But moving the Subclass to 3rd level really feels like a bad choice because of the specific narrative attachment of the subclass. This isn't "How you learn to fight" this is the -basis- of your belief system that you don't gain access to out of the gate at level 1. It means a cleric of Pelor and a cleric of Gruumsh gain the exact same powers and abilities with nothing to distinguish them for the first two levels. And to me that just feels weird.
My answer was always "That's what the barbarian is for".I just want them to keep a fairly basic fighter class for those that don't want all the complexity.
Lore wise, D&D clerics have always been pretty similar, no mater what deity, maybe excepting specialty priests from 2e. Sure, domain and sub-class have given a nice veneer over the top, but it was just that: a veneer.
As for the standardizing sub class choice at third level, I generally like it. It allows leeway in future design, knowing this is the case. It may, depending on implementation, cut down on the effectiveness of class dipping as well, which has been a problem in 5e to be honest (particularly with warlocks). That's part of the real reason for the delayed sub class choice I'll wager.
I mean you can (and in my game I will require) pick your god and rp it that way... I mean do you really NEED your domain for those 1st 2 levels to be a cleric of pelor or Rao, or Grumish or whatever?But moving the Subclass to 3rd level really feels like a bad choice because of the specific narrative attachment of the subclass. This isn't "How you learn to fight" this is the -basis- of your belief system that you don't gain access to out of the gate at level 1. It means a cleric of Pelor and a cleric of Gruumsh gain the exact same powers and abilities with nothing to distinguish them for the first two levels. And to me that just feels weird.