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.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I don't mind prestige classes in UA, non of my players read it and its all just non core options. I'm sure they are on there way to the core though.

 

[bogmad]

I think we found how to do warlords and artificers...

Indeed. Say what you will about Prestige Classes, the interesting thing to me is how they might fold "Rune Magic" into a full artificer class for an Eberron book, and then also have the prestige class for more traditional settings.

 

[Pauper]

I would be very hesitant to give up high-level spells known by learning this prestige class.

I'm not sure people that express this sentiment really grok the ways in which the 5E system doesn't really penalize you for choosing to cast lower-level spells with higher-level slots. Let me give you an example:

Delayed Blast Fireball is a 7th level spell that does 12d6 of base damage. If you're not going to use the 'delay the blast to power up' mechanic, you get 12d6 of fire damage, period. However, casting Fireball using a 7th level slot does 8d6 fire damage +1d6 for each level above the base 3rd level slot required by the spell -- for a total of 12d6 fire damage.

Delayed Blast Fireball is still 'better' than Fireball in the sense that a caster can do something with DBF that can't be done with Fireball -- but the benefit is situational, and so depending on your game and the circumstances of your combats, you might do just as well with Fireball than you would with DBF. It's a difference that usually won't make a difference.

There are really only a few spells that are so much better than their lower level counterparts that not having access to them is a potential issue (Heal vs Mass Heal is a good example). If those spells are important to you, then being a straight-class caster is important to you. Otherwise, not so much.

 

[Zaran]

Except it doesn't -- if you read the description of Rune Magic, you treat the PrC as a 'full caster' for purposes of determining your spell slots when multiclassing, so a Wiz5/RuneCaster5 has the same spell slots as a Wiz10. Apparently the dedicated slots for the PrC are solely in the event of a non-spellcasting class gaining proficiency with Arcana in order to enter this class.

And yeah, I can see most DMs hand-waving the 'you must encounter a Rune Mage to tutor you, and you can't rise above your tutor's level'; it's an interesting concept (with roots back to the old d20 Star Wars game's treatment of Jedi classes -- until you got to level 7, you're a padawan and need a master of that level or higher to train you in order for you to go up a level), but it's one that's not going to survive contact with most powergamers.

--
Pauper

It does. If you were a level 15 wizard and level 5 Rune Caster you lose access to the highest spell levels. You can still cast lower level spells at 9th level spell power but that's not exactly the same. A prestige class that enhances a class should replace the features of the original class but not the main ability.

 

[mellored]

Not necessarily. You might write something like "Choosing this subclass changes your character's normal subclass progression. Instead of the default advancement listed on your class table, this subclass gains new features at levels X, Y, & Z, irrespective of when your class would normally acquire subclass benefits. Accordingly, if you elect to advance in this subclass, you no longer advance in the subclass you took at 1st or 3rd level."

There's a big variance of power in sub-classes. You would need to redesign all the classes with something like this in mind.

Not that i object to the idea. But it doesn't fit as it currently is.

 

[Minigiant]

There is now a chance for the best prestige class every...

The Horizon Walker

 

[mellored]

I don't mind prestige classes in UA, non of my players read it and its all just non core options. I'm sure they are on there way to the core though.

UA is a playtest. If enough people like it, it will be core. (swashbuckler)

If people don't like it, it won't be. (artificer).

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I'm not sure people that express this sentiment really grok the ways in which the 5E system doesn't really penalize you for choosing to cast lower-level spells with higher-level slots. Let me give you an example:

Delayed Blast Fireball is a 7th level spell that does 12d6 of base damage. If you're not going to use the 'delay the blast to power up' mechanic, you get 12d6 of fire damage, period. However, casting Fireball using a 7th level slot does 8d6 fire damage +1d6 for each level above the base 3rd level slot required by the spell -- for a total of 12d6 fire damage.

Delayed Blast Fireball is still 'better' than Fireball in the sense that a caster can do something with DBF that can't be done with Fireball -- but the benefit is situational, and so depending on your game and the circumstances of your combats, you might do just as well with Fireball than you would with DBF. It's a difference that usually won't make a difference.

There are really only a few spells that are so much better than their lower level counterparts that not having access to them is a potential issue (Heal vs Mass Heal is a good example). If those spells are important to you, then being a straight-class caster is important to you. Otherwise, not so much.

I don't find comparing a damage-dealing spell that the character will likely have no matter whether they do or don't multi-class to a higher-level damage dealing spell is a fair comparison when trying to see what is lost by multi-classing, since as you demonstrate simply using a higher slot on a damage-dealing spell can make up most (not always all) of the difference.

Instead, it is more helpful to look at what can't possibly be done if you multi-class... so in this case, rather than delayed blast fireball, a fair choice to measure the loss would be more in the realm of plane shift or Mordenkainen's magnificent mansion. You can just cast something at a higher level in order to get those effects.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Rule #1 for any new design paradigm:

Requiring a DM to say 'no' to their players about using optional material is NEVER a reason not to create it.

I never want WotC to EVER be concerned with possibly making DMs have to man up and tell their players "No, you can't use this option" when deciding whether to create something new. The DM's job is to decide what will and will not be used in his or her campaign. If that means having to curtail some options that WotC has published by telling their players "No"... then that's what the DM has to do. It's not WotC's responsibility to give DMs an easy way out because they don't have the fortitude to stand up for their own beliefs.

 

[Mistwell]

Rule #1 for any new design paradigm:

Requiring a DM to say 'no' to their players about using optional material is NEVER a reason not to create it.

I never want WotC to EVER be concerned with possibly making DMs have to man up and tell their players "No, you can't use this option" when deciding whether to create something new. The DM's job is to decide what will and will not be used in his or her campaign. If that means having to curtail some options that WotC has published by telling their players "No"... then that's what the DM has to do. It's not WotC's responsibility to give DMs an easy way out because they don't have the fortitude to stand up for their own beliefs.

There are some reasonable objections to adding new types of options to the game (whatever those new options are) that I think challenge the notion of "A DM can always say no".

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.

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.

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).

In summary, any time a whole series of new types of new options are offered there are a lot of ramifications to it (sometimes unintended) that do in fact offer a significant challenge to the idea that "The DM can always say no to a new option". Sometimes they cannot (AL or round-table DM previously approved), sometimes they didn't realize they shouldn't have allowed it in (future unintended interactions), and sometimes not allowing it means eliminated future publications from their game (because those future publications expand on and use the option they denied) which reduces the choices the DM has.