or epic destinies, where they were something your character grew into over the course of many levels. It's a decision you still have to make almost immediately after character creation, and affects your early build as well as the dungeon master's starting narrative, but you still spend two levels without it.
Particularly in cases where membership in a subclass explicitly indicates membership in some in-universe organization, like the cleric's church or the warlock's pact, this is pretty awkward during those early sessions when you're trying to establish your character and the dungeon master is trying to weave you into the campaign. There's this 'are you/aren't you' energy that feels very unnecessary.
Easily houseruled. But given how emotional people tend to get about their characters' stories, I do wonder how much of the pushback on the 3rd-level subclass start has more to do with identity than mechanics.
For me, my entire objection to moving Patrons and Sorcerous Origins to level 3 is Lore related. How can you be a warlock without a Patron? How can you decide after a couple of levels who your ancestors were. For pretty much every other class, the subclass the "You're an initiate/apprentice and at level three you chose your career path/take your orders/choose your specialization works. Warlocks get their power entirely from their patron. Sorcerers power is something they are born with (or in rare cases, I.e. aberrent mind or some storm sorcerers, stems from a specific event).
That said, I get why it's happening. Sometimes mechanical balance has to be put ahead of lore.
We have no idea how they are going to handle these yet. And we won't until the end. By then we will have a very clear understanding of the way they are moving with all the classes.
But I could see them either leaving these two as the only classes where you pick a subclass at level 1
OR
Make the Patron and Origin a level 1 choice, but change the subclasses to be something else like the Pact and Metamagic themes.
OR
Justifying the lore like this -
Warlocks - your Patron doesn't reveal its true identity to you until level 3, long after the bargain is sealed. It's too late to back out easily now. And you already have such wonderful power. Is it really so bad where it comes from? Or should you have listened to the friends that warned you not to make deals with dark shadows...
Sorcerers - a strange force has awakened in you. You cast spells without the need of long hours studying books. But sometimes it's too much for you to control. You don't know where it came from, or why you were burdened with this gift. Maybe if you practice hard enough, and look within yourself, you will find the true source of this power.
For sorcerers this is potentially crippling depending on how they change the mechanics around. Sorcs meta-magic is, basically, their 'subclass' in addition to their bloodline. Without it they're a horribly ****** caster and waiting till level 3 may simply be too long for them. We'll need to see what new mechanics are used for them but, if they keep with the 5e mechanics, it would likely destroy the class entirely.
We have no idea how they are going to handle these yet. And we won't until the end. By then we will have a very clear understanding of the way they are moving with all the classes.
But I could see them either leaving these two as the only classes where you pick a subclass at level 1
OR
Make the Patron and Origin a level 1 choice, but change the subclasses to be something else like the Pact and Metamagic themes.
OR
Justifying the lore like this -
Warlocks - your Patron doesn't reveal its true identity to you until level 3, long after the bargain is sealed. It's too late to back out easily now. And you already have such wonderful power. Is it really so bad where it comes from? Or should you have listened to the friends that warned you not to make deals with dark shadows...
Sorcerers - a strange force has awakened in you. You cast spells without the need of long hours studying books. But sometimes it's too much for you to control. You don't know where it came from, or why you were burdened with this gift. Maybe if you practice hard enough, and look within yourself, you will find the true source of this power.
Your final two examples are similar to what I suggested in the original post and could be one possibility. The other that I think would be likely in 1DnD is that the character has a patron or a specific source of their inborn talent from 1st level, but gets no mechanical bonus from it until 3rd level. It seems perfectly reasonable that the more specific subclass bonuses would be granted (in the case of Warlocks) or would manifest (in the case of Sorcerers) only after they gain some experience. I guess this also jibes with how I see character creation, as I'd rather keep my backstory simple and have my character's story revealed through playing the game.
For sorcerers this is potentially crippling depending on how they change the mechanics around. Sorcs meta-magic is, basically, their 'subclass' in addition to their bloodline. Without it they're a horribly ****** caster and waiting till level 3 may simply be too long for them. We'll need to see what new mechanics are used for them but, if they keep with the 5e mechanics, it would likely destroy the class entirely.
Metamagic doesn't come online until Level 3 as is. Given that it will probably get bumped down to level 2, I'm not worried. Since level 1 and 2 is usually just a 2 or 3 session journey, it's not really that big a deal even if it isn't moved up. The loss of some of the level 1 subclass features is what will hurt. I LOVE Draconic Bloodline's Draconic Resilience, for example. Free, always on mage armor with an extra hit point per level? That's the good stuff right there. Eyes of the Dark, Strength of the Grave, Telepathic Speech, and Favored by the Gods are all pretty tasty as well.
To be fair, the wizard is the only one of those three that gives a damn about their Intelligence score.
That's honestly a game design issue. The Wizard is pretty much the only class that makes use of intelligence outside of a couple of skill checks here and there.
It always bugged me that warlocks were made a Charisma-based class. They're supposed to be the masters of occult lore and forbidden knowledge, but no, they're reinforcing the concept of magic gold diggers with eldritch sugar daddies.
Warlocks should use the inverse of their Wisdom modifier. A -3 wisdom penalty should give them +3 to their spellcasting. Since making bad decisions is their whole thing. :)
Warlocks should use the inverse of their Wisdom modifier. A -3 wisdom penalty should give them +3 to their spellcasting. Since making bad decisions is their whole thing. :)
If skills weren't tied to ability scores, I'd agree with you because it's an interesting idea, but negative Wisdom does also hamper stuff like Perception and Medicine.
I wouldn't trust a Warlock to do surgery on me either!
Well of course. They have high CHA instead of DEX and the bill alone will likely force you to sell your soul to their patron to cover the costs. And you KNOW insurance won't cover Tarrasque-inflicted wounds!
Warlocks should use the inverse of their Wisdom modifier. A -3 wisdom penalty should give them +3 to their spellcasting. Since making bad decisions is their whole thing. :)
Some games, like Trail of Cthulhu, offer benefits to having a low Sanity score. In Bloodborne, the more Insight you gain, the less your resistance to madness becomes - but you start seeing and hearing things. I love that kind of stuff.
From what I heard on this forum, WoTC did put forward the idea of INT-based Warlocks early on, but the playerbase said no, so they made them CHA-based in the end.
And some of the fluff for the class in the PHB does support that claim, since it doesn't read like something a Charisma-based character would be into.
That's because the playerbase doesn't know what to do with Int and related skills, but clearly knows that barmaids exist to be seduced.
YEP, and I think what we are likely to see for warlock is Invocations at level 1, Level 2 pact choice, Level 3 Patron Choice. Warlocks are hard to create without choice.
Wizard my bet right now is Level 1 Arcane recovery and "Book Rituals" I believe they will always have access to all ritual spells in the arcane spell list. I do not believe they will have to hunt down and spend money to scribe spells anymore. Level 2 "Spell school specialization", Level 3 Subclass. I think a big part of the reason subclasses are being drastically reduced for wizard, similar to cleric, is they are separating some of the things that you would get from your subclass and turning it generic. Spell school specialization will just be an ability where you pick a school and "you can change a spell preparation you have to one of the spells you specialize in on a short rest". As you level they may let you specialize in more schools of magic to fill out the otherwise baron wizard class feature list. Now that they are normalizing spell preparation.
Well... I agree on most parts, arcane recovery is a good idea as it is a class feature that scales with class level, thus not a cherry for multiclassers to pick, spell school specialization - also likely to be as you say, judging by clerics' Holy Order feature, however, I believe they'll keep the scroll hunting. Arcane spell list is the biggest and most versatile, and no class should get access to it without some kind of limitation or price. Bard, as we can see, has limitation - only half of spell schools. Warlock and sorcerer are likely to keep some sort of limitation as well, while wizard's thing was having no limits, but having to pay the price - in gold needed to copy the spells, and in risk of losing the spell book. I just find it unlikely that they'll change this part of design.
Considering the only real benefit of being a wizard IS having the full access to the arcane spell list, and the way they are doing prepared spells.... I am not sure. Because, at the end of the day, the wizard is still only going to be able to prepare and cast the same number of spells as everybody else, in the same way as everybody else, minus the flexibility of things sorcerers get like font of magic. The flexibility and versatility of their list is the only thing that really defines them as a class, it is why they have a d6 for health and no armor training. Not to mention, the "buying scrolls" thing is another "Mother may I" mechanic, which they have specifically stated they want to move away from. Some GM's can go an entire campaign and the wizard will never get a scroll and other games the Wizard fills the book with every spell. Further, the wizards were already picking a lot of spells on level up as it was, more than they could prepare at any given point in time. Which means they were already picking their "best" spells from level up anyway and anything they got from scrolls was just icing. Which is what would happen if you just let them know the entire list. Preparations are the real limiter, not so much spells known.
Though being able to always cast ANY ritual spell without having to prepare it MAY be a bit much.
I see 2 possible options.
1. I believe wizards are going to break the current preparation method for One D&D. They will use a preparation method giving them more fluidity. Or rather their first level feature Spellbook or whatever they name it will allow them to learn less (not the whole list) but prepare more spells compared to other spellcasters in one d&d. So they will only be able cast spells in their book much like 5e making them weaker than all other One casters, but will have more prepared spells and flexibility to which level of spell they prepare like 5e making them better than other One Casters.
2. They will prepare spells like everyone else in One, but will have a ritual book that they can copy ritual spells into so they can cast ritual spells they don’t have prepared. So basically they get the 5e ritual caster feat as a class feature.
I hope it’s option 1, but we have a long time before we will know.
My hypothesis is that a lot of people simply value being charming and charismatic much more highly than actually knowing things or being the loremaster in the room.
I have this hypothesis because of what I observe in the real world, especially in relation to politics and social interaction. People aren't drawn to the person who actually knows what they're talking about, or follow the person who actually demonstrates competence in their work. They are drawn to people who can talk real good and whisper sweet nothings into their ear. And this is a factor in our world having as many problems as it does.
This inevitably bleeds into how the game is operated, because many don't care if your character knows the history of the game world or the fundamentals of how magic works in the game world, and thus don't really think about how that knowledge can be applied to serve the party outside the bounds of class mechanics (it also doesn't help that a number of DMs just give out world info like candy for no discernible in-game reason). But they do care if you can fast talk your way out of situations or intimidate someone into submission.
Because of the way the class is set up, it is possible to build a so-called Ranger that is exactly 0% useful in exploration. And the main reason to pick the ranger class would be to know that your character gels well with a certain environment.
I think they might make some kind of exclusion for wizards in terms of memorizing spells. Right now in 5e a wizard can memorize more spells than a sorcerer or warlock knows at all (25 vs 15).
How so? You'll always have primal rituals to locate stuff, speak with animals, purify food and drink, commune with nature, etc. And is it even a problem that you can do a 0% exploration ranger? You can make a law-abiding rogue with no stealth or sleight of hand, but with expertise in investigation, insight, and perception, and play as a detective that catches assassins and thieves. Is it wrong to play like that?
That's honestly a game design issue. The Wizard is pretty much the only class that makes use of intelligence outside of a couple of skill checks here and there.
I am not sure that the mage classes will be restricted by preparation in the same ways cleric bard and ranger will be. They could get 2 per slot or a set amount of extra options. It's almost obvious that 1 per slot won't work with current warlock design.
Memorize is their word for "prepare". Clerics could prepare the same number as wizards in current. They are normalizing this. Everyone is going to pretty much have the same number of spells ready. The only exception may be th warlock.
I hate the idea of all subclasses starting at 3rd level for the same reason I hate some of them doing it now. However, I also acknowledge that most of my concerns would be resolved if a PC had to choose their subclass at 1st level but didn't get abilities associated with it until 3rd, and I wonder how much that is fueling other players' resistance to the change.
For me, it is all about the narrative. 1st through 3rd level go by very quickly; the game does not treat subclasses like D&D4 used to treat paragon paths or epic destinies, where they were something your character grew into over the course of many levels. It's a decision you still have to make almost immediately after character creation, and affects your early build as well as the dungeon master's starting narrative, but you still spend two levels without it.
Particularly in cases where membership in a subclass explicitly indicates membership in some in-universe organization, like the cleric's church or the warlock's pact, this is pretty awkward during those early sessions when you're trying to establish your character and the dungeon master is trying to weave you into the campaign. There's this 'are you/aren't you' energy that feels very unnecessary.
Easily houseruled. But given how emotional people tend to get about their characters' stories, I do wonder how much of the pushback on the 3rd-level subclass start has more to do with identity than mechanics.
I would love to see cleric domains and wizard schools separated from subclasses the way warlock pacts and fighter styles are currently separated from subclasses, so we can have healing priests of conflict deities and abjurer war mages as character options. It could be done pretty simply, but Wizards is unlikely to take the initiative. I never considered the approach for warlocks or sorcerers, because warlocks already have a secondary customization and sorcerer power source has always seemed to be more about their abilities than their spell list, but it is feasible.
J
Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
For me, my entire objection to moving Patrons and Sorcerous Origins to level 3 is Lore related. How can you be a warlock without a Patron? How can you decide after a couple of levels who your ancestors were. For pretty much every other class, the subclass the "You're an initiate/apprentice and at level three you chose your career path/take your orders/choose your specialization works. Warlocks get their power entirely from their patron. Sorcerers power is something they are born with (or in rare cases, I.e. aberrent mind or some storm sorcerers, stems from a specific event).
That said, I get why it's happening. Sometimes mechanical balance has to be put ahead of lore.
We have no idea how they are going to handle these yet. And we won't until the end. By then we will have a very clear understanding of the way they are moving with all the classes.
But I could see them either leaving these two as the only classes where you pick a subclass at level 1
OR
Make the Patron and Origin a level 1 choice, but change the subclasses to be something else like the Pact and Metamagic themes.
OR
Justifying the lore like this -
Warlocks - your Patron doesn't reveal its true identity to you until level 3, long after the bargain is sealed. It's too late to back out easily now. And you already have such wonderful power. Is it really so bad where it comes from? Or should you have listened to the friends that warned you not to make deals with dark shadows...
Sorcerers - a strange force has awakened in you. You cast spells without the need of long hours studying books. But sometimes it's too much for you to control. You don't know where it came from, or why you were burdened with this gift. Maybe if you practice hard enough, and look within yourself, you will find the true source of this power.
For sorcerers this is potentially crippling depending on how they change the mechanics around. Sorcs meta-magic is, basically, their 'subclass' in addition to their bloodline. Without it they're a horribly ****** caster and waiting till level 3 may simply be too long for them. We'll need to see what new mechanics are used for them but, if they keep with the 5e mechanics, it would likely destroy the class entirely.
Your final two examples are similar to what I suggested in the original post and could be one possibility. The other that I think would be likely in 1DnD is that the character has a patron or a specific source of their inborn talent from 1st level, but gets no mechanical bonus from it until 3rd level. It seems perfectly reasonable that the more specific subclass bonuses would be granted (in the case of Warlocks) or would manifest (in the case of Sorcerers) only after they gain some experience. I guess this also jibes with how I see character creation, as I'd rather keep my backstory simple and have my character's story revealed through playing the game.
Experts get expertise
Mages get Arcane Focus
Wizards = Spell Books - Arcane formula
Sorcerer = Blood lineage
Warlock = Pact
Metamagic doesn't come online until Level 3 as is. Given that it will probably get bumped down to level 2, I'm not worried. Since level 1 and 2 is usually just a 2 or 3 session journey, it's not really that big a deal even if it isn't moved up. The loss of some of the level 1 subclass features is what will hurt. I LOVE Draconic Bloodline's Draconic Resilience, for example. Free, always on mage armor with an extra hit point per level? That's the good stuff right there. Eyes of the Dark, Strength of the Grave, Telepathic Speech, and Favored by the Gods are all pretty tasty as well.
It always bugged me that warlocks were made a Charisma-based class. They're supposed to be the masters of occult lore and forbidden knowledge, but no, they're reinforcing the concept of magic gold diggers with eldritch sugar daddies.
Warlocks should use the inverse of their Wisdom modifier. A -3 wisdom penalty should give them +3 to their spellcasting. Since making bad decisions is their whole thing. :)
I wouldn't trust a Warlock to do surgery on me either!
But it was really just a joke. :)
Well of course. They have high CHA instead of DEX and the bill alone will likely force you to sell your soul to their patron to cover the costs. And you KNOW insurance won't cover Tarrasque-inflicted wounds!
Some games, like Trail of Cthulhu, offer benefits to having a low Sanity score. In Bloodborne, the more Insight you gain, the less your resistance to madness becomes - but you start seeing and hearing things. I love that kind of stuff.
That's because the playerbase doesn't know what to do with Int and related skills, but clearly knows that barmaids exist to be seduced.
I see 2 possible options.
1. I believe wizards are going to break the current preparation method for One D&D. They will use a preparation method giving them more fluidity. Or rather their first level feature Spellbook or whatever they name it will allow them to learn less (not the whole list) but prepare more spells compared to other spellcasters in one d&d. So they will only be able cast spells in their book much like 5e making them weaker than all other One casters, but will have more prepared spells and flexibility to which level of spell they prepare like 5e making them better than other One Casters.
2. They will prepare spells like everyone else in One, but will have a ritual book that they can copy ritual spells into so they can cast ritual spells they don’t have prepared. So basically they get the 5e ritual caster feat as a class feature.
I hope it’s option 1, but we have a long time before we will know.
Yep, that's pretty much how I see it as well.