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.

 

[Sir Brennen]

I think this right here illustrates why WotC decided to offer up the idea of the PrC in the first place. Because your suggestion is to create three different sub-classes for three different classes that... while all based around the similar theme of "runes"... have to be balanced each individually plus fit in within the class from which they come from. So we're talking four to five abilities for three different classes (upwards of 12 to 15 different abilities.)

[...]

Whereas in the PrC format... it's just 5 abilities to parcel out. Abilities which any class can use. And the fluff of the mini-class is only written once.

Good summation of why "simply" creating this as a subclass is actually a much more complex - and simultaneously more limiting - scenario. I really love the fact that any class can take this. An evoker wizard obviously might like to supplement his abilities with all these elemental runes. But a rogue using the air rune abilities for second story work and escape would be awesome. A dwarven fighter laying the smackdown with his earth runes and buffed hammer is cool. And you don't have to customize the actual PrC for each of these classes. That's a good thing.

The PrCs followed the same streamlined rules as multi-classing, which is also a good thing. All the complaints about loss of upper level power are really criticisms of the multi-classing system itself, which have always been problematic in every edition, though I think 5E is better than anything that's come before.

One thing about 5E is that if a PrC seems really geared towards a specific class, then it *does* make more sense to just create a subclass/archetype (people are using those words interchangeably, no?) At least based on this one example, PrCs seem geared towards concepts/themes that could be applied to multiple classes. Feats also occupy this design space, but have their own limitations, despite being meatier in this edition.

 

[Galendril]

When I create a character it instantly learns an entire skillset which would take someone under normal circumstances months to learn on their own.

There is no difference between that and multiclassing through leveling up, except that leveling up is much harder and can take months to do on its own.

Okay...

 

[Galendril]

So... the character was exposed to something in-game or actively decided to start learning something. I mentioned those as possibilities.



No, that was me. I referred to that. What's the difference, thematically?
Those abilities were grouped together by designers. The character is still learning brand-new abilities. It's clearly possible.



Okay. I don't know why you keep bringing that up, though.

I brought it up because you did. You seemed offended so I clarified.

 

[Shasarak]

Okay...

Or you could even narrate a training montage.

 

[Jester David]

This confused me. Are you extrapolating what WotC might do regarding prestige classes based on previous evidence? If not, what did I miss from official publications?

Bit of both.
D&D organized play program, Adventurer's League, has players pick a story origin. This allows them to use alternate options, such as background bonds for Tyranny of Dragons or Rage of Demons, or the Elemental Evil Player's Companion for Elemental Evil. The Sword Coast Adventurer's Handbook will likely only be an available source for the next storyline. So you won't be able to play a genasi mastermind rogue as the two options are from different storylines.

So IF WotC releases a book that includes Prestige Classes (which is still a big if) it won't be as dramatic or game breaking as some people worry, as it won't affect every character and there will be limited overlap.

That said, it's definitely easier to both exclude and include "semi"-official material, like UA articles, or content that's tied explicitly tied to official settings. So I hope that all new options are presented in a way that makes it easy for DMs to say (for example) "We're not playing in the Eberron setting, so no those options aren't available."

I imagine the new options will be tied to the Realms. Making them easy to exclude for other settings.

But since Prestige Classes use the multiclass system, which is already optional, they're pretty easy to exclude.

 

[Jester David]

I think this right here illustrates why WotC decided to offer up the idea of the PrC in the first place. Because your suggestion is to create three different sub-classes for three different classes that... while all based around the similar theme of "runes"... have to be balanced each individually plus fit in within the class from which they come from. So we're talking four to five abilities for three different classes (upwards of 12 to 15 different abilities.)

Now sure... some of those abilities might be the same across your Warlock, Cleric, and Ranger example. But some probably won't be. Which means more work for the design, more features to have to come up with and balance, more fluff that has to be written to explain the difference between a warlock rune mage and a ranger rune mage, and a cleric rune mage.

Whereas in the PrC format... it's just 5 abilities to parcel out. Abilities which any class can use. And the fluff of the mini-class is only written once.

I think this is precisely why they went in this direction (rather than a direction like the one you presented.) But in the end... there's a good chance that if enough people say they don't like the PrC format, then they might not go in that direction after all?

^ This.
Especially since it would take up dramatically more space in addition to requiring more mechanics. Having three similar archetypes means filling pages with redundant mechanics, while having a single Prestige Class frees up space for two other very different concepts.

While I agree with [MENTION=45197]pming[/MENTION] that Prestige Classes got a little crazy in number in 3e, that's still a 3e problem that doesn't affect the actual mechanic. The same concern could be made of feats, races, classes, templates, spells, magic items, and so many other options. WotC seem dead set on not allowing 5e to become bloated, so not using Prestige Classes because they were ill served in the past feels a little like not using initiative because it didn't work right in 1st Edition.

 

[Rejuvenator]

Stein und kalt are german words still in use, which come frome the Old High German stein ‎(“something hard”) and "kalt" which themselves are derived from Proto-Germanic *stainaz and *kaldaz, ultimately from the Proto-Indo-European roots *stāi- and *gel. Vind is the swedish writing of wind, which is derived from Proto-Germanic *windaz.

So yes, the ancient gods spoke in a language that is the origin of all germanic languages which includes english. And since English is the common language in D&D, kalt, wind and Stein are appropriate.

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.

 

[Andor]

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?

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. 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. There are a few classes which do seem like they could largely be a matter of innate talent or inclination. Berserker Barbarians, and Sorcerers, say. Warlockery could be a matter of making a pact in a single night. Other than that?

Of course the nice thing about 5e is that each GM runs their own table. What suits my tastes is not your problem, unless of course, you're playing in my game.

Good summation of why "simply" creating this as a subclass is actually a much more complex - and simultaneously more limiting - scenario. I really love the fact that any class can take this. An evoker wizard obviously might like to supplement his abilities with all these elemental runes. But a rogue using the air rune abilities for second story work and escape would be awesome. A dwarven fighter laying the smackdown with his earth runes and buffed hammer is cool. And you don't have to customize the actual PrC for each of these classes. That's a good thing.

One thing about 5E is that if a PrC seems really geared towards a specific class, then it *does* make more sense to just create a subclass/archetype (people are using those words interchangeably, no?) At least based on this one example, PrCs seem geared towards concepts/themes that could be applied to multiple classes. Feats also occupy this design space, but have their own limitations, despite being meatier in this edition.

I don't see any intrinsic reason that you couldn't have "Free floating" sub-classes which can be taken by a few, many, or all classes. There are some mechanical issues, in that not all sub-classes are the same number of levels (20 for Wizards and Clerics, 17 for everybody else), likewise they do not all offer the same number of perks, or offer them at the same levels. These are surmountable problems, however IMHO. However given the problems present, and also given that we already have the tools of backgrounds and feats there are probably not many places where a flexible sub-class is the best option., or at any rate really superior to a PrC.

 

[Shasarak]

So IF WotC releases a book that includes Prestige Classes (which is still a big if) it won't be as dramatic or game breaking as some people worry, as it won't affect every character and there will be limited overlap.

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?

 

[hbarsquared]

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?