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

[Eric V]

From what I remember from the 3.0 DMG prestige classes started out as more about the groups you belong to that come with mechanical benefits. I think over time they changed from story options with mechanic effects to collections of mechanics with a theme.

Original prestige classes included the assassin, the blackguard, the arcane archer, the shadowdancer, and the loremaster. They certainly seemed more like mechanical benefits with a theme to me (didn't outline different assassin's guilds, for example), but that's from where I'm sitting.

 

[Ahrimon]

No offense intended, but you have some very strange ideas about what goes on in an MMO. (I'm sure you are proud that you don't know more, and I believe you are arguably better off not being tainted by such knowledge. But I'm about to taint you anyway.)

In WoW, your faction is not so much chosen as it is assigned to you based on your character's race. Up until Pandaria (a recent expansion) came along, there was zero opportunity for roleplaying before this decision was made, and there is no in-game, RP-driven way to change your mind once your faction is assigned. (You can purchase a race/faction change outside the game for real money.)

Faction is very much just a bit in a database that tells the system which side you are on in player-vs-player situations.

It was pretty clear to me that SD was referring to the other bajillion factions that you can gain reputation with in WoW. While horde/alliance is chosen by your starting race the others are entirely up to you. Anyone can grind away to raise their reputation with the purple teacup guild and get their awesome special gear and items for example. And once they are exhaulted with the purple teacup guild they turn their attention to the order of the teapot for more cool gear and items.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Wait, did Arthur start as a Fighter and then take a level in the "King" prestige class?

depends on the telling and the edition but I will assume 3.5 and my own fav legend... so he started as a commoner (not class just status) and drew the sword and became a level 1 paliden... then he went on some quests met his mentor merlin ect... he evantualy took a couple prestige classes, one that ended with the special power "Once and future king"

in 4e he started a warlord with the sword and took some multi paliden feats then at level 21 took the epic destiny once and future king...

Does Conan eventually take levels in the same class and get the same ability?

conan, Aragorn, and Arthur all took a similar advancement path that made them leaders of men... but I doubt it was the same.

Does it have a CHA minimum?

I bet aurthurs did...

Do the Drizzt stories detail the process in which Drizzt pursued training in Dervish rather than Ranger, Fighter or Barbarian?

well he always broke the rules and some rules in later editions where made for him so...

Also, can a Fate Spiner then take levels in Brent Spiner, and become an actor?

yes but then they can grow too old to play a character that ends up never being used again anyway...

 

[Ahrimon]

Why do prestige classes need to have anything to do with the combat tier. We have feats for that. A feat that let's you cast touch spells through a weapon attack covers blade singer, arcane archer, and more. A while back I proposed a feat that combined the wizards necromancy feature with the warlock's pact blade or EK's bonded weapon to heal whenever killed a creature with your special weapon. That's prestige class type stuff right there.

To me, prestige classes are more like backgrounds. RP and exploration material. Leave the combat stuff to the feats. And yes the two can be combined. The above spell/weapon feat could be the prerequisite for joining the arcane archer society or being indoctrinated into the bladesingers, etc.

That's a system I could get behind.

 

[steeldragons]

That could work pretty well. Giving another layer of hurdles to cross to get to be the "Prestige Class". A couple of prereq's for the feat [specialty combat thing(s)] and then the feat as the prereq for the "background/faction/whatever" organizational side [skills, and interactions stuff]....I like it! My only suggestion here would be that the organization should, really, incorporate some extra combat oriented thing (not all about it, but offer it) to give the "combat" players a reason to take it. Like, the capstone ability (or top two) of what was the Prestige Class's powers can only achieved by going through the story/in-game stuff to get to be part of the organization.

And, again, avoiding creating a suite of new classes or requiring multiclassing to get there. Even better. On that note, however, I will say that it may be noteworthy that of the original prestige classes as presented by [MENTION=42043]Eric[/MENTION]V : assassin [rogue], blackguard [palADIN] and loremaster [bard] are all, essentially, presented already as [5e] "sub-classes." So that's a little disheartening and leads one to think that, more likely than not, the team may be planning to present other "prestige classes" as sub-class options.

Which, ultimately, I guess isn't horrible...but I don't like that idea that it mandates the base class a character has to take (presumably) 3 levels in to get to and /requires/ multiclassing if the PC doesn't begin in the "right" base class (rogue instead of ranger wants to be an arcane archer, a mage instead of fighter wants to become a bladesinger, eTC...).

 

[steeldragons]

wow that is a lot of "One true wayism" and condescension in one post...

Well, ya know, I try.

how about instead of "Kewl powerz" you try maybe "New abilities"

Well, because then I am not conveying the, how [MENTION=12630]Ahrimon[/MENTION] put it, "the best description of mechanical benefits for the sake of mechanical benefits."

or instead of "Smacking you in the face of wow" and "Video gamey-ness" you try "Not my cup of tea"

Because "Not my cup of tea" says nothing other than "I don't like it [something, whatever "it" is]." It is a non-statement. I am commenting on my dislike/dissatisfaction with [what appears to me to be] the copying of video-game/WoW-style "factions" being introfduced into D&D. So, "video gamey-ness" seemed appropriate as I am trying to accurately communicate instead of just make vague statements that can apply to anything and convey nothing.

I disagree on them working fine. I dislike the idea of feats because you already get so few and in some case far between.

Yes. And you, unsurprisingly, want [and, I presume, think your players should] their cake and get to eat it too." You've shown, across many threads, that you don't like choices that are "forced" on the players, and PCs should be able to get/do/make whatever they want without. All options all the time and no restrictions or limitations. So it is not surprising that you feel instead of being made to think and make a conscious choice with their character, your players should just be able to have both.

That's a "style" of play to have. Nice for some. Popular for a few. Lamentably, the only thing known for others.

I do no ascribe to such a "style."

example: I want to create a bladesinger feat that bridges full caster and martial skill... as a prestige class you could pick up once you have x spell casting and y martial ability at any time... or as a feat only when one of your multi classes gets feats (witch is already not that often).

Then I fear you will be disappointed. Why should a Bladesinger, as envisioned for 5e, be granted "full caster and martial skill"? That's not going to [or shouldn't] happen. That makes it more powerful than any other class/character in 5e. A bladesinger, if presented at all, will (or I submit "should") be not much more powerful than an Eldritch Knight, basically. Arguably (and not sure I would agree), a Ranger or PalADIN. An armor-wearing, "martial" weapon-wielding "half-caster" (as 5e defines the term). Getting a "full caster/full martial" PC is not something 5e is going to [or should] support, though I don't doubt it would accurately portray the "kewl powerz" elements of a 3x-style prestige class.

example 2: lets say they create one of your prestige feats for arcane archer (they had one in the playtest) and 2 players want to play with it. one follows the fluff of the feat and takes and elven wizard to get there... at best (again no multi classing no upping stats) he gets it at 4th level... on the other hand the human variant player gets it at level 1.

Which is specifically why, if you'd read my post, I stipulated that the "Prestige-style Feats" would not be available prior to 4th level...maybe, now that I've had some time for mulling, even later. 8th doesn't seem so outrageous for beginning a "prestige-class" style character. But that could be a dial handled table-by-table.

 

[steeldragons]

Oh! I actually wanted to bring up this:

wow that is a lot of "One true wayism" and condescension in one post...

Where/how is my expressing disappointment at what, to me, is D&D's poorly veiled stealing of stuff from other media (which, yes, it has always done. I just don't like when it's shameless/obvious. ) somehow "One True Wayism"?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Well, because then I am not conveying the, how [MENTION=12630]Ahrimon[/MENTION] put it, "the best description of mechanical benefits for the sake of mechanical benefits."

Where/how is my expressing disappointment at what, to me, is D&D's poorly veiled stealing of stuff from other media (which, yes, it has always done. I just don't like when it's shameless/obvious. ) somehow "One True Wayism"?

well it is as my English professor(2 years in a row and just getting ready for my final next Saturday) taught us last year (you would like her, she hates my misspellings too) there is a difference in denotation and connotation and the rich and full way our language works. You see you can with the same sentence say multi things (one short story she used as an example the title was 1 word that had 5 meanings and all were important to the 2 page story, and in that story 1 sentence had a triple meaning) the easies example she gave though was (and is very important here) Childish and Childlike. Both words have the same denotation, and can when used for just surface meaning be used interchangeably.

I think joe is very childlike. compared to: I think joe is very childish. The reason to use the different word at the end is to show connotation of weather you think it is a good thing or a bad thing. If you were not a native speaker though you may not pick up on that. Someone from south Africa could mean to convey that Joe has a child like sense of wonder, but choose childish and cause offense.

Bringing this back around "Video gamey" and "Kewl Powerz" are both not to subtle veiled insults to others play style... and you do cause offense using them. SO I will again ask you to please not be so insulting...

infact let me make it clear... "The words you use are insulting to me and others, you have the choice to use other words to get the same information across, please do."

Because "Not my cup of tea" says nothing other than "I don't like it [something, whatever "it" is]." It is a non-statement. I am commenting on my dislike/dissatisfaction with [what appears to me to be] the copying of video-game/WoW-style "factions" being introfduced into D&D. So, "video gamey-ness" seemed appropriate as I am trying to accurately communicate instead of just make vague statements that can apply to anything and convey nothing.

as was pointed out, WoW (I'll be honest I don't play video games except with my 7 year old nephew so unless you want to talk skylanders I don't know a lot on the subject) is basically a online game that is heavily influenced by D&D, and most likely is one of many things that we can thank Dave and Gary for influencing.

Yes. And you, unsurprisingly, want [and, I presume, think your players should] their cake and get to eat it too."

yea, because "Hey I want my players to take it now instead of 3 weeks or 2 months from now" is the same thing as that..

You've shown, across many threads, that you don't like choices that are "forced" on the players, and PCs should be able to get/do/make whatever they want without.

well that is a strawman exaggeration of my point of view, I will at least except you are trying to see my side even if you have to pretend it is more extreme then it is...

All options all the time and no restrictions or limitations.

so just to try to help you, Not no restrictions or limitations, just "Only restrictions and limitations that can be explained and have a good reason to be there." See I do limit my players... on a campaign by campaign basies. The big arguments I have been having all stem from "I always say no XXX" and when I ask "Why" it is either "Because I say so" or less often "Reason XXX" that I disagree with. I might run a game with no "XXX" but if a player says "Can I play this" my answer is "Next time I will make a game for that, for now choose something else"

So it is not surprising that you feel instead of being made to think and make a conscious choice with their character, your players should just be able to have both.

yea, again not my answer. I like Prestige Class and paragon paths because it is CHOICE... not both.

That's a "style" of play to have. Nice for some. Popular for a few. Lamentably, the only thing known for others.

I do no ascribe to such a "style."

I love that again you put style in "" to show how you think it is not a valid one...

Then I fear you will be disappointed. Why should a Bladesinger, as envisioned for 5e, be granted "full caster and martial skill"?

STRAWMAN?!?!?!!? STRAWMAN!!! I said blended... not both at the same time. In my mind a eldritch knight+wizard+bladesinger PC would still not have 9th level spells, but would be more a blend... again like my example mystic theurge up thread.

let me spell it out.

right now EK gets 4 attacks and 4th level spells... wizard gets 1 attack and 9th level spells. I want my PC to give 1 or two new special abilities and could end with say 3 attack and 6th level spells...

That makes it more powerful than any other class/character in 5e. A bladesinger, if presented at all, will (or I submit "should") be not much more powerful than an Eldritch Knight, basically. Arguably (and not sure I would agree), a Ranger or PalADIN. An armor-wearing, "martial" weapon-wielding "half-caster" (as 5e defines the term). Getting a "full caster/full martial" PC is not something 5e is going to [or should] support, though I don't doubt it would accurately portray the "kewl powerz" elements of a 3x-style prestige class.

yes ranger and paley are both more caster then EK (1/2 compaired to 1/3)

Which is specifically why, if you'd read my post, I stipulated that the "Prestige-style Feats" would not be available prior to 4th level...maybe, now that I've had some time for mulling, even later. 8th doesn't seem so outrageous for beginning a "prestige-class" style character. But that could be a dial handled table-by-table.

that again would cause us to wait...and wait and wait.

Prestige classes can drill in to niches more. Instead of saying "More powerful then base classes" you could say "Instead of base classes"

the balance of the system is that at level 10 you get a class power much better then you get at level 3. so if the class is designed to be taken at level 7 or 8, it's 2nd or 3rd power can equal a 10th level ability.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Count me in as completely against Prestige Classes. There's nothing Prestige Classes offer to the game, fluff-wise or mechanically, that can't already be accomplished through new subclasses, new alternative class features, feats and multiclassing.

 

[steeldragons]

Bringing this back around "Video gamey" and "Kewl Powerz" are both not to subtle veiled insults to others play style... and you do cause offense using them. SO I will again ask you to please not be so insulting...

infact let me make it clear... "The words you use are insulting to me and others, you have the choice to use other words to get the same information across, please do."

Then I would invite you (and these "others") to grow a thicker skin that such vocabulary is "insulting/offensive" to you. I apologize for you feeling insulted...but that is not really something I have control over. I will endeavor to speak more...kindly (?), but if a given term is the best term to convey a given meaning, then I'm going to use it...because I am trying to convey an idea/thought. Not to insult/offend people but not to make everyone warm and fuzzy, either. ENworld is about keeping things civil [and "grandma friendly"] and having adult discussion/debate/conversation [about playing pretend make-believe elves], but not, insofar as I have never been led to believe, about censorship of actual views/opinion.

yea, because "Hey I want my players to take it now instead of 3 weeks or 2 months from now" is the same thing as that..

-snip-

so just to try to help you, Not no restrictions or limitations, just "Only restrictions and limitations that can be explained and have a good reason to be there." See I do limit my players... on a campaign by campaign basies. The big arguments I have been having all stem from "I always say no XXX" and when I ask "Why" it is either "Because I say so" or less often "Reason XXX" that I disagree with. I might run a game with no "XXX" but if a player says "Can I play this" my answer is "Next time I will make a game for that, for now choose something else"

yea, again not my answer. I like Prestige Class and paragon paths because it is CHOICE... not both.

Yes, "both." You've just said it, how do you not see it? Because you want them to have it now [or an option "at any time"].

So, it follows, that they should not have to wait for when a feat is available...because they get it "now."

So then, when they get to feat-picking level, they should get the feat (or ability boost)...and/while/along with having a prestige class.

That is called, as I've said, "wanting to have your cake and eat it too." You want [your] players to have the opportunity for both/all/more. It is a hallmark of and supports player entitlement.

"I want/deserve/prefer (i.e. "am entitled to") more [powers, abilities, choices, doesn't matter what the "more" is] and you are wrong/bad/unfun to not 'say yes' I can have it." Do you not get that? I'm not entirely sure whose style should truly be more "insulted" here. Thankfully, my ancient steel dragonskin is not so easily scratched.

I love that again you put style in "" to show how you think it is not a valid one...

I am perfectly capable of respecting your right and choices to play in a certain "style" that is fun for your table and, simultaneously, not agree with it. But the quotation marks are more a result of my opinion on the whole concept of "play style", which has led to nothing but confusion and animosity throughout the industry. There is nothing "style" about it. It's a term game designers made up for individual choices and preferences, any all individual preferences. It [style] does not come with any innate or objective "truth/right" nor, I believe, should be used to define any particular player or game. All it serves it to create a false "us/them" dichotomy...and we continue to perpetuate it among ourselves.

So the quotes are because I DO have contempt for the term, in general, and its use as a blanket justification for individual preferences.

STRAWMAN?!?!?!!? STRAWMAN!!! I said blended... not both at the same time. In my mind a eldritch knight+wizard+bladesinger PC would still not have 9th level spells, but would be more a blend... again like my example mystic theurge up thread.

No. You said, and I just double checked to make sure, "I want to create a bladesinger feat that bridges full caster and martial skill..." That is, as I read it, "full caster skill" and "martial skill." There is nothing "blending" about this. But we can chalk this up to you not being a native english speaker and a lack of noticing some intended nuance of the English language, which I suppose was beyond me, on my part.

that again would cause us to wait...and wait and wait.

This only seems to support my view, above.

Prestige classes can drill in to niches more. Instead of saying "More powerful then base classes" you could say "Instead of base classes"

the balance of the system is that at level 10 you get a class power much better then you get at level 3. so if the class is designed to be taken at level 7 or 8, it's 2nd or 3rd power can equal a 10th level ability.

Sure that last part is fine. Makes sense. The 10th level equivalent power, being the second or third part of the "prestige whatever it turns out to be." That works for me. The first part, making prestige classes usable "instead of base classes" I just don't like.

You've been very clear. I understand [I think] what you are saying/asking for. You want "Prestige Classes" in 5e to be classes (and/or akin to sub-classes), that can be multi-classed into/with, taken at any level, and in addition to other features/feats the PC is receiving as they level up.

I just completely disagree with that as a [my] preferred way to do it. I don't agree with it as a "good" way for the game/designers of D&D to go: for flavor, for mechanics, for a structure I feel the game should have and enforce.[which is, yes, in part to fight player entitlement]. I would not like it in my games. *shrugs* And, yeah, that's all there is to it. You are not going to convince me otherwise. I will obviously not convince you. No harm. No foul.

I am sorry people [particularly DM's] knowing their minds and making decisions about something, and then sticking to it [in regards to playing pretend at being make-believe elves], is such a bad thing for so many others.