D&D 5E Just a thought about prestige classes.

[Evenglare]

There has been some talk, albeit very little, about prestige classes from wizards. The last thing I heard was that they weren't going to include them. That's fine but I was thinking about the Arcane Archer feat that got cut from the book. I really liked that concept alot, which brings me to my point. What do you think about replacing the Attribute score advancement(as regular feats do) with a set of feats that entail the prestige class? I know some of you are thinking" why a set of feats? Why not make them regular feats, add them to the current feats and let anyone choose from them?" It's a valid question for sure but there is a nice way around this. In all the campaigns I have run I forbid the use of prestige classes at will. Sometime in the narrative (maybe a side quest or something) after the heroes do something special I unlock that prestige class for them. This would be a fantastic way of incorporating with 5e's rules I think. Each feat would have a prerequisite of the last feat you took so it would function somewhat like a talent tree. I hate to use that word because this wouldn't be a tree, the path to prestige feats would simply look like a line as to ensure the players follow the feat path if they so choose.

Sorry for the awful articulation, it's quite hard to describe in words, yet so easily shown.

 

[Li Shenron]

What do you think about replacing the Attribute score advancement(as regular feats do) with a set of feats that entail the prestige class? I know some of you are thinking" why a set of feats? Why not make them regular feats, add them to the current feats and let anyone choose from them?" It's a valid question for sure but there is a nice way around this.

This has been WotC's intention at least since the time during playtest when they revised feats to be larger than in previous editions. Perhaps they were targetting more at single feats to represent the concept of a single prestige class, but clearly if the concept implies a lot of features/abilities, then using a chain (or a non-sequential set) of 2-3 feats is appropriate.

In all the campaigns I have run I forbid the use of prestige classes at will. Sometime in the narrative (maybe a side quest or something) after the heroes do something special I unlock that prestige class for them. This would be a fantastic way of incorporating with 5e's rules I think. Each feat would have a prerequisite of the last feat you took so it would function somewhat like a talent tree. I hate to use that word because this wouldn't be a tree, the path to prestige feats would simply look like a line as to ensure the players follow the feat path if they so choose.

I guess there has been normally two approaches to prestige classes in the past: the most common was to just let players pick any PrCl they want and then find an in-story explanation; the other way is to have the DM control access to PrCls based on the story, which seems to be what you want to do, and it's a totally viable idea.

On more general terms, note that these two approaches connect with the two general approaches to world-building: cooperative (players' choices for their PC define or influence what exists and what not in the fantasy world) vs directed (the DM is like a movie director which decides what exists and what not in the fantasy world). I think it's useful to know, so that you can make your choice to better suit what the players - including you - expect from a game of D&D.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I want prestige classes back...

 

[fba827]

If ( well, 'when') prestige classes get a 5e equivalent.....
I like prestige classes to be more story oriented rather than game mechanics. But I understand my viewpoint is limited. That said, I think a great way to incorporate prestige classes is to make them similar to 5e backgrounds. So maybe they grant a skill or tool or language oroficiency and one story-oriented feature.
That keeps them story oriented but have some game mechanic glare and is modeled after existing mechanics so it isn't hard to grasp
Anyway that is just the off the top of my head opinion.

 

[weldon]

If ( well, 'when') prestige classes get a 5e equivalent.....
I like prestige classes to be more story oriented rather than game mechanics.

100% agreed. I like the way the fluff of prestige classes adds richness to the world a lot, and dislike the proliferation of various mechanics and min/max options even more.

 

[Joe Liker]

Prestige classes add little to the game that multiclassing can't already accomplish. They certainly aren't needed for fluff. Fluff can apply to any build.

If you like the fluff of prestige classes, well, you can ask your players to write at least as much background when they create any character concept, whether it involves multiclassing or not. Even if they borrow it from a previous edition's classes, at least it's something.

Arcane Archer = EK + wizard + fluff
Mystic Theurge = cleric + wizard + fluff
Shadowdancer = shadow monk + rogue + fluff

And so on.

Saying "when prestige classes are added" is a terribly optimistic assumption, if you're hoping for official products. They've repeatedly said they don't intend to flood us with character options, and with good reason. The options they've already given us are capable of an awful lot.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

That is probably workable, you probably could do Prestige classes something like this...

All of them 5 levels.
Each level gives +1 to an attribute and a Prestige Class benefit
You must be at least 4th level to qualify for 1st level of a prestige class (no variant humans coming in and grabbing it before hand, this also let's them bake in Prestige Class Features that might not be appropriate for a 1st level character)
Similarly, you must be at least 8th level overall to pick up 2nd Level of your PC, 12th for 3rd Level, 16th for 4th Level and 19th for 5th Level).

This would allow most characters to max out their prime attributes while gaining in the class. You could also start a feat chain later in your career, but you won't be able to max it out unless you are a rogue or a fighter. It would also interact fine with multiclassing since your level would be your overall level and not in just one class (I am not sure if that is a feature or a flaw though). Since it is a chain, you could offer some truly powerful benefits at 16th and 19th level without totally wrecking the system overall.

On the other hand....

A lot of the design space that was occupied by Prestige Classes seems to be taken up by the various subclasses/archetypes and I am sure that they will be looking at that as the primary way to deliver this kind of content if they do expand out the system in that way.

 

[Ratskinner]

Prestige classes add little to the game that multiclassing can't already accomplish. They certainly aren't needed for fluff. Fluff can apply to any build.

Generally speaking, I agree. Although the 5e rules don't seem to explicitly embrace "refluffing" as much as 4e did, its still very possible. I would add to your sentiment that 5e Feats accomplish a lot more than they used to to. I was perusing some of my 3e-era books recently and upon examination, many of the 3e prestige classes* and ability chains could be boiled down to a 5e feat (IMO, anyway.)

*at least the ones that I didn't find horribly OP originally.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

No prestige classes thank you.

 

[DMZ2112]

[MENTION=63245]Evenglare[/MENTION] --

I love prestige classes in concept but in execution they have been utter post-vindaloo toilet-clogging rules glut since the 3.5 update. That is a lot of years of broken trust to overcome.

I am not /in principle/ opposed to the idea of highly specialized classes with multiclassing requirements that include advanced level -- certainly, I would rather see these than more base classes.

But here's the big problem with increased specialization: to remain relevant, in entails greater effectiveness. The loss of peripheral abilities has to be repaid with a commensurate gain in capacity for the primary abilities. And then you're at war with bounded accuracy.

And bounded accuracy is /the most important thing/ about this edition. So if you can't have both relevant prestige classes and functional bounded accuracy, my vote is going to be for functional bounded accuracy every time.

I agree that your feat-mediated proposal is a way around this problem, but the problem I see in it is exactly the one you point out -- I do not understand the value of restricting players in this fashion. Earlier on these boards I had a discussion with some folks about the Knights of Solamnia in Dragonlance, and why I disagreed with using feats to describe that (or any) advancement track.

Feats are an important means of character customization in D&D5, and requiring every PC that wants to follow a certain course of development to use their few feat slots in a prescribed fashion is detrimental to character originality. Every member of your feat-mediated prestige classes is going to look like every other member.

I suppose this will be mitigated if you are planning to follow the original intent of prestige classes -- that they be independent of association with a base class -- but in reality this has not been the implementation of prestige classes since /before/ the 3.5 update. Prestige classes are almost uniformly specialized versions of base classes, and for good reason -- base classes are archetypal by design.

I can't get behind this strategy -- PCs should be free to select whatever feats they desire, irrespective of their faction, class, subclass, background, race, subrace, or even prestige class, should such a thing become available. Feats are too important to character ownership.