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.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I just don't like the claim that new options don't harm those who don't like them because they can just choose to not use them. It's not a good argument - new options have negative consequences for those who don't like them in a variety of ways.

Assuming this was referencing my original post (since your first take on these points quoted my post about it)... I would just like to point out that I was not saying new options didn't harm the DMs who didn't want to use them... but rather that WotC shouldn't make their design decisions *because* some DMs will be harmed by them. Yes, some DMs might be "harmed" because they now have to "say no" to their players, or use those options when DMing Adventurer's League. But too bad. I want WotC to come up with as many cool ideas as they possibly can to make the game fun, and never worry about whether that idea will "harm" a potential DM out there. Because that leads to watered-down, boring design, and quiet frankly will end up not working *anyway* because even that watered-down, boring design will *still* "harm" somebody. Because every rule in the game has punched some DM in the face somewhere.

But every DM has to accept this fact, and get over it if they wish to DM. That's part of the job of doing it.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

Yes but they do have to keep in mind that AL needs DMs. Alienate too many DMs and there is no AL anymore.

I'll never have the time myself to be involved in AL, but if I had, I certainly wouldn't do it anymore once the system was bloated.

By the way, what is AL policy regarding optional rules? Do they have a default list of what is in and what is out, and are DMs allowed to deviate from such list?

 

[jimmifett]

Lovely, now comes the 3rd party flood of substandard prcs for every damned thing. I was much happier with archetypes. I feel they filled that niche much nicer than prcs.

 

[SkidAce]

I don't necessarily agree with this. I think a mage rune priest and a cleric rune priest would make for very different mechanical options and so would be worthwhile having. I could also see an argument for bards getting their own subclass as well. So long as there was enough mechanical variety there'd be a good thing.

I'd like to see retraining rules introduced (although I understand a lot of people aren't fans of those sorts of rules).

For me this is a major reason to not like this implementation of PrCs. I've struggled with PrCs. I personally think legendary boons (magic item equivalent benefits without the physical item), in story benefits, feats and subclasses are preferable to anything I would want to model with a PrC which really leaves me scratching my head as to what they're good for.

I built an archetype that replaces the level up choices for those who want to be a dedicated runecaster, and a feat for "dabblers" that gives the low level abilities (like martial adept).

Will probably keep that idea for my campaigns, its working for so many concepts, feat to learn a little, dedicate to class to learn a lot. Players choice.

So far I have martial arts, blood magic, elementalism, elven sword mastery, and runcecasters. (Nothin in a publishable format, draft documents we use on a daily basis only).

Just to foot stomp. I really like the way this idea works in 5e, so see no need for PrCs. A character could take a feat at first level (human variant, or DM approval) or a dedicated class. Or could choose to do so at a later level, after encountering the "style" during campaign play and RP. So it flows naturally.

YMMV.

 

[Gnashtooth]

These, just like multi-classing, are not allowed at any games I run. Why? Because that's where the brokenness combos live, and character concepts get thrown out the window.

I don't look forward to playing at tables that use these rules.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[DEFCON 1]

Just a cautionary note- what you state as "watered-down, boring design" is what other view as good design.

That's not to say that you're wrong in your preferences, but complexity and good design are often the antithesis of one another.

I agree with what you state here... but would note that usually you reach the point of "good design" because you have actually done due dilligence and looked at and tried a whole bunch of stuff and then thrown out all the bad design ideas that came up. THAT'S what I would prefer WotC to do. To brainstorm their ideas without concern and then whittle everything away that doesn't work. As opposed to going into the process already having shut off particular avenues because they don't want to upset DMs who can't "say no".

THAT'S a surefire way of stiffling creativity and producing unpurposeful watered-down and boring design.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[SuperZero]

Actually, you didn't explain why characters can instantly know something they never knew before.

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.
Regarding this Prestige Class specifically, focusing on and studying the rune you found, realizing you haven't fully unlocked its power and trying to do so... it makes a lot more sense to me as a natural progression than somebody teaching it. How did those people figure it out, after all? Somebody had to--why can't the heroes of the story?
I mean, maybe the ability to use new runes without possessing other master runes... ? But even that could just be coming across the rune itself carved into something or printed in a book or such.

I did also say that suddenly picking up a multiclass out of the blue wasn't likely to be a problem because it wasn't likely to happen anyway. You cut that part out of your response, for some reason.

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.

You did say that. I'm still not sure why, since what I said really had nothing to do with that. Which is what I pointed out in the post you quoted here. Seems more like an attempt to insult me.
(Also, the mechanics for learning rune magic are not ever going to be realistic.)

 

[Nifft]

These, just like multi-classing, are not allowed at any games I run. Why? Because that's where the brokenness combos live, and character concepts get thrown out the window.

I don't look forward to playing at tables that use these rules.

In previous editions, the most broken stuff lived right in the Core rulebook.

Back in 3.x, sufficiently well-played Clerics, Wizards, and Druids could break any game without PrCs or multi-classing.

5e seems to have addressed that imbalance.

Hopefully, they'll continue to keep game balance working even as they add new stuff.