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.

 

[Mercule]

Actually, that sounds awesome. Not a crafting entity, but maybe a rogue element on Mechanus, who wants to bring greater order to the Material Plane? Get some crafting abilities, mending and the like as domain spells and maybe a modron familiar with Pact of the Chain.

Fantastic idea.

In all seriousness, though, I think the mechanical framework of the Warlock would be the best choice for the Artificer. But only in the same way that the Bard or Cleric use the mechanical framework for the Wizard. Do the few, but frequent spells. Replace Invocations with Infusions. Instead of Pacts and Patrons, have Focus options for Crafter (the Eberron flavored default), Automater (master of constructs), Alchemist (duh), and Runecaster (making my comment relevant to the thread).

 

[ExploderWizard]

Homebrew is of no concern to me.

It is when players come with official WotC books and point at the pretty pictures I can't say no.

Why not? Saying no is the right thing to do sometimes. Never surrender your right to do so when its appropriate.

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.

Amen! I'm glad WOTC is coming out with lots of new options. Some people are clamoring for them, and if they offer more joy to the player base at large then its a good thing.

I repeat, since you both ignored it earlier:

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.

Any DM who gets bullied into allowing something that he/she feels would be a detriment to the game as a whole because some book or league says so isn't worthy to sit behind the screen in the first place.

 

[MagicSN]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_stein

Ah. In German that's "Bierkrug" ;-)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Any DM who gets bullied into allowing something that he/she feels would be a detriment to the game as a whole because some book or league says so isn't worthy to sit behind the screen in the first place.

so if you sat down to run an AL game and someone had something you didn't like but was rules legal how would you stop them?

 

[ExploderWizard]

so if you sat down to run an AL game and someone had something you didn't like but was rules legal how would you stop them?

I wouldn't stop them. Anyone can play at an AL game.

I wouldn't run that session. The player would be free to try and inflict the broken monstrosity on another DM if they wished. It isn't my place to tell another player what they can do. It is my time however and I reserve the right to not waste it.

I would of course, announce what is and isn't allowed prior to the game. So if a player shows up with something not allowed then at least I know the player isn't literate and I can explain things slowly and simply using small words.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I wouldn't stop them. Anyone can play at an AL game.

I wouldn't run that session. The player would be free to try and inflict the broken monstrosity on another DM if they wished. It isn't my place to tell another player what they can do. It is my time however and I reserve the right to not waste it.

I would of course, announce what is and isn't allowed prior to the game. So if a player shows up with something not allowed then at least I know the player isn't literate and I can explain things slowly and simply using small words.

then you would be in the wrong...

 

[Mistwell]

Any DM who gets bullied into allowing something that he/she feels would be a detriment to the game as a whole because some book or league says so isn't worthy to sit behind the screen in the first place.

I think that's not very broad minded. You're not "bullied", it's just a league that must have a common basis of rules. One reason for that rule, and it's a good reason, is that you should be able to take your same AL character to a different AL game and still use it. Even if you used it in an entirely different campaign the week before, and even in a different State and city. AL, by it's nature, needs a consistent set of rules that cover all their games.

I do not think DMs who volunteer for the AL are not "worthy to sit behind the screen in the first place." Indeed, I find some of the best DMs are in the league, and they've earned a lot more respect that you're giving them with your off-handed insult.

Nevertheless, my point was that every new option risks creating the very dilemma you are focusing on: having DMs in the AL league choose between continuing to DM with PCs using a type of rule they really dislike, or else not DM anymore for AL. That's not a good thing for the game. So it deserves serious consideration - not the only consideration, and that choice may still be the right choice for WOTC to make for the game - but it should be part of their consideration.

 

[Mistwell]

I wouldn't stop them. Anyone can play at an AL game.

I wouldn't run that session. The player would be free to try and inflict the broken monstrosity on another DM if they wished. It isn't my place to tell another player what they can do. It is my time however and I reserve the right to not waste it.

I would of course, announce what is and isn't allowed prior to the game. So if a player shows up with something not allowed then at least I know the player isn't literate and I can explain things slowly and simply using small words.

The League announces what is and is not allowed, not you. Unlike a private home game , you don't run the League. If you agree to DM for the League, you agree to abide by their rules.

 

[Greg K]

Nevertheless, my point was that every new option risks creating the very dilemma you are focusing on: having DMs in the AL league choose between continuing to DM with PCs using a type of rule they really dislike, or else not DM anymore for AL. That's not a good thing for the game. So it deserves serious consideration - not the only consideration, and that choice may still be the right choice for WOTC to make for the game - but it should be part of their consideration.

I don't think organized play deserves any consideration when weighed against home games. Then again, I think catering design around organize play is one of the worst things for a game. Designers should not restrict themselves to decisions based on organized play. Let the people in charge of organized play determine their own rules and restrictions (as if they were any other gaming group) and then let players and DMs of organized play decide if they like organization's decisions enough to take part.

 

[Tony Vargas]

so if you sat down to run an AL game and someone had something you didn't like but was rules legal how would you stop them?

"Didn't like?" If I'm running an AL game, I know the adventure & the setting and what's legal. If it was a setting that included things I disliked /that/ much, I'd run freeplay that season, and be free to take or reject things (or provide pregens, or whatever).

If a player comes in with something broken - and there's always some that try - OTOH, I'd just balance it on the fly.



But, I'd really expect PrCs to enhance AL adventures. They could be used to provide players with options that create stronger links to the setting and the adventure, increasing player investment & interest in the story.