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.

 

[Galendril]

Or you could even narrate a training montage.

Whatever gets your rocks off dude

 

[SuperZero]

People do not, in their idle time around the campfire after an otherwise busy day of adventuring, invent for themselves Shao-Lin Kung Fu, or recreate Arcane magic, the D&D equivalent of high energy physics.

While staring at a campfire after adventuring? Perhaps not. But maybe while they're adventuring, they get better at it. I'm not sure why that's controversial--it's how experience and levels work.

These disciplines were invented by large numbers of people, across long spans on time, and their knowledge was passed down, gathered, condensed and refined until it formalized into the classes PCs are trained into.

That seems... extremely specific to me. That's the only way to learn something? Or the only way to learn first-level abilities, but they can learn higher-level ones?

 

[Jester David]

How do you think the specific requirements for Prestige Classes would work for Adventurers League? Is the DM able to add in NPCs for training purposes and or specific "missions" to qualify for Prestige Classes?

Some might be hard. I can imagine faction rep being involved (reach # rep and they arrange for a trainer) and downtime days.

 

[Andor]

That seems... extremely specific to me. That's the only way to learn something? Or the only way to learn first-level abilities, but they can learn higher-level ones?

Are you familiar with the old Guild Apprenticeship system? It's still sort of used in some trades. A master craftsmen accepts children (generally 12-14) as apprentices. They spend 7 years learning their craft (and serving as cheap labour), and then they become Journeymen, who are junior members of the guild with limited rights to ply their trade, which they do, until they hone their skills sufficiently to test for the status of Master, whereupon they create a masterpiece to be judged by the senior tradesmen, and if they judge it a worthy masterpiece he become a master with full guild privileges including the right to take apprentices.

A 1st level character is basically a newly minted journeyman. He has a solid base of skills, and is now engaged in refining them (by earning XP) until he becomes a Master. Which I would generally put around 5th level.

Historical knights used pretty mush the same system, except the apprentices were called squires, and they didn't create a masterpiece, they earned their spurs.

A 1st level wizard is not 12 yr old Harry Potter trembling on the steps of Hogwarts, he is 19 year old Harry who has been studying magic for 7 years and is ready to show up for his first day of work as an Aurour.

Or to put it in modern educational terms, once you get to University you spend 4 years getting a bachelors degree which lays the groundwork for your future work. (Getting to 1st level.) You then pursue a Masters Degree where you you have much more control of your agenda, because you are assumed to understand the basics of your field, and are instead refining your speciality. (low level adventure) At the Doctoral level you're more working with the professors as a peer than under them, you're probably teaching classes yourself. (Upper level adventurer)

In the Martial Arts you spend 3-5 years earning the right to test for a black belt, at which point you're considered to be a competent practitioner, which plenty of room to grow, but capable of teaching others while you improve your own skills. Note that the Monk class, which includes skills and magical training is much more involved and intense then mere sport martial arts training.

Do you see the theme here? Professional competence, both historically and in the modern world, is the result of years of effort spent building a base of skills. Once acquired these skills form a foundation that is built upon to achieve true expertise. True expertise btw is usually reckoned to be the product of 10 years of effort, or about 10,000 hours of training.

Someone who dabbles in a skill does not have PC class levels, they have commoner levels, if they are lucky. Your 1st level PCs have spent years learning their trade (possibly decades for elves.)

Now, PCs are assumed to be extraordinary even by the standards of their profession. If a PC want's to multiclass, and I was allowing multiclassing, I would work with them to find a trainer, or McGuffin such that they can get a training montage done in some reasonable span of time, rather than 7-12 years (Records indicate it took 12 years to become a Bard back in the day. Without being a full-caster.) But I would not normally allow someone to switch classes without some kind of in world justification. Which would be spelled out in the campaign expectations before play started, I don't surprise people with that kind of stuff, since opinions differ.

 

[77IM]

OkY, so I'm admitting up front I have only read through Page15. I'm only pisting to reinforce a couple pointd.

1) I have nothing against prestige classes. In fact, I like 'em. I don't see how my enjoying them detracts from anyone else's "fun.". With that said...

2) Offering something in one form (usually) precludes it from another. A "duelist" subclass means you're not going to see a "duelist" feat. How would people feel if "psion" was a PrC? It Wizards published it as a PrC, you would never see it as a class, or even subclass.

3) I genuinely don't understand what goes where. Nothing against PrCs, but what's the point. Right now, we have robust Feats, Magic (different methods using the same table), Classes, differentiated Subclasses, Backgrounds... What more do we need? What makes a PrC different from a Subclass or Class ir Feat? I don't know.

Mechanically, sure: a PrC has requirements that can be taken (5) levels in a row - a Subclass grants features over 20 levels. But thematically? How do we decide what's more important? You can't, because all players place a different priority on jow features and abilities *should* be advanced?

Should we have PrC version for every Subclass?

Should there be a Feat for every Magic method?

I don't know. Again, nothing against PrCs.

But what's their purpose?

I feel your pain. I have the same issue with feats, actually. I don't know why Actor is a feat and not a feature of the Assassin roguish archetype; or why Sharpshooter isn't a function of the archery fighting style; or why Athlete isn't just a thing anybody can do with Strength (Athletics).

But regarding Prestige Classes, I turn around and ask: what is the purpose of classes? Answer that question for me and I will tell you the purpose of subclasses and prestige classes.

 

[Fishing_Minigame]

A lot of Prestige Classes had to do with organization membership, right? Maybe what we need isn't prestige classes, but prestige BACKGROUNDS. Make the requirements based on the renown system from the DMG and give a skill proficiency plus a relevant ribbon ability.

Maybe something like:
HARPER SENIOR AGENT
Prerequisite: 10 points of renown with the Harpers
Skill Proficiency: History, Performance or Slight of Hand
Feature: Harper Cell
You've been granted a minor position of authority within the Harpers. You can assemble a small group of informants (no more than four) in a city or village you frequent. Once per day, your informants bring you rumors that may indicate plots against civilization and stability.

I wouldn't mind seeing paragon paths from 4e come back, either. You could pick one at level 11 and it could provide a minor mechanical benefit (slightly better than a ribbon but less than a full-blown multiclass) or a relevant magic item with DM approval?

 

[Mistwell]

Just as quicker counter to your points here...

1) If you are DMing Adventurer's League or round-table DMing, you've gone into the job accepting that the game is not your own at that point. You have agreed to follow the campaign model of AL or the campaign model of a shared universe between DMs. Thus, I do not believe WotC needs to worry about catering their design work to those DM's specific needs. If a DM wants the ability to say 'no' to options, they probably should be running their own game and not one where they aren't in full control of what is allowed at the table.

2) I do not believe WotC needs to hold back on their design ideas because of the chance DMs make mistakes in their games. It's not WotC's job or responsibility to protect DMs from themselves. Especially considering that if a DM allows an option in their game and later on finds out it's not working... as I made in my original point, it's that particular DMs job as the the DM to fix issues that come up in their own game-- not relying to WotC to "baby-proof" the game for them.

3) It's also not WotC's responsibility to make sure everything they produce is to a specific DM's liking. Because that is impossible. They've *already* failed in that regard, because there's plenty of stuff in the core game that many DMs don't like and don't use. Are we to tell them they can't design anything further because they will inevitably be referencing rules in the core game that some DMs refuse to use, and thus that product is "useless" to said DM without a major overhaul? Of course we won't. And the reason being is that sometimes DMs have to do some work themselves. That's part of the job of DMing. If a DM has a whole list of rules they have chosen to not use or have houseruled to run differently, and a future product references said rules... then the DM (if they want to use that product) has to do the work to change the product so that it fits their needs. And if a DM *doesn't* want to put in that work... then they should probably run their game as close to the default setting as possible to make sure that any future product could be run without needing to adjust anything.

You can't make changes to the game at the start of a campaign so that it runs exactly the way you want, then expect any future product to conform to that version you have put together. That's impossible. If you put in the work to make those changes at the start, that's great! Your campaign will probably run better for you that way! But you just have to accept you'll need to put in just as much time later on to adjust new things as well. It's what Dungeon Mastering is. It's work. Be prepared to do it.

Wow. Way to miss the point by a mile. Not once did I say WOTC needs to hold back, or produce anything to a specific DMs tastes. Total strawmans, and the premise of your response. All I said was that the claim, "Don't like it, then don't use it, it's no harm to you" is false. That's my premise - which you have not responded to in any meaningful way since you decided to argue against a mythical person you think is claiming WOTC needs to cater to their whims.

 

[pukunui]

[MENTION=6798329]Fishing_Minigame[/MENTION]: I like that idea. I also like how the AL factions work. Yes, most of their benefits are downtime-oriented, but still ... I like that being a member of a faction and earning renown gives you extra bennies, rather than replacement bennies.

I could see some organizations also bestowing (pre-epic) boons on characters, as well.

Basically, I think there are so many different ways of doing this sort of thing in the game already that the concept of a "prestige class" isn't necessary. It could either be a subclass, a feat (chain), a boon, or whatever.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Are you familiar with the old Guild Apprenticeship system? It's still sort of used in some trades. A master craftsmen accepts children (generally 12-14) as apprentices. They spend 7 years learning their craft (and serving as cheap labour), and then they become Journeymen, who are junior members of the guild with limited rights to ply their trade, which they do, until they hone their skills sufficiently to test for the status of Master, whereupon they create a masterpiece to be judged by the senior tradesmen, and if they judge it a worthy masterpiece he become a master with full guild privileges including the right to take apprentices.

A 1st level character is basically a newly minted journeyman. He has a solid base of skills, and is now engaged in refining them (by earning XP) until he becomes a Master. Which I would generally put around 5th level.

Historical knights used pretty mush the same system, except the apprentices were called squires, and they didn't create a masterpiece, they earned their spurs.

A 1st level wizard is not 12 yr old Harry Potter trembling on the steps of Hogwarts, he is 19 year old Harry who has been studying magic for 7 years and is ready to show up for his first day of work as an Aurour.

Or to put it in modern educational terms, once you get to University you spend 4 years getting a bachelors degree which lays the groundwork for your future work. (Getting to 1st level.) You then pursue a Masters Degree where you you have much more control of your agenda, because you are assumed to understand the basics of your field, and are instead refining your speciality. (low level adventure) At the Doctoral level you're more working with the professors as a peer than under them, you're probably teaching classes yourself. (Upper level adventurer)

In the Martial Arts you spend 3-5 years earning the right to test for a black belt, at which point you're considered to be a competent practitioner, which plenty of room to grow, but capable of teaching others while you improve your own skills. Note that the Monk class, which includes skills and magical training is much more involved and intense then mere sport martial arts training.

Do you see the theme here? Professional competence, both historically and in the modern world, is the result of years of effort spent building a base of skills. Once acquired these skills form a foundation that is built upon to achieve true expertise. True expertise btw is usually reckoned to be the product of 10 years of effort, or about 10,000 hours of training.

In every field you list, there are exceptional individuals who are self taught who have made major contributions to their field, completely disproving your entire point.

 

[JEB]

Count me down as another who isn't a fan of this.

For one, I was looking forward to a Runecaster/Runepriest class or subclass, and a five-level micro-class is far short of what I hoped for. The concept deserves a full class or subclass build, IMHO. (As someone suggested, how about making it a subclass alongside the Artificer and Alchemist?) I'd hate to see other unusual class concepts of that sort get similar treatment, rather than being available under the conventional class rules. (I'm unhappy that some 1E/2E class options and kits were only available as prestige classes in 3E; I'm not eager to see that repeated.)

For two, I just don't see why we need prestige classes when we have subclasses and feats and backgrounds, all of which provide ways to recreate the space prestige classes occupied in 3E. Heck, we already have some old prestige classes as subclasses in the core game, and more on the way in the Sword Coast book. Clearly what we have works, so what's the design need?

I hear the arguments about "universal subclasses", sure. But I'm having trouble thinking of any concepts of that sort that couldn't work just fine as subclasses, either of existing classes or new classes built as containers (like an artificer super-class). The Rune Scribe is universal now, but it seems to me you could have much the same effect by making it a subclass and multi-classing into it using the current rules. Alternatively, Runes could be represented like they did with the Dragonmarked feat from the Eberron UA, if they really want to make them universal. I'm just not convinced we need prestige classes to do this.

For three, with their resources so clearly constrained, I'd rather see any conversions of older material used to expand the character options we have now, rather than being funneled off into optional rulesets that may see limited use. Classes and subclasses and feats still have plenty of room to grow. Which doesn't mean I don't want to see new ideas added to the game - I would just prefer they actually be new standalone ideas, like the mass combat rules or the modern rules.