@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
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.