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]

I did already say that the thing I find implausible is the training requirement. And explained why I don't share your concern; it didn't have anything to do with any computer games.

Actually, you didn't explain why characters can instantly know something they never knew before. You basically said, you don't care if they instantly learn an entire skillset which would take someone under normal circumstances months to learn on their own. To that, I said, I prefer a bit more realism as opposed to computer games which tend not to go to that level of realism. I think that's fairly accurate.

 

[gyor]

I'm with Merric on this, feats would not be an acceptable substitution for this prestiage class. I really like this prestiage class and the prestiage class mechanic in general, basically uses a preexisting mechanic, easy to use, can be useful for stuff that is too complex for feats, backgrounds, ect..., but not tied enough to a particular class to make into a subclass.

Prestiage classes look way more usable then 3.5e

One cool thing I realized that if the rp elements don't fit into the game play, but do fit into the world at large, then you can use the down time machanics to fill the rp compenent, so on your down time maybe you first learn the Arcana skill, then later you use your downtime to find a teacher in order to become a Rune Scribe (ps Runecaster is a cooler name then Rune Scribe).

I just hope that the bloat whiners don't ruin this really cool mechanic.

 

[gyor]

Chameleon, the Changeling/Doppelganger prestiage class/paragon path from previous editions for example makes more sense as a Prestiage Class in 5e. Binder as well.

 

[mellored]

Note that this implementation of the Rune Scribe uses spell slots to power its rune magic. How do you design a fighter/rune scribe using feats? It may not be so easy."

I do agree other prestige classes might be too complex for a feat chain, but rune scribe is easy as a feat. Each rune is basically a feat + magic item by itself.



Rune Scribe:
Prerequisite: You must fine a rune, or a rune scribe to teach you.
*During a short rest, you can attune to a rune as if it was a magic item. If you lose the rune, you still benefit from the simple properties as long as you remain attuned, but you do not have access to the complex ones.
*You can take this feat more then once. You cannot attune to the same rune more then once.



That said, i feel eberon houses / dragonmarks would be ideal as a prestige classes. Do deeds for the house and you get a level in it.

Lyrandar

Level1 : Prerequisite: Do a small quest of house of Lyrandar. You can hitch hike on air Lyrandar ships without paying, but only to places they where going anyways. You can find employment in the shipyards.
Level2: Prerequisite: Must be Khoravar, or have been a serious help to the house. You can have air ships make detours from their usual paths, though not into dangerous area's.
...
Level 5: Prerequisite: Must be the baron of Lyrandar. You control the lyrandar armada, and can call for an air raid.

 

[Ferrous]

Don't like I am afraid. The 13 Dex requirement is a bit odd. Both Giants and Dwarves who are associated with runes are not exactly known for being dexterous!

 

[Parmandur]

I've decided I like the idea... the flavor... and the mechanics.



But ultimately I would like to see something like this as a subclass of an Artificer/Alchemist class. Although as a test run for how prestige classes might work.... it isn't bad, but this looks a better fit for where I think they may end up with their Artificer/Alchemist why not simply make it part of that?

I'll lay dollars to donuts that this is, I'm fact, already an Artificer subclass, and while playing with that they decided to use it as an early example of turning a subclass into a PrC. This way, they can release new subclasses and PrC in the same exact block.

Brilliant.

 

[Parmandur]

This.





If there's one thing 5e doesn't need from the 3e days, it's Prestige Classes. Especially if WotC are going to stick with their release-light schedule, and so don't need a handy way to fill up page count with lots of options nobody will use.

But, if all they are doing is separating out subclasses, and giving an openly unbalanced option to reach the high level abilities in 5 levels (unbalanced like multi passing openly is, that is to say), that means they can publish PrC left and right as fully balanced subclasses for those of us who won't allow PrCs or multi passing, everyone wins.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Li Shenron]

"Note that this implementation of the Rune Scribe uses spell slots to power its rune magic. How do you design a fighter/rune scribe using feats? It may not be so easy."

Probably by not using spell slots

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

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.