D&D 5E Legends & Lore bits about prestige classes in 5e (and NEW playtest packet!)

[dkyle]

Another approach to what Mearls seems to want PrCs to do would be 4E's boons system. Basically, mechanically, just treat memberships, and "achievement" type stuff as grounds for giving boons in place of similarly-valued treasure.

If you want to have bits of mechanics that the GM can grant to PCs for doing stuff, why not tie it into the existing system for bits of mechanics that the GM can grant to PCs for doing stuff?

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

That stated, I prefer PrCs to Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies, because PrCs were optional. The game did not require them to play beyond a certain point.

Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies are optional. They provide additional abilities in play, but none of them make or break your character and are on par with the abilities you already receive from your class.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I hate the idea of rp factions and groups. I remember wanting to be a red wizard and being told no because symbol would kill me... Or my least fav, when I went from wiz x/Fighter Y to bladesinger 1 and the party wanted to kill me out of game because we had to go back to elvin lands to find a teacher

 

[Stormonu]

Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies are optional.

Not in any of the 4E books I remember reading (PHB1,2,3). And that was one thing it irked me. It went from a roleplaying reward in 3.0 to an expected goal in 3.5 to part of the core build in 4E.

All-in-all, I think I'd rather go back to kits.

 

[dkyle]

Not in any of the 4E books I remember reading (PHB1,2,3). And that was one thing it irked me. It went from a roleplaying reward in 3.0 to an expected goal in 3.5 to part of the core build in 4E.

All-in-all, I think I'd rather go back to kits.

It's optional in the sense that all RPG elements are optional. If you really don't want a Paragon Path, it's hard to imagine a reasonable DM saying "no, you must take one". And without one, you're not missing anything essential, the way you would be if, say, you refused to use an implement on your high level Wizard.

But really, it went from a terrible way to implement a roleplaying reward to 3E, to a natural part of the levelup process in 4E. A vast improvement as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Sunseeker]

So DMs must accede to all players wishes ever? and that should be codified into the rules? everything in every splatbook must be available in every game? No thanks.

That's not what I said.

You don't need to have planned out every square inch of your world to know that some prestige classes/organization just wouldn't fit into your world. Especially if you're shooting for an intense theme or atmosphere. "Unicorn Cavalry Princess" may have a place in a lot of games, but not in my Black Company campaign.

Sure, and I'd expect that players of the game would aim their sights towards what the game is about rather than something else....but there always tends to be at least one "Drizzt" who has to be counter-culture. But even then the DM may have simply overlooked X PrC that could be reasonably fitting.

Not every PrC should need a massive organization in order to exist in the world, some should be more along the lines of the 4e Paragon Paths of "I become this thing through personal questing and such-in-such." It's one thing for a DM to say "well, the social systems needed to support that kind of an orginization don't exist." But lets take for example the Pathfinder PrC "Ioun Angel"(http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-prestige-classes/4-winds-fantasy-gaming/ioun-angel), this doesn't require an order or establishment, just a very dedicated character/player.

On that, we can agree. Its rather pointless for a DM to run a heavily themed campaign with players who aren't down with that theme. I'm still willing to give DMs a bit more authority than the players as compensation for the extra time and effort in the job.

Well I agree that unless otherwise aimed-for, the DM should have more power over the setting than the players, but the players should not be wholly limited to the existing establishments of the game, in which case what do you do with a party out to "change the world"? There must be some way to start off on your own, or heck, establish the Cult of Skarro in order to get the Dalek prestige class into the game....someone has to be first.

 

[Alzrius]

My understanding is that 4E paragon paths/epic destinies are more akin to Pathfinder's class archetypes than they are with prestige classes - a small suite of two-to-four powers that replace (or add-on) some existing class powers.

If WotC is reducing prestige classes to the point of essentially being like these, then I think they'll be easier to deal with, simply because they'll have less impact. It doesn't sound like that's the model they're adopting though; they sound like the traditional 3.X/Pathfinder PrCs.

That said, I'm of two minds about prestige classes. I eventually grew to dislike them, given how they seemed to be used more for power-gaming than anything else. I only started to like them again recently, with Paizo's scaling back of PrC's (rather ironically, this was abetted with an explosion of archetypes) and stating that they should be tied firmly to in-world organizations...a sentiment very similar to Monte Cook's idea that prestige classes should have prerequisites based on story rather than stats.

I personally like the idea of prestige classes as being tied to organizations, notwithstanding the "theurgic" prestige classes that make certain multiclass combinations more viable.

 

[Ratskinner]

Well I agree that unless otherwise aimed-for, the DM should have more power over the setting than the players, but the players should not be wholly limited to the existing establishments of the game, in which case what do you do with a party out to "change the world"? There must be some way to start off on your own, or heck, establish the Cult of Skarro in order to get the Dalek prestige class into the game....someone has to be first.

I see that as a much broader aspect of DM-ing and D&D than just the multiclassing rules. If a player wanted to initiate such a change in the game world, that should be a (IMO) much larger and more RP-intensive thing than "I'm gonna take the Dalek prestige class." Not just because it would be more interesting to play out, but because you also have to guard against the "I invent gunpowder"-PC. I think this would be a topic better suited to DM advice somewhere in the DMG. I'm certainly not opposed to players taking initiative to change the world, but I'm leary of codifying the process to box DMs out of the worlds they create.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Not in any of the 4E books I remember reading (PHB1,2,3). And that was one thing it irked me. It went from a roleplaying reward in 3.0 to an expected goal in 3.5 to part of the core build in 4E.

IDHMBIFOM, but using Character Builder the Paragon Path selector is labelled "(Optional)."

It's optional in the sense that all RPG elements are optional.

Not what I meant. Yes, even Fighters are optional in the sense that they can be dropped from your game. I remember PP and ED called out as optional and Character Builder supports that assertion.

All-in-all, I think I'd rather go back to kits.

If they were structured like those in the Complete Bard's Handbook, I'm in! If it's like the rest? No thanks.

 

[am181d]

If they were structured like those in the Complete Bard's Handbook, I'm in! If it's like the rest? No thanks.

Been so long since I've read any of the 2e books, but I think we can all agree that if there was something "kit-like" implemented in 5e, we'd want it to be implemented *well*. And I think there's a general consensus that TSR got better at creating and balancing kits as time went on.

What are your thoughts on the Pathfinder archetypes? That mechanic strikes me as the best way to handle "kits" in a modern rules set. Sub-out some abilities for others that are relatively balanced, allowing the players to tweak the flavor of existing classes to suit the character they envision.