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.

 

[Cristian Andreu]

I like having Prestige Classes back. I agree they went overboard with them in 3e, but I still like the concept, and considering 5e's design philosophy so far, I'm confident they'll do a good job with them.

 

[Istbor]

I am mostly wondering, what other concepts WoTC would actually present in this format. A lot of older concepts can at least be partially recreated though subclasses and multi-classing, if not completed recreated.

Are we going to see some redundancies or some fresh-faced ideas? My money would be on a mixture of both. If there were to be a flood of third party PrCs then maybe a bit more of the redundancies and likely poor quality execution.

I don't want to think that pessimistically just yet. This is an UA. An idea in practically alpha stage. Properly gated, I think these could add some delicious flavor to campaigns that are on board for using PrCs.

Right now, my players have enough options to keep them happy, so I will take a wait and see approach.

I do somewhat hope in my heart of hearts for a Dervish PrC.

 

[DEFCON 1]

These all reflect different design choices. I understand that they're just spitballing ideas in the on-line UA. So far, I haven't been very impressed with the (lack of) focus in their ideas.* And I have no idea what they intend to do with the feedback, and what choices these articles reflect. Do you?

My own personal guess is that it's the same thing as what they gave us during the playtest-- finding out how we "feel" about design ideas and their place within the D&D game. Almost everything in the Open Playtest was asking us about feel, and they didn't care one lick about our opinions on the numbers, math, or balance.

So for instance, they gave us a packet with alignment restrictions back on the paladin and monk so that we'd comment on how we felt about them. Presumably based on our responses... they chose not to hardwire any alignment restrictions in the final game because enough people said the restrictions didn't feel right.

Now in all these UA articles... they gave us an artificer that was a wizard sub-class to see how that felt to us. It seems like most people here on the boards responded that it didn't feel right (and I presuppose the responses in the surveys also reflected that.) As a result, I would expect that when an artificer finally gets released, it won't be a wizard sub-class.

They gave us psionics rules with all the pseudo-scientific terminology stripped out it. I would imagine specifically *because* it was a change from the standard way psionics had been presented recently, and they wanted to see how we felt about that change-- whether we thought it felt right for the game or not. And I suspect most of our feelings on the matter will end up being reflected in the final presentation of the Mystic/Psion/Psionicist (or whatever they end up calling it based upon the responses they got.)

And now... they are giving us the idea of the prestige class for 5E. And I would suspect that what they're looking to find out is not whether specifically the "Rune Mage" should be a prestige class (or a feat, or a feat string, or a sub-class or whatever), but how we feel about the prestige class concept in of itself. For fluff concepts that really don't fit within a particular class to be a sub-class, but also don't have the heft to be a full 20 level class... how do we feel about five levels you can multiclass into? And I would suspect that our feelings on whether we do or do not like the concept of a 5 level "mini-class" will impact how things like the Rune Mage and the Artificer and the Warlord and the Shaman and the Rage Mage and the Defiler et. al. could all possibly be presented into the game eventually (if at all.)

And I think this is why we haven't seen any real "updates" to these articles. Because they don't need our opinions on the math or the fluff they've given us-- all that stuff will get honed in by their Alpha testers. What we're doing is being the ones to help them find the direction they want to go first, and then they and their Alphas will test the actually nitty-gritty crunch.

 

[Bluenose]

That bears no resemblance to anything I said.
Multiclass characters don't "instantly know something" any more than single-class characters who gain a new ability or characters who take a Feat. Don't treat leveling up as magic instant knowledge, but the moment at which your practice starts making a practical difference (quantified as a single moment for ease of use by us players).

Besides which, Fighter, Ranger, and Rogue are all skills any adventurer could develop; they are all practicing their skills and fighting. Sorcerer is natural ability awakening. Cleric, Druid, and Paladin can all represent a growing connection with nature or a higher force. The default flavor for Warlock seems to suggest that gaining the initial abilities is rather sudden.
About the only one that seems like it might require special training (or practice on one's own, even) is Wizard, and Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters already kind of do that.

Seriously? You seriously believe that 'practicing your skills and fighting' means anyone can develop skill at combat and learn new combat techniques. Well, there goes a millennium of people faking that there's a need for schools and trainers to practice in. Forget about months or years of training, just pick up your weapons and go. I'm sure there's loads of example sof how that worked out well for everyone involved.

I think I'd argue that the only class that it's plausible with that they don't need training is the Sorceror, and I could see plenty of arguments for it being a requirement there.

 

[Istbor]

My own personal guess is that it's the same thing as what they gave us during the playtest-- finding out how we "feel" about design ideas and their place within the D&D game. Almost everything in the Open Playtest was asking us about feel, and they didn't care one lick about our opinions on the numbers, math, or balance.

So for instance, they gave us a packet with alignment restrictions back on the paladin and monk so that we'd comment on how we felt about them. Presumably based on our responses... they chose not to hardwire any alignment restrictions in the final game because enough people said the restrictions didn't feel right.

Now in all these UA articles... they gave us an artificer that was a wizard sub-class to see how that felt to us. It seems like most people here on the boards responded that it didn't feel right (and I presuppose the responses in the surveys also reflected that.) As a result, I would expect that when an artificer finally gets released, it won't be a wizard sub-class.

They gave us psionics rules with all the pseudo-scientific terminology stripped out it. I would imagine specifically *because* it was a change from the standard way psionics had been presented recently, and they wanted to see how we felt about that change-- whether we thought it felt right for the game or not. And I suspect most of our feelings on the matter will end up being reflected in the final presentation of the Mystic/Psion/Psionicist (or whatever they end up calling it based upon the responses they got.)

And now... they are giving us the idea of the prestige class for 5E. And I would suspect that what they're looking to find out is not whether specifically the "Rune Mage" should be a prestige class (or a feat, or a feat string, or a sub-class or whatever), but how we feel about the prestige class concept in of itself. For fluff concepts that really don't fit within a particular class to be a sub-class, but also don't have the heft to be a full 20 level class... how do we feel about five levels you can multiclass into? And I would suspect that our feelings on whether we do or do not like the concept of a 5 level "mini-class" will impact how things like the Rune Mage and the Artificer and the Warlord and the Shaman and the Rage Mage and the Defiler et. al. could all possibly be presented into the game eventually (if at all.)

And I think this is why we haven't seen any real "updates" to these articles. Because they don't need our opinions on the math or the fluff they've given us-- all that stuff will get honed in by their Alpha testers. What we're doing is being the ones to help them find the direction they want to go first, and then they and their Alphas will test the actually nitty-gritty crunch.

Yep I agree. This example PrC is not meant to be overly scrutinized by us. More of the concept behind it and the prestige classes as a whole, in regards to if there is a place for it at the 5e table. That is what this was all about. I think a fair enough amount of people get that as you do Defcon.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[pming]

Hiya!

*shrug* I wasn't going to comment, but seeing as this thread is getting a lot of back and fourth between opposing views, I'll toss in my 2¢.

I like the idea of PrC's. I liked the idea behind them even back in 3e. Back in 3e, they were specifically optional to the point of not even being included in the PHB. They were purely a DM-creation thing. They had, what three example PrC's? Two maybe? Anyway, if you read the description of just what a PrC was supposed to be... and then look at what they actually became. It's like night and day! It went from "A DM's personally created extra stuff for players, created specifically for the DM's personal campaign", to "Wowzers! Give us money! Look at all the kewl powerz you can get with these 27 new PrC's! And there's more where that came from! Just wait two weeks and we'll have another 20+ PrC's...and those ones will be even moar kewl!!11Q1k23221`11!!!"

I think that's what annoys me most about them. They had such great potential to enhance a DM's campaign and really make it unique. But instead of providing the tools for a DM to create his own, they instead opted for the 3e party line of "Why teach them, when we can just sell to them every day?". For business...good...for RPG community...BAD. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING gave me more head aches, more negative feelings, more "why am I doing this again...it's not even fun anymore!" thoughts than the endless arguing with new try-out players (or folks I met in my FLGS and just started talking RPGs). I'm sure I got called (sometimes to my face) everything under the book with regards to being a "bad DM". The "You just don't want us to have fun", to "You're an idiot if you can't handle one little PrC!", to the ever-popular "Oh, you must be one of those old school killer-DM's who can't handle when PC's can actually mess up your plans to kill them". The attitude fostered by the "We're players. There's more of us than you. YOU have an OBLIGATION to make the game fun for US! And you have to do it NOW!" crowed that developed, IMHO, because of all the splat-books and one-upmanship.

Looking at this first Prestige Class installment... I'm a bit worried. They seem to be basically just taking a 3.x/PF PrC and "converting" it to 5e rules. The only thing that gives me hope is that it at least mentions the DM's involvement in that the DM decides and the DM chooses if and how a PC can gain a PrC. It's not just a matter of "Bing! I gained a level! I'll take this Feat, and now have the prerequisites for taking the Mystic-Shadow-Ninja-Death-Monk PrC!"... now the PC has to actually find an NPC to 'teach him' the ropes (or whatever the DM sets up as appropriate for his campaign). Its completely in the hands of the DM how easy or hard this will be.

That said, I'm sure the complains about "sucky DM's" will just morph into "Don't bother...he never lets us take PrC's! Not without first having to stop what we're doing, travel to some far off land, climb a mountain inhabited by savage humanoids, reach the summit, enter the Cave of Trials, and defeat the Shinning Serpent of the Clouds! Man... I just want to take this PrC and get this special kewl new ability that nobody else has and that no bad guy can oppose! ...*grumble grumble*... ".

Lastly, why? Seriously. Why introduce PrC's anyway? They are completely unneeded in 5e. Do it with backgrounds and Archtypes. There's no need to "compartmentalize" new campaign stuff (rules, weapons, spells, etc) into something that is only available to a single "Prestige Class". The Rune stuff would have been MUCH better served as an optional spellcasting 'style'. Then create a trio (just random thoughts here) of classes...say, Warlock, Ranger and Cleric... and give them each an Archtype that uses the new "Rune Magic" stuff. No new "class" needed. By having Rune Magic as a new optional addition to the game, it keeps it FIRMLY based in the "as campaign needs" barrel and not the "as player wants" barrel. IME, this sort of approach is significantly better for campaign continuity and creativity. One DM may have a unique theives guild of dwarves that use secret Rune Magic to infiltrate and spy on their enemies. Another DM may have Rune magic as the ONLY type of arcane magic available. A third DM could have minor Rune Magic being something that anyone can learn, and many common folk use simple runes to enhance their day to day lives (ala the earlier Runequest RPG). But making a whole new form of magic, and then putting it into a PrC just makes more work for DM's who now have to strip out things they don't want, as opposed to simply adding in things they do want.

As I've always said...it's easier to give players stuff than to try and take it away from them. "Here, the northers tribes use Rune Magic. Here are some archtypes you can choose if you are a Northman/woman" is a lot easier than "Here is a list of PrC's that are banned". See which approach makes your players more excited to play.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[DEFCON 1]

That's kind of orthogonal to the question I was asking. These ideas could all be valid, and playable, and could be fine-tuned through playtesting. But, assuming WoTC wants to make money by making more books at some point (a valid assumption, I would think), how would the ideas be rolled out.

Oh... well, in that regard my answer is "Beats the hell out of me!" But then again, I also don't give a rat's ass about it personally. I don't care why they're doing what they're doing... all that matters to me is whether I choose to buy the product that gets released when it is. I have enough things in my own campaign to worry about than wondering why their UA articles seem all over the map and how will the info eventually be released. LOL!

 

[Bluenose]

Yep I agree. This example PrC is not meant to be overly scrutinized by us. More of the concept behind it and the prestige classes as a whole, in regards to if there is a place for it at the 5e table. That is what this was all about. I think a fair enough amount of people get that as you do Defcon.

The same thing they did with the 'playtest', effectively. The problem being that it's very hard to tell whether something is going to have the right 'feel' until you've actually got a working version to play with.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The Rune stuff would have been MUCH better served as an optional spellcasting 'style'. Then create a trio (just random thoughts here) of classes...say, Warlock, Ranger and Cleric... and give them each an Archtype that uses the new "Rune Magic" stuff. No new "class" needed.

I think this right here illustrates why WotC decided to offer up the idea of the PrC in the first place. Because your suggestion is to create three different sub-classes for three different classes that... while all based around the similar theme of "runes"... have to be balanced each individually plus fit in within the class from which they come from. So we're talking four to five abilities for three different classes (upwards of 12 to 15 different abilities.)

Now sure... some of those abilities might be the same across your Warlock, Cleric, and Ranger example. But some probably won't be. Which means more work for the design, more features to have to come up with and balance, more fluff that has to be written to explain the difference between a warlock rune mage and a ranger rune mage, and a cleric rune mage.

Whereas in the PrC format... it's just 5 abilities to parcel out. Abilities which any class can use. And the fluff of the mini-class is only written once.

I think this is precisely why they went in this direction (rather than a direction like the one you presented.) But in the end... there's a good chance that if enough people say they don't like the PrC format, then they might not go in that direction after all?