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.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

Speaking about system bloat, creating multiple subclasses is worse than creating a single prestige class. Someone decides that the old Shadowdancer is good as a Monk subclass, then someone else also wants it as a Rogue subclass, but then why not Ranger, Fighter, Wizard... if this is what happens then really it means we better need something outside the classes to represent that, feats chain or prestige class.

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.

It's certainly possible that a later version of the Runecaster will be a 10-levels prestige class, if they decide to continue developing the PrCls idea at all.

Functionally speaking, the key point is that all that matters is how much material you decide to implement. If it's worth only 1 level of features, it makes no sense to make it a prestige class or subclass, so make it a feat. If it's worth more, make it a feat chain or subclass or prestige class, but subclasses are functionally more limited because they have to fit in the base class' subclass levels pattern (unless you start considering variants where a subclass also replaces some base class features). So if you really want more Runecaster abilities, you actually have more room with a prestige class (which is not necessarily limited to 5 levels) than with a subclass. A base class on the other hand requires that you find enough stuff to fit 20 levels, and possibly also have a broad enough concept to have its own subclasses.

Narratively speaking, it depends on how much you want the concept to be important in the setting. If you want runes and Runecasters to be a major feature of the fantasy world, you probably start looking into making it a full class. But how important they should be is a matter of personal choice. Tavern Brawlers could have been a major feature of a fantasy setting and therefore a base class, but D&D choice was to make it just as marginal as a single feat.

In addition to that, you need to always consider whether the character concept is someone else's specialization or everybody's option, and this involves both the functionality (e.g. should it build on existing abilities?) and the narrative.

 

[Bluenose]

I honestly thought you were being sarcastic there at first. Of... course practicing skills can lead to improving those skills? That's actually modeled in the game: Experience points.

How do you think all of those trainers and teachers learned their abilities?
Sure things can be taught. You do probably want to be taught a thing or two about fighting before the first time you face off with giant monsters. Y'know, ideally. That things can be taught doesn't imply they can't also be developed. If it were only possible to learn things by being taught them, it wouldn't be possible to learn things because nobody would know them to teach them. Somebody had to use this technique without being taught, or it wouldn't exist; why can't the protagonists of the story pull that off?

I think anyone who goes into a battle believing that they'll improve their technique in the course of it is going to come out dead or maimed or beaten if they try. Hour after hour after hour of practice in a nice safe controlled environment - you learn how to perform techniques, how to move, how not to perform techniques. Practice a technique till it's natural and you can probably perform it in a battle, but that's not somewhere you can learn it. If you suddenly decide that a sword coming towards you is a great time to practice that stop-thrust you've never been able to get right consistently in training, the chance that you'll get it right is low. Not to say that there's nothing to learn on a battlefield, but it's nothing to do with combat technique and everything to do with paying attention.

As for inventing new things, where do you think people try them out? On a battlefield under stress where you won't have any opportunity to keep trying them again and again until all the movement is right and the kinks ironed out, or in practice sessions under nice calm conditions where you can repeat it with a cooperative opponent who isn't trying to actually kill you and is willing to repeat the manoeuvre you're trying to counter until you can get your new trick to work. I'm pretty certain it's the latter place which is best suited to learning.

 

[JohnLynch]

I think I can articulate why I don't like this idea. 1) There is virtuallyno flavour attached with it (no more so than finding a magic item). 2) These runes are semi-magical items and allegedly balance according to those guidelines. Except I know the value of a 5th level spell slot. There is no value in an attunement slot because magic items are not balanced. All I know is that items which require attunement are more powerful (or problematic) than other magic items. That's not really a specific value I can attach to it. I might not dislike the idea completely, but I really dislike this implementation.

 

[Mercule]

I'm very wary of the return of Prestige Classes. IMO, they were one of the worst aspects of 3E. The concept doesn't suck, but it's open to too much abuse.

Still, I kind of like the way it was presented -- it's just another multi-class option, but with entry requirements. The standardized spell progression table should mitigate some of the issues, but may exacerbate others. For example, a Wizard who takes a 3rd level PrC can never gain 9th level spells. That's a trade-off I'm fine with and support, but I could see others disagreeing.

The presentation made me think back to the way Paladin and Druid (and, probably, others) were handled in BECMI. They were just PrCs by another name. An interesting "module" would be to pare down the base classes to some arbitrary, atomic list with the other classes being PrCs. Paladin and Barbarian, for sure, seem like great choices for a Fighter to grow into. Ditto for Druid as a Cleric progression. It wouldn't work in all cases; I just don't see Sorcerers growing out of Wizards, or vice versa. But, it definitely gives room for subclasses that are richer than just an "archetype".

As far as rune magic, I like the presentation. Runes are interesting enough to have some options around, but (IMO) not interesting enough to devote a ton of space. So, that write-up seemed just about right. A few more runes would be nice, but not critical and easy enough to augment, later. The runes make nice magic items that could be included in published (or home brew) adventures without requiring the use of PrCs or the Rune Caster, specifically.

Short form: They took a concept that I've been opposed to bringing into 5E and made it work, at least at first glance. They even managed to sneak in a second rules module in a very, very flexible way. Good job.

 

[SkidAce]

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.

This says it very well. Thank you.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

Why were you bothering to quote my original post then? Because this point you're making here had nothing to do with mine. You could have just made this statement on its own if you had no intention of it being a reference back to me.

Next time, if you're going to attempt to make a claim that has nothing to do with someone else's post, don't pull their quote. Because when they respond back with "What the heck are you talking about, you have no idea what I'm saying"... that's the reason.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You think that Common is English? And that the gods spoke in Proto-Germanic which evolved into Common? OK. I didn't think that. I figured that D&D language has remained generally static over the centuries (just like many fantasy worlds have static technologies and don't evolve much in technology over the centuries). And I presume that D&D players in Germany imagine that Common is Germanic, and that D&D Players in France imagine that Common is French, and so forth.

For your Information: I am German. D&D is written in English. So I just assume, English is the common tongue. And Old German is an ancient variant of that common tongue. Nothing political about that, just practical sense. If Runes are an ancient form of magic, it makes sense that ancient words are used. (For me as a German, it does not make sense at all... as we use exactly those words still today...)

 

[TwoSix]

One thing I find interesting is that for the first 5e Prestige Class, they explored a concept that existed in 3e, but didn't get a whole lot of traction: Legendary Weapons from Unearthed Arcana. Basically, prestige classes revolving around magic items and spending class levels on mastering the item. It's an interesting tack, since it wraps Prestige Classes, a notorious balance concern in 3e, around a system (magic items) that are well-known for eschewing balance concerns almost completely. After all, if you're concerned about the balance of a Wizard 6/Rune Scribe 5 against a Wizard 11, the simplest fix is to have them find a stronger rune than the 4 rare ones included in the article. (The article does mention that very rare and legendary runes exist.) It's a built-in scaling feature.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

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

But what's their purpose?

Their purpose is the same as all those other things you mention. To get a character where the player wants it to go via several different options available.

5E has been set up and built such that there are many ways to skin a cat. Because no one agrees on the one right way to make something. Thus, rather than shutting some people out, they instead give multiple paths to choose from.

As an example: The concept of the "paladin". All along, there are people who have said that the "paladin" concept doesn't need to be its own class. It's a holy warrior. Nothing more. Or it's a warrior cleric. Nothing more. So what did WotC do? They gave us umpteen different ways for each person to build what they think a "paladin" should be.

For one person, it's a Fighter with the Acolyte background. That's all they need and want for the concept of the "paladin".

For another person, it's a Cleric with the War domain.

For a third person, it's a Fighter/Cleric multiclass.

For another, it's a Fighter with a slight tinge of divine spellcaster in the form of the Magic Initiate feat.

For another, it's a Cleric with a slight tinge of fighting ability in the feat that gives a Battlemaster maneuver.

Or for a final person, it could be the actual Paladin class itself.

Any and all of these build concepts might be selected by a person as the best way to get at what they think a "paladin" should be. And this is only for just this one class! It can go across the board for almost anything!

For many people, they might only want to use the Four Core classes. But when you couple those Four Core with all the different backgrounds and feats available... you can reach concepts on the path to many of the other classes in the Player's Handbook.

A Rogue with the Entertainer background and Actor feat is a basic non-magical bard concept.
A Wizard with the Enchantment school sub-class and Entertainer background is a basic magical bard concept.
A Fighter with the Outlander background and Archery fighting style is a basic non-magical ranger concept.
A Cleric with the Outlander background and Nature domain sub-class is a basic druid concept.
A Fighter/Cleric with the Hermit background and Tavern Brawler feat is a basic monk concept.
A Wizard with the Enchantment school and the Hermit background is a basic witch/warlock concept.

Now, do all of these concepts fit everyone's idea of what a Bard, Ranger, Monk, or Druid should be? Absolutely not! Which is why we also have all of those classes themselves within the game. So that those who want more specificity and unique mechanics for their "druid" concept can have them.

Same thing goes with sub-classes. If someone wants to a magic-using warrior, they can go about it several ways: one the one hand, they could go Fighter/Wizard multiclass. OR they could take Fighter with the Magic Initiate feat. OR they could take the Eldritch Knight sub-class. Are any one of those better than the others? Not at all! It all depends on what the player wants.

So now... why are they introducing the concept of the prestige class? Why is this needed rather than just sub-classes or feats? To me, it's simple... it's introducing a fluff concept that doesn't really work as the interior sub-class fluff of an existing class... and it's introducing a heftier mechanical system than what you would get from a single feat.

Is "Rune Magic" divine magic? Many would say no. The fluff just seems wrong. Thus, making it a Cleric sub-class might not feel right. Would a "rune mage" write all their runes down in a spellbook? And get access to all the different types of magic open to wizards? Eh, maybe? But maybe not? Thus, making it a Wizard sub-class also might not feel right. Would "rune magic" be a single thing with several small abilities you'd get, the same way you do the Magic Initiate feat? Again, maybe. But does it feel like it gives rune magic short shrift if all you get from it is ostensibly the power equivalent of one 1st level spell and a pair of cantrips? To some, maybe yes. And thus, making "rune magic" just a feat might feel like you're short-changing the concept.

So if it doesn't really fit under the umbrella of a certain class's fluff or mechanics to be a sub-class of that class... and it warrants having more mechanical heft than what you'd get a from a single feat... BUT... the concept *might* be more limited that making a full 20-level class out of it seems potentially like overkill... what is left? To me, the answer is either being making "feat trees" (where you can take several feats in a row that gain more and more power), or you create the idea of "microclasses"... concepts whose fluff and story (and the game mechanics which reflect that fluff and story) are individual enough that they deserve their own "class", but perhaps don't have enough heft to them to make 20 levels of it. But only 10 levels? Only 5 levels? That might be an idea worth thinking about. Which is exactly why I think they broached the subject with us in this UA. To see how we feel about this middle ground between the feat, the sub-class and the full 20-level class.

Let's take another example: the Artificer. Most people I read seemed to agree that having it as a sub-class of the wizard did not feel like it was the best way to do it. Some folks would be okay in the long run with it should WotC have decided that was the way they were doing it... but other folks were giving all manner of reason why it shouldn't. A lot of the wizard's fluff and mechanics didn't really reflect their idea of the artificer. Thus some were making the artificer a Warlock sub-class, a Bard sub-class, or a Cleric sub-class-- but in almost all cases they were using them purely for the mechanical expression of the artificer concept, and were stripping the actual fluff off of the main class. No one really thought an artificer was actually a Warlock-- making a pact with a greater crafting entity. LOL. Some other folks felt it deserved to be a full 20-level class itself, because that way they fluff of the class and the mechanics of the class could be created out of whole cloth so that it would all work together seamlessly. And granted, there's some truth to be gleaned by that.

But is an artificer-- a magic user that puts spells into objects for people to use-- closer to a wizard than we might give it credit for? As an actual sub-class of the wizard it might not work out (because of all the baggage and features you get as a wizard that don't apply to the artificer)... but conceptually is an artificer using the same scientific concepts of magic that the wizard does-- the same method of arcane textual usage-- but is just putting that magic in a different form such that the artificer and the wizard are two sides of the same coin? To the point that you could (if you wanted) make a artificer Prestige Class-- an artificer of say only 5 or 10 levels-- that would make sense to multiclass with the wizard? You start as a standard wizard, going through your first several levels of the Apprentice tier learning the basics of magic-- and then at some point turn away from standard wizardry to begin your work as an artificer or alchemist? Where you begin inserting your magic into objects, rather than casting spells. And you follow that path for maybe 5 or 10 levels with fluff and mechanics that are running parallel to the wizard, but are not OF the wizard? Might not that be a possible middle ground?

Now let's be fair here... I'm just spitballing. Perhaps the artificer/alchemist "magical object maker" concept deserves and can support a full 20 levels. Or perhaps the "rune magic" concept can support 20 levels. Or the "tactical warrior" warlord concept can support 20 levels. And thus the idea of the middle ground "prestige class" isn't necessary.

But maybe it could be? Maybe a warlord prestige class-- 5 or 10 levels of the warlord that is build to be a possible fighter or rogue multiclass might work? Or maybe not. I dunno. But it's certainly a possible option, and a different way to build a character concept beyond what you could build using feats and sub-classes.

It's interesting to think about, no?

 

[Mistwell]

Why were you bothering to quote my original post then? Because this point you're making here had nothing to do with mine. You could have just made this statement on its own if you had no intention of it being a reference back to me.

Next time, if you're going to attempt to make a claim that has nothing to do with someone else's post, don't pull their quote. Because when they respond back with "What the heck are you talking about, you have no idea what I'm saying"... that's the reason.

Next time if you are confused about why a reply is to you, you should ask at that time rather than wait days and 20 posts later so that nobody has any clue what original post you're referring to