Here Come The PRESTIGE CLASSES! Plus Rune Magic!

Mike Mearls' latest Unearthed Arcana column presents the first ever 5E prestige class: the Rune Scribe! "Prestige classes build on the game’s broad range of basic options to represent specialized options and unique training. The first of those specialized options for fifth edition D&D is the rune scribe—a character who masters ancient sigils that embody the fundamental magic of creation."

It's a 5-level class, and also contains the basic information on how prestige classes work and how to join them - including ability, skill, level, and task-based prerequisites. Find it here.

 

[ChapolimX]

The entire class would be better represented by a feat that grants a spellcaster the ability to use a rune's complex features, and a downtime activity for crafting new runes.

I like your idea. I rather see something like this. Make the Rune Lore ability a feat. Use the character class spell slots. Condition the discovery of new runes to adventure, or copious research at a specific place. Done. No need for levels. You can have a second feat for the Rune Mastery ability.

 

[Plageman]

I'm not fond of either the Rune Caster as a PrC or the execution of the PrC rules.

The whole thing makes giving out Runes as Magic Items a sort of mandatory thing which I feel constraining. Also making (again !) a substitute for a "regular" Class progression is a poor choice, especially when 5e makes an extra effort of punishing you if taking less than 4 full levels of a class by denying an Abilty Score increase (and thus a feat).

I must say that I'ed like to have PrC an option, like Feats, functioning like an additional layer to you character rather than a shorter class thing. Think of it like a Background but instead of being tied to your past, it is your actual flavor option. This way you could design PrC to be less Class-focused and more Theme-focused.

Now I like some of the Rune Caster mechanics but I don't feel it was a proper choice for a first PrC. Still I'd like to see it return maybe a full subclass of the Sorcerer.

 

[SuperZero]

Right now, the current multi-classing rules don't sit well with me. A character can level up an arctic wilderness with not a single soul for thousands of miles around, but suddenly they learn the basics of another class *poof*.

Right now, a character can level up in an arctic wilderness with not a single soul for thousands of miles around, but suddenly they learn a brand new ability for their current class *poof*. Plenty of multiclassing can be an expansion on the existing character concept. Gaining most archetypes seems harder to learn to me than first level in most classes.


I don't understand the idea that adventurers can't figure things out from, y'know, Experience. I've done that, and I don't have a game mechanic outright labeled "experience" tied to leveling up.
Who trains all of these trainers, anyway, if it's impossible to learn anything except by being trained by more powerful trainers? That also requires the campaign world to have a lot of high-level trainers that apparently don't actually use their powerful abilities--just teach them.
That's something that doesn't really sit right to me.

 

[Greg K]

First, DMs have no choice in accepting new options for Adventurers League. A PC is either AL legal, or it is not. And then there are groups that are private but do round-table DMing (not that uncommon) such that one DM might be fine with an option but a later DM might not be fine with it and they can't really tell a player that the PC they've been playing in that same game can no longer be that PC.

AL DMs get no sympathy from me on this issue. They chose to both participate in AL and DM for it knowing it is organized play. Organized play tries to provide as uniform an experience as possible so that people know what to expect going from on table to another. It is why Gygax switched tune back with AD&D and began telling people that, if they changed certain things about AD&D, then they were not playing AD&D- he was laying the ground work for organized play/RPGA and knew it needed conformity.

As for sharing DMing for the same campaign, again no sympathy to DMs that choose to do it. If a DM and the co-DMs cannot agree, they are better off not doing it. I agreed to try it once back in AD&D. I will never do it again. After one adventure, I told the co-DM to create his own setting and the players to ignore the adventure. SInce then every D&D/rpg group with whom I have played/GM'd has had multiple DMs each switching off to run their own campaign when I need a break. The individual campaigns allow people to play different characters and experience different campaign settings.

Second, you never know how a new option will turn out in the long run. DMs are not game design experts. A new option might look fine for their campaign to begin with, but turn out to be terrible in practice after a while. It might interact fine with how things are at the beginning of a campaign, and then interact very poorly with future things that are published or developments in the campaign. And it's a lot harder to take an option back once someone's been using it. The more options there are, the greater the risk of this happening over time.

This one I have more sympathy toward. However, the designers are not design experts for individual groups. DMs need to make consider if something will fit in their campaign. If not, don't allow it. If so, the DM needs to be willing to make alterations if something does not work- there are also places on the internet (e.g., ENWorld and RPG.net) to get help.

Third, some of the best arguments against a new option have repeatedly been made by Paizo for their new options. That being, when they release a new option, they feel compelled as game designers to support that new option in further material they are publishing. So even if it is optional, that means it because almost not-optional over time because it gets brought up in future publish materials such as adventures and splat books. The initial optional mechanic gets expanded in a future splat book, the optional ability gets put on a challenge to the party in an adventure, etc.. And the argument Paizo makes for doing this is pretty simple - they want to support what they've previously published and feel fans of those things deserve that support. Which means DMs who don't like that option either don't use that published material (which is decrease options for the DM) or has to remove that material from the new published material (which means a lot more work, and more unintended and unforeseen consequences from removing it).

Meh. The designers don't know individual groups. I believe 3e had it right in the DMG when it told DMs they may need to make adjustments to published adventures to account for the people and party make up at their table.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

I like it. I guess I would rather see it as a full blown optional new class, but that is my preference with all these type character options over both feats and subclasses. I don't see anything game breaking about this though.

 

[Galendril]

I don't understand the idea that adventurers can't figure things out from, y'know, Experience. I've done that, and I don't have a game mechanic outright labeled "experience" tied to leveling up.
Who trains all of these trainers, anyway, if it's impossible to learn anything except by being trained by more powerful trainers? That also requires the campaign world to have a lot of high-level trainers that apparently don't actually use their powerful abilities--just teach them.
That's something that doesn't really sit right to me.

Hey SuperZero! Welcome to the board!

Please don't take a mocking tone with the members here. It will allow your points to be better received

As for figuring out things on your own, there's definitely a lot of RL examples to draw from (as you've already pointed out). As an electrical engineer, I'm sure I could have figured out everything I learned in college given enough time. But, that's the point of having a trainer, to save time.

A trainer can point out the 'tricks of the trade' and pitfalls without you having to learn them via trial and error.

So, sure, if a character says, "I want to be a wizard, but I don't want to use a trainer." I'd say sure, but it's going to take you a couple dozen months to master all of the abilities a wizard knows through trial and error. But, I certainly can't see someone just waking up some morning with all the knowledge of the wizard class.

Additionally, if players in my game have a concept which involves multi-classing, they can select an appropriate background to support the new class when they do make the switch. This represents the time they spent prior to becoming an adventurer training in the skills necessary for their new class.

Hopefully, this clarifies up my position.

Have a great day!

 

[Plageman]

The main risks with multi-classing is core class "efficiency" dilution and making a "dip" too interesting. They tried to address the latter by spreading the core abilities between the early levels and tying ability score increase to class progression rather than character progression.

But the way the PrC are presented in the UA (5 levels, forced Ability score with Living Rune,treated as a normal class for multi-classing) makes them breaking the mold may end up in creating a subpar character.

 

[gyor]

Its not mandatory, that's to the class features they can learn to use a limited amount of rune stones without having the master rune stone (the actual item). It does make the first level weaker without it. Still its not needed.

 

[Barachiel]

I enjoyed prestige classes. Everyone who complained about them because of bloat or abuse are simply DMs that had no control over their own games.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I would really like to see UA present some actual optional rules (crit tables, expanded weapon adn armour rules, whatever!) other than new classes/subclasses/prestige classes.

I am increasingly disintereste3d in new largely unplaytested classes etc.