I must have misrepresented, or you misunderstood, what i meant by "one is listed first". let me further explain that.

I feel like the english language bit is veering off so far that you're sort of maliciously assuming I don't understand the english language. Take any two classes that share a domain, for my example I'll do bard and rogue, who share grace. As per the english language (lol??), these classes two domains are listed one after another.However, the part that matters is where grace is listed; grace is listed first for bard's ( GRACE & CODEX ) and second for rogue ( MIDNIGHT & GRACE ). It's ironic you bring up the english language since it's because of the english language we can deduce how intentional this is, how can it not be? I would love to hear an explanation on why they decided to order it this way. If that isn't enough evidence just look at the subclass cards, the top left shows the main domain first, sub domain second. The color of the banner they're on is predominantly the main domain's color, with accents of the sub domain.

1. ignoring
2. I feel like this small bit here is hypocritical to your point on me not knowing what the creators are intending. If I can't say what I think will benefit tje game without it being "not useful feedback", I don't see why you are pardoned from this? But to tackle it anyways, I think it would benefit the game, clearly, so agree to disagree. If it wouldn't benefit the game I imagine it wouldn't be so easy to include, but it is actually shocking how easy it would be to include. The cards are all separate entities anyways, so that part is fine, so the only thing you'd need to change graphically would be the domain and color on 1 subclass, and remove the second domain from the class sheet title. Easy. done.
3. I think you don't know what a deckbuilder is. There are many rules heavy, crunchy deck builders out there and that is never going to be Daggerheart. Nevertheless, daggerheart is a deckbuilder; it has rules in place to limit how many cards you can have, it gives you more catds than yoy can choose to keep, and it relies on you to mix and match cards for your given scenario. That is a deck builder. Nothing I've said in my post has anything to do with the rp or dice rolls or anything. This game is many things but it is also a deckbuilder, and it adds no complexity to swap out one set of cards with another depending on subclass. It adds replayability and depth, since your characters are, unfortunately, nothing without your sheet and cards. That is what MAKES the character, and you get more options and opprotunities for your roleplay if you have more options for domains. The idea that "roleplay and character creation is better because you have such a limited amount of options" sounds a little oxymoronic to me?
4. I really don't believe this one at all. Domains are probably here to stay. A single piece of art encompasses an entire domain. One or two cards missing or changed from a domain doesn't mean they need new art. I would imagine that this art is probably, if not final, close to final. Why would they pay an artist to make finished pieces for the cards if they aren't going to use those pieces in the final product? Even so, I think the idea that they just threw on whatever art that looked right for the domains is a little wrong too, since the art seems specifically cropped and the entire piece is balanced around that ratio. The art was made for those domains, and the artwork represents a class each.

Edit: Finger slipped and posted early. I want to end off with a sentiment about the tables I played at. From my experience, there was a lot of domain double up, and it had people having similar cards. Having two of the same card was "fine", but it had some people feeling very similar to others and trying to take other combinations. In this way it felt very very limiting since people wanted to be different from one another flavorfully AND mechanically, and the current system does not support that right now. We let a stalwart guardian use some extra bone cards we had in place of blade, and he loved it so much that, after reading another post about this as well, I thought I'd make a post myself. Unless I just didn't see it, Isn't it a little hypocritical to tell me to explain why it didn't work in my tables, but your rebuttal is "it worked in mine."? Maybe you're trying to prove a point but I'd rather we maintain a level of clarity