@JeremyECrawford Being a powerful bond why would it randomly occur 3rd lv? Integrating it into campaing can lead to ability/lv misalignment. pic.twitter.com/dqD9tQrpyV
— Mathew Michalak (@Trogaf) October 7, 2016
Take a look at "Creating a Paladin" (PH, 83). Sacred Oath at 3rd level should be a transition on a path the paladin already walks. #DnD https://t.co/srFwxb86Iv
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) October 7, 2016
3 thoughts on “Being a powerful bond why would it randomly occur 3rd lv?”
mechanically the Oaths are very powerful, starting them at first level would be unfair to other classees, so mechanical game play is a correct answer. But nothing says you can’t start you adventure at level 3.
Using the reasoning provided for level 1 subclasses most classes would pick a subclass at level 1. The excuses used to get around some of these decisions have been nothing but a cop out.
I’m inclined to disagree. Relative to the mechanics and metaphysics as-presented, it actually makes sense that certain classes have their “sub-classes” starting at 1st level, others at 2nd while still others at 3rd relative to the contexts provided. (A cleric isn’t necessarily a priest but rather someone chosen by a deity/power to act as a conduit for their divine will; as a result, whether a priest or not, the individual is “set on their path” relatively early. A paladin, on the other hand, has an arguably even deeper commitment to their Oaths than even many clerics have with their deities — again, some clerics are Clerics(tm) not necessarily by choice by by divine revelation — and that begins with strong-but-“lesser” understanding of said Oaths until becoming affirmed by some measure of trial/challenge — reflected by not being a mechanical “thing” until 3rd level.)
With some other examples, such as sorcerers, the initial “sub-classing” is because sorcerers are what they are quite literally from birth (even if their power doesn’t awaken until later in life — possibly well into adulthood, rousing from being dormant after contact with a given (P)ower or entity), so it makes sense that their “sub-class” begins at “first level”. For others, there is a “dip in the stream, perhaps to the ankle”, such as with druids, where their associative commitment isn’t until “second level”. This applies similarly to wizards for a different reason/rationale: their studies of the fundamentals of magic imply that some baseline uniformity arises relative to their stepping on a more personalized path — so “second level” for them , as well.
Lastly, for either much more committed characters (such as paladins above) or, ironically, those on a more “mundane” path (such as with rogues and fighters), “third level” provides them with more room to adjust/reconsider their potential emphasis than with other classes — paladins can re-affirm the Oaths they are committed to while rogues/fighters establish their essential/baseline skills in their respective fields before committing (wittingly or no) to their archetypes, etc.
It really does make sense within the context of the setting/mechanics involved.