Don't forget to like, subscribe and share. It really helps the adventuring party out!
...
I am totally doing that next time I play a warlock.
Other party members: Snow, who are you talking to? What does "subscribe" mean? Share what?
'I've got a fey patron! And if you like our work, be sure to share the stories to your friends, and any and all donations will go a long way to helping the party out!'
'If you become a gold level Patron supporter, I'll mention your name live in the next battle!'
Hey, I'm out of spell slots. My demonic patron will restore one spell slot for every ten gold my followers donate to her cult. First ten people to donate a gold piece get to vote for which spell I hit the Storm Giant Chieftan with first.
The difference is the source of their power, where Warlocks got their power from their patron, not from their study. A warlock's knowledge isn't the same thing as a wizard's book, and Paladins get their power from their oath while clerics from their faith, the source that they draw from is simply different.
After some search on tweets from Crawford, Mearls, and Greenwood, I can tell that there's no consensus on this among WotC as well actually.
JC and MM stick to the idea (which I support) that warlock learns from their patron, and once they gain this knowledge, there's no way a patron can make them unlearn or somehow forget it. Knowledge is power. Class description that went into PHB reinforces this notion, and this also opens the path to various scenarios where a warlock might be at odds with their patron, switch patron or even kill it.
Greenwood, on the other hand, sees warlocks as nothing more than a conduit for patron's power that has no power or proficiency of their own. At any moment on the patron's whim, such warlock may lose everything and basically become level 0 commoner because all that they are is borrowed. This, excludes going against your patron and any kind of relationship other than subservient obedience, because as soon as you turn against your patron or stop being useful, you can be instantly stripped of all power.
The difference is the source of their power, where Warlocks got their power from their patron, not from their study. A warlock's knowledge isn't the same thing as a wizard's book, and Paladins get their power from their oath while clerics from their faith, the source that they draw from is simply different.
After some search on tweets from Crawford, Mearls, and Greenwood, I can tell that there's no consensus on this among WotC as well actually.
JC and MM stick to the idea (which I support) that warlock learns from their patron, and once they gain this knowledge, there's no way a patron can make them unlearn or somehow forget it. Knowledge is power. Class description that went into PHB reinforces this notion, and this also opens the path to various scenarios where a warlock might be at odds with their patron, switch patron or even kill it.
Greenwood, on the other hand, sees warlocks as nothing more than a conduit for patron's power that has no power or proficiency of their own. At any moment on the patron's whim, such warlock may lose everything and basically become level 0 commoner because all that they are is borrowed. This, excludes going against your patron and any kind of relationship other than subservient obedience, because as soon as you turn against your patron or stop being useful, you can be instantly stripped of all power.
I think both are right depending on the patron, warlock, GM and universe they are in.
Because the line in the PHB around Invocations says the knowledge "imbues them" with these power, I sometimes take it as some of the invocations can be seen as eldritch arcane experiments being conducted on the persons body. This is particularly fun with the "eye" invocations.
I think both are right depending on the patron, warlock, GM and universe they are in.
Because the line in the PHB around Invocations says the knowledge "imbues them" with these power, I sometimes take it as some of the invocations can be seen as eldritch arcane experiments being conducted on the persons body. This is particularly fun with the "eye" invocations.
This is the line between wizards and warlocks: warlocks can do all sorts of questionable and outright depraved stuff to themselves and others while wizards will at least keep themselves "clean".
In the end, I would like it if warlocks, like fighters, could select their main stat. Pathfinder already has it: subclasses can alter the base class' main stat. Like, Pact of the Tome could be the bookish occultist, while Pact of the Chain could focus on servitude with a familiar/overseer.
The flavour justification is that Paladins use their own conviction to do what they do, which does require force of personality so to speak. Whereas a cleric is channeling the power of the gods, which doesn't necessarily involve any kind of conviction on their part.
It's not uncommon for clerics in D&D settings to just simply be chosen by their gods, no matter what their personality is like, and especially if their personality aligns with the deity's. Paladins, by contrast, have to really stick to their oaths and live or die by them, and that does take some level of charisma.
Then again, Oathbreakers exist and use their paladin abilities no problem. And how does the cleric that doesn't believe in a god that has chosen them cast the "prayer" spells? "Please dear God, I don't know which one exactly and I really hate to ask because I don't believe in that stuff, but could you heal my comrades?")
I think that it would be nice to build some consistency, like if Primal spellcasting was about Wis (attunement to natural world), Divine was about Cha (conviction, will, and faith) and Arcane was about Int (understanding the nature of magic and knowing methods of manipulating the Weave) with exceptions for those who have innate spellcasting like sorcs.
All of the flavor text is just that, flavor. It only exists to try to explain the game mechanics already in place. The mechanics exist for balance in one form or another. All the classes and other options don't necessarily have to be equal in power, but they do need to scale with the adventure, so the mechanics are there to facilitate that.
As a DM, I think the story/flavor/lore of my world is more important than the mechanics. Players need intersting lore to inspire their characters and their own stories. I need a world that feels alive and consistent. That's on me to provide, not the rulebook. I can adjust the mechanical rules as I go, but the story has to make sense to my players.
But when designing a game, the mechanics are the focus. People can reflavor any part of the rules to play DnD in any world, era, or genre they want. So the flavor that the designers provide with the rules is just justification for the mechanics that must exist to have a game.
In AD&D, the first Bards knew Druid spells, based on their Celtic inspiration. (That's why I agreed that the new Bard should just get Divine Abjuration access instead of wedging in healing spells with Song of Restoration. It would be a nice callback and work better) Anything can change in a new edition. Clerics don't normally lose their spells if they forsake their god, or never had one. Paladins don't lose their abilities for breaking their Oath. Warlocks don't lose theirs for killing their Patron.
Or at least they don't according to any rule. Because the game mechanics are designed for players to play characters with powers in a team that levels up. And suddenly being a 0 level character when your party is level 10 would suck. So the game rules don't tell you that has to happen. DMs are completely free to change that for their own world. They can offer the player levels in a different class. Or just really make them suffer and take everything from them. But from a purely game mechanic perspective, the lore doesn't really matter.
They can change whatever they want in the rules, and give us new flavor text to justify it. Different spellcasting abilities, different spell lists, different explanations for why you don't pick a subclass until level 3. It will be up to us and our feedback whether we can suspend disbelief enough for a given change. I think I personally favor better rules from the books. That's primarily what I'm buying them for. I can work with most story justifications and adapt my world to them. But that might just be me.
I think RP wise, some classes don't make sense if they take their subclass a lv3.
If a warlock doesn't have a patron, or a cleric doesn't have a deity yet then the whole lore kind of doesn't make sense. I could see them restricting subclass to 3rd level for multiclassing but for classes whos magic is dependent on their subclass it really seems like it just doesn't make sense.
I think RP wise, some classes don't make sense if they take their subclass a lv3.
If a warlock doesn't have a patron, or a cleric doesn't have a deity yet then the whole lore kind of doesn't make sense. I could see them restricting subclass to 3rd level for multiclassing but for classes whos magic is dependent on their subclass it really seems like it just doesn't make sense.
To be fair, this isn't entirely new. Paladins don't take their oaths until Level 3, and we've just sorta handwaved that or tried to work a justification into the narrative if it comes up.
The problem is that other classes just doesn't work the same as paladin
A hexblade just being a generic warlock until level 3 is just awkward. A celestial or fey lock being indistinguishable from a fiend or great old one until level 3?
For sorcerer you magic is suppose to be inborn, so how would it be generic until level 3
I think RP wise, some classes don't make sense if they take their subclass a lv3.
If a warlock doesn't have a patron, or a cleric doesn't have a deity yet then the whole lore kind of doesn't make sense. I could see them restricting subclass to 3rd level for multiclassing but for classes whos magic is dependent on their subclass it really seems like it just doesn't make sense.
To be fair, this isn't entirely new. Paladins don't take their oaths until Level 3, and we've just sorta handwaved that or tried to work a justification into the narrative if it comes up.
The problem is that other classes just doesn't work the same as paladin
A hexblade just being a generic warlock until level 3 is just awkward. A celestial or fey lock being indistinguishable from a fiend or great old one until level 3?
For sorcerer you magic is suppose to be inborn, so how would it be generic until level 3
Maybe they will give Pact Boons at level one, that way your Hexblade can start as just a Pact of the Blade and progress to something better.
Maybe that Pact of the Great Old Ones starts out with a book (Pact of the Tome) and as they delve deeper into the secrets contained within, they find that they have been lured into a pact with a being that is beyond mortal comprehension.
Perhaps the young warlock starts by summoning a lesser fiend (fey) (Pact of the Chain) before falling prey to the Imp's (Sprite's) true master.
I think RP wise, some classes don't make sense if they take their subclass a lv3.
If a warlock doesn't have a patron, or a cleric doesn't have a deity yet then the whole lore kind of doesn't make sense. I could see them restricting subclass to 3rd level for multiclassing but for classes whos magic is dependent on their subclass it really seems like it just doesn't make sense.
To be fair, this isn't entirely new. Paladins don't take their oaths until Level 3, and we've just sorta handwaved that or tried to work a justification into the narrative if it comes up.
The problem is that other classes just doesn't work the same as paladin
A hexblade just being a generic warlock until level 3 is just awkward. A celestial or fey lock being indistinguishable from a fiend or great old one until level 3?
For sorcerer you magic is suppose to be inborn, so how would it be generic until level 3
Maybe they will give Pact Boons at level one, that way your Hexblade can start as just a Pact of the Blade and progress to something better.
Maybe that Pact of the Great Old Ones starts out with a book (Pact of the Tome) and as they delve deeper into the secrets contained within, they find that they have been lured into a pact with a being that is beyond mortal comprehension.
Perhaps the young warlock starts by summoning a lesser fiend (fey) (Pact of the Chain) before falling prey to the Imp's (Sprite's) true master.
I think Hexblade might be gone for a while and pact of the blade will work more like hex warrior. I’m betting on Archfey, Fiend, Great Old One, and Undead/Undying maybe Celestial instead. Just a guess. Wizards proved me wrong already. I thought we would get all the same subclasses from the PHB plus a few new ones. JC said 4 for each class. But I do believe Hexblade was created to fix pact of the blade and they will just fix blade to work for all warlocks.
I think RP wise, some classes don't make sense if they take their subclass a lv3.
If a warlock doesn't have a patron, or a cleric doesn't have a deity yet then the whole lore kind of doesn't make sense. I could see them restricting subclass to 3rd level for multiclassing but for classes whos magic is dependent on their subclass it really seems like it just doesn't make sense.
To be fair, this isn't entirely new. Paladins don't take their oaths until Level 3, and we've just sorta handwaved that or tried to work a justification into the narrative if it comes up.
The problem is that other classes just doesn't work the same as paladin
A hexblade just being a generic warlock until level 3 is just awkward. A celestial or fey lock being indistinguishable from a fiend or great old one until level 3?
For sorcerer you magic is suppose to be inborn, so how would it be generic until level 3
Maybe they will give Pact Boons at level one, that way your Hexblade can start as just a Pact of the Blade and progress to something better.
Maybe that Pact of the Great Old Ones starts out with a book (Pact of the Tome) and as they delve deeper into the secrets contained within, they find that they have been lured into a pact with a being that is beyond mortal comprehension.
Perhaps the young warlock starts by summoning a lesser fiend (fey) (Pact of the Chain) before falling prey to the Imp's (Sprite's) true master.
I think Hexblade might be gone for a while and pact of the blade will work more like hex warrior. I’m betting on Archfey, Fiend, Great Old One, and Undead/Undying maybe Celestial instead. Just a guess. Wizards proved me wrong already. I thought we would get all the same subclasses from the PHB plus a few new ones. JC said 4 for each class. But I do believe Hexblade was created to fix pact of the blade and they will just fix blade to work for all warlocks.
The point I was trying to make is that it is very easy to explain away why a Warlock wouldn't start with a Subclass at level 1.
Edit: Archfey, Fiend, Great Old One and Hexblade are my bets. Hexblade is too popular to ignore and many of the issues that it has caused would be resolved by moving Subclass features to levels 3+.
I think RP wise, some classes don't make sense if they take their subclass a lv3.
If a warlock doesn't have a patron, or a cleric doesn't have a deity yet then the whole lore kind of doesn't make sense. I could see them restricting subclass to 3rd level for multiclassing but for classes whos magic is dependent on their subclass it really seems like it just doesn't make sense.
To be fair, this isn't entirely new. Paladins don't take their oaths until Level 3, and we've just sorta handwaved that or tried to work a justification into the narrative if it comes up.
The problem is that other classes just doesn't work the same as paladin
A hexblade just being a generic warlock until level 3 is just awkward. A celestial or fey lock being indistinguishable from a fiend or great old one until level 3?
For sorcerer you magic is suppose to be inborn, so how would it be generic until level 3
Maybe they will give Pact Boons at level one, that way your Hexblade can start as just a Pact of the Blade and progress to something better.
Maybe that Pact of the Great Old Ones starts out with a book (Pact of the Tome) and as they delve deeper into the secrets contained within, they find that they have been lured into a pact with a being that is beyond mortal comprehension.
Perhaps the young warlock starts by summoning a lesser fiend (fey) (Pact of the Chain) before falling prey to the Imp's (Sprite's) true master.
I think Hexblade might be gone for a while and pact of the blade will work more like hex warrior. I’m betting on Archfey, Fiend, Great Old One, and Undead/Undying maybe Celestial instead. Just a guess. Wizards proved me wrong already. I thought we would get all the same subclasses from the PHB plus a few new ones. JC said 4 for each class. But I do believe Hexblade was created to fix pact of the blade and they will just fix blade to work for all warlocks.
The point I was trying to make is that it is very easy to explain away why a Warlock wouldn't start with a Subclass at level 1.
Edit: Archfey, Fiend, Great Old One and Hexblade are my bets. Hexblade is too popular to ignore and many of the issues that it has caused would be resolved by moving Subclass features to levels 3+.
Completely agree that it’s not a problem to move subclass to 3 even for warlock. Still think fixing pact of the blade makes Hexblade unnecessary. Time will prove one of us correct. Honestly I’m fine with either option, but Hexblade was only popular because it was objectively better. I hope they fix that if they bring it back.
I think RP wise, some classes don't make sense if they take their subclass a lv3.
If a warlock doesn't have a patron, or a cleric doesn't have a deity yet then the whole lore kind of doesn't make sense. I could see them restricting subclass to 3rd level for multiclassing but for classes whos magic is dependent on their subclass it really seems like it just doesn't make sense.
To be fair, this isn't entirely new. Paladins don't take their oaths until Level 3, and we've just sorta handwaved that or tried to work a justification into the narrative if it comes up.
The problem is that other classes just doesn't work the same as paladin
A hexblade just being a generic warlock until level 3 is just awkward. A celestial or fey lock being indistinguishable from a fiend or great old one until level 3?
For sorcerer you magic is suppose to be inborn, so how would it be generic until level 3
Maybe they will give Pact Boons at level one, that way your Hexblade can start as just a Pact of the Blade and progress to something better.
Maybe that Pact of the Great Old Ones starts out with a book (Pact of the Tome) and as they delve deeper into the secrets contained within, they find that they have been lured into a pact with a being that is beyond mortal comprehension.
Perhaps the young warlock starts by summoning a lesser fiend (fey) (Pact of the Chain) before falling prey to the Imp's (Sprite's) true master.
I think Hexblade might be gone for a while and pact of the blade will work more like hex warrior. I’m betting on Archfey, Fiend, Great Old One, and Undead/Undying maybe Celestial instead. Just a guess. Wizards proved me wrong already. I thought we would get all the same subclasses from the PHB plus a few new ones. JC said 4 for each class. But I do believe Hexblade was created to fix pact of the blade and they will just fix blade to work for all warlocks.
The point I was trying to make is that it is very easy to explain away why a Warlock wouldn't start with a Subclass at level 1.
Edit: Archfey, Fiend, Great Old One and Hexblade are my bets. Hexblade is too popular to ignore and many of the issues that it has caused would be resolved by moving Subclass features to levels 3+.
Completely agree that it’s not a problem to move subclass to 3 even for warlock. Still think fixing pact of the blade makes Hexblade unnecessary. Time will prove one of us correct. Honestly I’m fine with either option, but Hexblade was only popular because it was objectively better. I hope they fix that if they bring it back.
Yeah it hardly worth talking about at this point. It will be months till we see the Mage UA since it was hinted to be the last class group we would see.
So here's a question. You're talking about moving sub-class to level 3... But then what DO they get at level 1? Is a level 1 Sorc just a wizard who uses CHA instead of INT and knows fewer spells but more cantrips? Is a Warlock just EB with maybe a few slots on the side until they hit level 3? What do these classes actually GET early on?
So here's a question. You're talking about moving sub-class to level 3... But then what DO they get at level 1? Is a level 1 Sorc just a wizard who uses CHA instead of INT and knows fewer spells but more cantrips? Is a Warlock just EB with maybe a few slots on the side until they hit level 3? What do these classes actually GET early on?
Clerics got Channel Divinity improved and moved to level 1. I won't be surprised is sorcerers get metamagic and warlocks get invocations at the same level. These are actual class-defining features, not subclass stuff.
I think RP wise, some classes don't make sense if they take their subclass a lv3.
If a warlock doesn't have a patron, or a cleric doesn't have a deity yet then the whole lore kind of doesn't make sense. I could see them restricting subclass to 3rd level for multiclassing but for classes whos magic is dependent on their subclass it really seems like it just doesn't make sense.
A warlock may study occultism at levels 1-2, and make a pact at level 3. Just like paladin who commits themselves to an oath only by level 3. Or you caould say that you make a pact or serve your deity at level 1, and you get specific rewards only by level 3. Levels 1-2 are "internship" in the service of a deity/patron.
As Crawling_Chaos said, a god is not a domain. Multiple Clerics can worship the same deity and have different domains. In every world, there are millions of followers of each god that aren't leveled Clerics at all, and never rake a Domain subclass at all because of it. Both average people and members of their clergy. The leader of a religion doesn't even have to be a Cleric.
The important thing that WotC is focusing on is the fact that a new player shouldn't have to make a character defining mechanical decision like subclass so early on. The player will know who or what their character worships from the start. They just don't have to lock themselves into a path until they've played the character a few games and got a feel for what they like.
The same can apply for Sorcerers and Warlocks. As many of us have given examples of. I don't know how they plan to explain it, but I also don't really care much. I think making the game better for all players on more important. The explanation for it can easily change (and has many times already.)
I recognize that maybe it's just because I've gone through so many editions it doesn't really bother me. I've seen so many versions of Paladins and Clerics and Bards that the adjustment isn't as hard. Divine Domains didn't always exist, and they don't necessities even have to in the future either. Classes come and go. Their lore is flexible. I just want new editions to build a better game each time. And I think the 3rd level subclass change is a positive one overall.
So here's a question. You're talking about moving sub-class to level 3... But then what DO they get at level 1? Is a level 1 Sorc just a wizard who uses CHA instead of INT and knows fewer spells but more cantrips? Is a Warlock just EB with maybe a few slots on the side until they hit level 3? What do these classes actually GET early on?
So you're telling me it never crossed your mind that Metamagic might actually be moved further down the level list from Level 3 to 2 or 1?
Or that they might get Font of Magic at Level 1? Or that Font of Magic might get changes made to it?
The reason I say this is that Font of Magic is literally the mechanical representation of the innate magic they have, and Metamagic is their ability to use that innate magic to do weird stuff with their spells. That is probably the biggest thing that sets them apart from wizards at the base level, aside from the number of spells known and spell preparation.
This feels really backwards to me since your bloodline is not a choice, it's set in stone, but meta-magic IS a choice (at least mechanically). So it makes much more sense to have the actual choice happen when people are making the choices.
As far as the mechanics go… Yeah, they are. However, even from a purely fluff standpoint, having subclasses at level 1 just fills a lot of narrative holes (or never creates them in the first place), and that is a very real benefit. In my opinion, 1st level subclasses (although very dialed down) works better both mechanically, and in terms of fluff. I think forcing the solution WotC is currently working toward feels, forced… It id not very intuitive with how many of the classes work. The solutions I offered work fix almost all of the current issues, without creating any unusual situations in terms of fluff and lore.
And I will say all of this again no matter how many times you say your thing again… 😏
As far as mechanics go, you're wrong. 1st level features like Hexblade's Cha melee are breaking the game. A hexadin is simply better than a paladin. That's what they're addressing. And getting a subclass feature at level 1 means you're not getting an actual class-defining feature until level 2 or 3.
This feels really backwards to me since your bloodline is not a choice, it's set in stone, but meta-magic IS a choice (at least mechanically). So it makes much more sense to have the actual choice happen when people are making the choices.
Does your particular magical mutation absolutely have to manifest at level 1? Because what defines sorcerer is innate magic and metamagic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
'I've got a fey patron! And if you like our work, be sure to share the stories to your friends, and any and all donations will go a long way to helping the party out!'
'If you become a gold level Patron supporter, I'll mention your name live in the next battle!'
Hey, I'm out of spell slots. My demonic patron will restore one spell slot for every ten gold my followers donate to her cult. First ten people to donate a gold piece get to vote for which spell I hit the Storm Giant Chieftan with first.
After some search on tweets from Crawford, Mearls, and Greenwood, I can tell that there's no consensus on this among WotC as well actually.
JC and MM stick to the idea (which I support) that warlock learns from their patron, and once they gain this knowledge, there's no way a patron can make them unlearn or somehow forget it. Knowledge is power. Class description that went into PHB reinforces this notion, and this also opens the path to various scenarios where a warlock might be at odds with their patron, switch patron or even kill it.
"What happens to a warlock who disobeys or opposes their patron?" Mearls: "The patron can't take away abilities, but will likely send agents or omens to harass/punish."
Greenwood, on the other hand, sees warlocks as nothing more than a conduit for patron's power that has no power or proficiency of their own. At any moment on the patron's whim, such warlock may lose everything and basically become level 0 commoner because all that they are is borrowed. This, excludes going against your patron and any kind of relationship other than subservient obedience, because as soon as you turn against your patron or stop being useful, you can be instantly stripped of all power.
"What happens if a warlock kills their patron?" Greenwood: "The warlock's power comes from their patron, so they lose it."
I think both are right depending on the patron, warlock, GM and universe they are in.
Because the line in the PHB around Invocations says the knowledge "imbues them" with these power, I sometimes take it as some of the invocations can be seen as eldritch arcane experiments being conducted on the persons body. This is particularly fun with the "eye" invocations.
This is the line between wizards and warlocks: warlocks can do all sorts of questionable and outright depraved stuff to themselves and others while wizards will at least keep themselves "clean".
In the end, I would like it if warlocks, like fighters, could select their main stat. Pathfinder already has it: subclasses can alter the base class' main stat. Like, Pact of the Tome could be the bookish occultist, while Pact of the Chain could focus on servitude with a familiar/overseer.
Then again, Oathbreakers exist and use their paladin abilities no problem. And how does the cleric that doesn't believe in a god that has chosen them cast the "prayer" spells? "Please dear God, I don't know which one exactly and I really hate to ask because I don't believe in that stuff, but could you heal my comrades?")
I think that it would be nice to build some consistency, like if Primal spellcasting was about Wis (attunement to natural world), Divine was about Cha (conviction, will, and faith) and Arcane was about Int (understanding the nature of magic and knowing methods of manipulating the Weave) with exceptions for those who have innate spellcasting like sorcs.
All of the flavor text is just that, flavor. It only exists to try to explain the game mechanics already in place. The mechanics exist for balance in one form or another. All the classes and other options don't necessarily have to be equal in power, but they do need to scale with the adventure, so the mechanics are there to facilitate that.
As a DM, I think the story/flavor/lore of my world is more important than the mechanics. Players need intersting lore to inspire their characters and their own stories. I need a world that feels alive and consistent. That's on me to provide, not the rulebook. I can adjust the mechanical rules as I go, but the story has to make sense to my players.
But when designing a game, the mechanics are the focus. People can reflavor any part of the rules to play DnD in any world, era, or genre they want. So the flavor that the designers provide with the rules is just justification for the mechanics that must exist to have a game.
In AD&D, the first Bards knew Druid spells, based on their Celtic inspiration. (That's why I agreed that the new Bard should just get Divine Abjuration access instead of wedging in healing spells with Song of Restoration. It would be a nice callback and work better) Anything can change in a new edition. Clerics don't normally lose their spells if they forsake their god, or never had one. Paladins don't lose their abilities for breaking their Oath. Warlocks don't lose theirs for killing their Patron.
Or at least they don't according to any rule. Because the game mechanics are designed for players to play characters with powers in a team that levels up. And suddenly being a 0 level character when your party is level 10 would suck. So the game rules don't tell you that has to happen. DMs are completely free to change that for their own world. They can offer the player levels in a different class. Or just really make them suffer and take everything from them. But from a purely game mechanic perspective, the lore doesn't really matter.
They can change whatever they want in the rules, and give us new flavor text to justify it. Different spellcasting abilities, different spell lists, different explanations for why you don't pick a subclass until level 3. It will be up to us and our feedback whether we can suspend disbelief enough for a given change. I think I personally favor better rules from the books. That's primarily what I'm buying them for. I can work with most story justifications and adapt my world to them. But that might just be me.
I think RP wise, some classes don't make sense if they take their subclass a lv3.
If a warlock doesn't have a patron, or a cleric doesn't have a deity yet then the whole lore kind of doesn't make sense. I could see them restricting subclass to 3rd level for multiclassing but for classes whos magic is dependent on their subclass it really seems like it just doesn't make sense.
The problem is that other classes just doesn't work the same as paladin
A hexblade just being a generic warlock until level 3 is just awkward. A celestial or fey lock being indistinguishable from a fiend or great old one until level 3?
For sorcerer you magic is suppose to be inborn, so how would it be generic until level 3
Maybe they will give Pact Boons at level one, that way your Hexblade can start as just a Pact of the Blade and progress to something better.
Maybe that Pact of the Great Old Ones starts out with a book (Pact of the Tome) and as they delve deeper into the secrets contained within, they find that they have been lured into a pact with a being that is beyond mortal comprehension.
Perhaps the young warlock starts by summoning a lesser fiend (fey) (Pact of the Chain) before falling prey to the Imp's (Sprite's) true master.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I think Hexblade might be gone for a while and pact of the blade will work more like hex warrior. I’m betting on Archfey, Fiend, Great Old One, and Undead/Undying maybe Celestial instead. Just a guess. Wizards proved me wrong already. I thought we would get all the same subclasses from the PHB plus a few new ones. JC said 4 for each class. But I do believe Hexblade was created to fix pact of the blade and they will just fix blade to work for all warlocks.
The point I was trying to make is that it is very easy to explain away why a Warlock wouldn't start with a Subclass at level 1.
Edit: Archfey, Fiend, Great Old One and Hexblade are my bets. Hexblade is too popular to ignore and many of the issues that it has caused would be resolved by moving Subclass features to levels 3+.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Completely agree that it’s not a problem to move subclass to 3 even for warlock. Still think fixing pact of the blade makes Hexblade unnecessary. Time will prove one of us correct. Honestly I’m fine with either option, but Hexblade was only popular because it was objectively better. I hope they fix that if they bring it back.
Yeah it hardly worth talking about at this point. It will be months till we see the Mage UA since it was hinted to be the last class group we would see.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
So here's a question. You're talking about moving sub-class to level 3... But then what DO they get at level 1? Is a level 1 Sorc just a wizard who uses CHA instead of INT and knows fewer spells but more cantrips? Is a Warlock just EB with maybe a few slots on the side until they hit level 3? What do these classes actually GET early on?
Clerics got Channel Divinity improved and moved to level 1. I won't be surprised is sorcerers get metamagic and warlocks get invocations at the same level. These are actual class-defining features, not subclass stuff.
A warlock may study occultism at levels 1-2, and make a pact at level 3. Just like paladin who commits themselves to an oath only by level 3. Or you caould say that you make a pact or serve your deity at level 1, and you get specific rewards only by level 3. Levels 1-2 are "internship" in the service of a deity/patron.
As Crawling_Chaos said, a god is not a domain. Multiple Clerics can worship the same deity and have different domains. In every world, there are millions of followers of each god that aren't leveled Clerics at all, and never rake a Domain subclass at all because of it. Both average people and members of their clergy. The leader of a religion doesn't even have to be a Cleric.
The important thing that WotC is focusing on is the fact that a new player shouldn't have to make a character defining mechanical decision like subclass so early on. The player will know who or what their character worships from the start. They just don't have to lock themselves into a path until they've played the character a few games and got a feel for what they like.
The same can apply for Sorcerers and Warlocks. As many of us have given examples of. I don't know how they plan to explain it, but I also don't really care much. I think making the game better for all players on more important. The explanation for it can easily change (and has many times already.)
I recognize that maybe it's just because I've gone through so many editions it doesn't really bother me. I've seen so many versions of Paladins and Clerics and Bards that the adjustment isn't as hard. Divine Domains didn't always exist, and they don't necessities even have to in the future either. Classes come and go. Their lore is flexible. I just want new editions to build a better game each time. And I think the 3rd level subclass change is a positive one overall.
This feels really backwards to me since your bloodline is not a choice, it's set in stone, but meta-magic IS a choice (at least mechanically). So it makes much more sense to have the actual choice happen when people are making the choices.
As far as mechanics go, you're wrong. 1st level features like Hexblade's Cha melee are breaking the game. A hexadin is simply better than a paladin. That's what they're addressing. And getting a subclass feature at level 1 means you're not getting an actual class-defining feature until level 2 or 3.
Does your particular magical mutation absolutely have to manifest at level 1? Because what defines sorcerer is innate magic and metamagic.