D&D 5E Legends & Lore bits about prestige classes in 5e (and NEW playtest packet!)

[beej]

I seem to remember WotC saying that PrCs are to make an appearance as an optional module. (No incentive to look for links to back up that memory) Nothing I've read here indicates that that has changed, and if so, can't DMs just choose to not include them?

Having started the game in 3.5 I loved PrCs. Mostly though, that's because 20 levels of the same class were just boring for me. >.>

 

[dkyle]

I seem to remember WotC saying that PrCs are to make an appearance as an optional module. (No incentive to look for links to back up that memory) Nothing I've read here indicates that that has changed, and if so, can't DMs just choose to not include them?

Having started the game in 3.5 I loved PrCs. Mostly though, that's because 20 levels of the same class were just boring for me. >.>

That is true of literally any RPG mechanic ever. It is universal to the point of failing to be any sort of distinction, and useless to any discussion.

It being "optional" does not excuse bad design (and they don't seem at all interested in fixing what was bad about PrCs). If they want to do PrCs, they should do them right.

Which 4E for the most part already did...

 

[Ahnehnois]

Probably one of the few and most notable improvements from 3.5 to PF is that it deemphasized (if not totally eliminated) prestige classes, improved the 20-level viability of the core options, and used archetypes to give players the customizability they desired from level 1.

Regardless of the implementation, I don't see that the concept of prestige classes is really something 5e needs to take on.

 

[beej]

That is true of literally any RPG mechanic ever. It is universal to the point of failing to be any sort of distinction, and useless to any discussion.

It being "optional" does not excuse bad design (and they don't seem at all interested in fixing what was bad about PrCs). If they want to do PrCs, they should do them right.

Which 4E for the most part already did...

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to excuse bad design. In case my post didn't make it clear, my opinion is that they weren't. I love making builds centered around PrC concepts as a player, and I certainly allowed them (at my discretion) as a 3.5 DM.

Of course many seem to be of the opinion that it is bad design, and I simply have no interest in arguing against that because it is a particularly valid opinion to have anyway. And for those people, I'm simply saying that under this completely modular game system that wishes to cater to all styles of D&D, the existence of PrCs cater to a specific subgroup and disallowing in your games is a perfectly valid move. Just as its existence as an option is awesome for those who loved it.

And in my mind, that point is hardly useless to this discussion.

PS. 4E Paragon Paths were also awesome. I just wish multiclassing as a PP was a better option in 4E, because man that 3-feats requirement sucked IMO.

 

[Ratskinner]

I'm not a big fano of this comment on Prestige Classes:

The interesting thing about this approach is that it casts prestige classes as a DM tool that helps bring a world to life by giving starting characters goals in the campaign.​

I prefer Prestige Classes (or Paragon Paths) as player tools to bring the gameworld to life and invest their PCs in it.

I understand your concern. However, creating the world has traditionally been the purview and privilege of the DM. Given the additional workload that D&D puts on the DM, I think it seems somewhat justified with many DMs taking it as their "reward". I think that the push that 4e (and to a much lesser extent 3e) went in this direction was one of the things that created a lot of static with old-schoolers. I've heard plenty of complaints about it. Personally, I think that if you want a heavily narrative game with lots of player input...D&D isn't it.

And if players only care about PCs/PPs from the point of view of power-ups, that is not going to change by putting the GM in charge of handing them out. It will just mean that some players will jump through the GMs story-hoops in order to get the power up.

...and if its in the player's hands then suddenly you will have orders of knights/wizards/whatever springing into existence in worlds where it makes utterly no sense to the DM or the established fiction, forcing the DM to go through retconning hoops to make sense of it all.

This is one of those areas where (for me) the fundamental weaknesses of the D&D framework for narrative play is exposed. Your choices in game design all seem to suffer for it.

 

[Sunseeker]

I understand your concern. However, creating the world has traditionally been the purview and privilege of the DM. Given the additional workload that D&D puts on the DM, I think it seems somewhat justified with many DMs taking it as their "reward". I think that the push that 4e (and to a much lesser extent 3e) went in this direction was one of the things that created a lot of static with old-schoolers. I've heard plenty of complaints about it. Personally, I think that if you want a heavily narrative game with lots of player input...D&D isn't it.



...and if its in the player's hands then suddenly you will have orders of knights/wizards/whatever springing into existence in worlds where it makes utterly no sense to the DM or the established fiction, forcing the DM to go through retconning hoops to make sense of it all.

This is one of those areas where (for me) the fundamental weaknesses of the D&D framework for narrative play is exposed. Your choices in game design all seem to suffer for it.

It really shouldn't need to be entirely one way or the other. The perk to Paragon Path's is that while some of them were orders of established races or peoples, others were more literally paths you chose to take on your own. I mean, few games(IME) require a player to actually go back to town to learn new feats, maneuvers, powers, spells or abilities. You just get them. Your spellbook somehow has more spells in it, your mind can access new knowledge, your sword swings harder and so on and so forth.

World-based prestige classes are nice, but they fit the DM's vision of the world, a world that may hold little to offer certain characters. What then? Do these players simply have to "sit out" because their vision doesn't mesh with the DMs?

Certainly it's reasonable that the DM can control what does or does not exist in the world, but it's(generally speaking) a big, magical world out there Charlie Brown and it's reasonable that no DM has planned out ever square inch of their world(they could I guess, but that seems like a lot of work for what would be a very temporary creation).

DM's rule in large part through the consent of the players. It is beneficial for both sides to account for the needs and desires of the other, even if that means adding something to your world that you hadn't planned, or taking your second-favorite prestige class.

 

[dkyle]

And for those people, I'm simply saying that under this completely modular game system that wishes to cater to all styles of D&D, the existence of PrCs cater to a specific subgroup and disallowing in your games is a perfectly valid move. Just as its existence as an option is awesome for those who loved it.

And in my mind, that point is hardly useless to this discussion.

But then any and all mechanics that could possibly appeal to anyone are "perfectly valid", and it's thus effectively impossible to discuss the merits of anything.

There's nothing wrong with arguing in favor of PrCs, but the "modular game system" angle is irrelevant to that discussion. Game mechanics have their own merits and demerits regardless of how "optional" or not they are labeled in the published game.

PS. 4E Paragon Paths were also awesome. I just wish multiclassing as a PP was a better option in 4E, because man that 3-feats requirement sucked IMO.

Agreed. Feat-based multiclassing is a solid idea, but three extra feats for three power swaps was excessive. Overall, I think they overvalued power swaps. I think one feat for the basic multiclass, then one feat opening up all three swaps would have been fine. Or even remove the skill part of the initial feat, and replace it with the swaps, and open up full multiclassing with a single feat.

 

[Ratskinner]

Multiclassing and Prestige classes...the area of 5e that provides the most trepidation for me.

I thought the original 3e concept of Prestige Classes was great...at first it seemed like a great way for GMs to customize their worlds. Then splat arrived in waves.....much sadness and gnashing of teeth followed.

In any case, we are faced with a conflict: narrative import and fiddly bits. Which is to say players want the experience of having a character be inducted into the Order of the White Wombat, and whatever privileges that entails. They also want to get specialized little mechanical bells and whistles. To me, it looks like Next already has this...Backgrounds and Themes. Let the mechanics previously known as Prestige Classes become Prestige Themes and Titles ("backgrounds" didn't seem appropriate for something you gain in play.) They could be presented as joined-but-separable. That is, the Blackguard PrC gets you the same benefits as taking the Blackguard Title and the Blackguard Theme*. Groups that want a different feel could use them separately. Separate the requirements, too. That way, the fluff and the crunch don't interfere with each other unnecessarily.

Anyway, if we must suffer through this style of multiclassing, that's how I'd prefer it.

*I suppose you can give them different names, too: Blackguard PrC = Darkhearted Title + Marauder Theme.

 

[Greg K]

My issue with 3e Prestige classes was that the majority of them should not have been. The majority, in my opinion, required unnecessary hoop jumping to play what should be a viable concept at first level and were better handled by Customizing Classes (PHB) including
a. Class Variants (Unearthed Arcana)
b. Variant Spell Lists (DMG)
c. Urban/Wilderness Skill Swaps (Cityscape Web Enhancement I)
d. Variant Class abilities (Unearthed Arcana, PHB2, Complete Champion, etc.)
e. in a few instances a base class (e.g, Arcane Warrior (Bladesinger, Spellsword))

That stated, I prefer PrCs to Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies, because PrCs were optional. The game did not require them to play beyond a certain point.

 

[Ratskinner]

World-based prestige classes are nice, but they fit the DM's vision of the world, a world that may hold little to offer certain characters. What then? Do these players simply have to "sit out" because their vision doesn't mesh with the DMs?

So DMs must accede to all players wishes ever? and that should be codified into the rules? everything in every splatbook must be available in every game? No thanks.

Certainly it's reasonable that the DM can control what does or does not exist in the world, but it's(generally speaking) a big, magical world out there Charlie Brown and it's reasonable that no DM has planned out ever square inch of their world(they could I guess, but that seems like a lot of work for what would be a very temporary creation).

You don't need to have planned out every square inch of your world to know that some prestige classes/organization just wouldn't fit into your world. Especially if you're shooting for an intense theme or atmosphere. "Unicorn Cavalry Princess" may have a place in a lot of games, but not in my Black Company campaign.

DM's rule in large part through the consent of the players. It is beneficial for both sides to account for the needs and desires of the other, even if that means adding something to your world that you hadn't planned, or taking your second-favorite prestige class.

On that, we can agree. Its rather pointless for a DM to run a heavily themed campaign with players who aren't down with that theme. I'm still willing to give DMs a bit more authority than the players as compensation for the extra time and effort in the job.