D&D 5E Making PrC's "Treasure"?

[Stormonu]

All through 3E, I had all kinds of issues with PrCs. They were fun to read through, but balancing them and watching players build their characters expecting them to become this-or-that PrC annoyed me (I much prefer organic character generation than planned builds).

What if, for next, PrCs were designed like and given out like treasure? Design them as frills or bumps to a character rather than design them into the math, and allow the DM to dole them out for certain activities or quests? Perhaps have them doled out into five "pieces", (Initiate, Apprentice, Journeyman, Master, Grand Master), with the character being given the initial rank and the PC having some control of his advancement by setting goals (not necessarily levels) to reach the next level of the PrC?

PrCs then become less tied to level and more to in-game activity. Players could hint/state they want to work towards a given PrC, and it doesn't detract from their normal level advancement.


Example (Note, I'm horrible at mechanics, this is just an idea):

Griffonguard of the High City

"So, you want to be a Griffonguard, eh? Well, the first thing ya gotta do is get you a griffon..."

Initiate: Character must find or raise and train a griffon. The character must also swear an oath to the Griffonguard.
Benefit: You gain a monthly salary of X gp. Furthermore, when fighting from the back of a griffon, you gain a +1 bonus to AC and weapon damage.

Apprentice: Character must complete at least one mission in the name of the Griffonguard and face an opponent while mounted on his griffon.
Benefit: While mounted, you can expend a Combat Expertise die to cause an attack against your mount to miss.

Journeyman: Character must fight in at least 5 combats from griffonback. One of those fights must be against an opponent of higher level than yourself.
Benefit: Your monthly salary is increased to X gp. You may call for assistance from up to two additional Griffonguard of Initiate level to assist you in a quest or activity.

Master: You must fight a solo combat from griffonback against an opponent higher level than yourself. Other Griffonguard cannot help you in this fight to qualify for this ability.
Benefit: Your monthly salary is increased to X gp. You gain a 1d6 combat expertise dice that you may spend on manuevers for yourself or your griffon. You may call for assistance as per Journeyman, but those that help may be of Apprentice level or lower.

Grand Master: You must fight a solo combat from griffonback against three opponents of higher level than yourself. Other griffonguard cannot help you in this combat.
Benefit: You and your griffon mount share a HP pool as long as you are mounted on your griffon. As long you retain at least 1 HP in this pool, both of you remain active and conscious. You may choose to end the use of this ability at each time, at which you must split any remaining HP between you and your griffon, though neither may retain HP above their normal HP score.

 

[dkyle]

If PrCs are to be story-based, then yes, absolutely, they should be treated as treasure. Making them levels was where 3E completely screwed up the concept.

I'm not sure about your specific implementation, though. For one, making it depend on "solo combats" is really questionable. The requirements should be something that can be done naturally through normal gameplay, not something where the rest of the group sits there while you do your thing. I'd rather have a few thematic ideas listed, for the DM and player to arrive at specifics, than such specific triggers.

I also wouldn't assign a salary benefit. In fact, I'd assign a gold cost to each, like magic items. This wouldn't make them be for sale, but would just signify how much treasure they replace. Then, you can balance the PrC benefits against the magic items they represent an opportunity cost against. And then the DM can evaluate PrCs using whatever mechanism Next will presumably have for evaluating magic items for encounter design.

 

[Manbearcat]

I would say that this could be highly functional as 4e does this with Grandmaster Training and I've used it with great success (specifically for my PC who likes more of a mundane character with limited magical item influence). However, it was my understanding that 5e was not going to be doing any "wealth by level" or "balance of power by way of treasure". If that is going to be the case, then I'm uncertain how a fundamental PC build tool (such as a prestige class, paragon path, advanced career) placed under those anarchic design tenets could be balanced (i) against each other and (ii) could be measured as a consistent component within the total output formula of a PC's power.

 

[Stormonu]

That's just it. Don't try to balance them - any more than you would, say, for a Flaming Sword or Robe of Eyes. Some PrCs could be made better than others and they would more than likely be balanced on how difficult to they are "get" or advance in. If need be, right up front there could be something listed in the PrC listing how powerful it is (epic, paragon, heroic, high, medium, low, rare, well-done, etc.) to give the DM an idea when/where it might be appropriate to dole it out.

 

[Manbearcat]

That's just it. Don't try to balance them

I understand your preferences here. But truly, we can regress this design tenet all the way back through the entirety of the mechanics; magic items (prestige classes) > feats > intra-class build features > classes > races > backgrounds. What we would end up with is an unwieldy collage of anarchy that would collapse in on itself with DMs trying to sort out a challenging framework with wildly disparate power levels inside their groups. Bob with the overpowered rod A, crystal ball b, and the prestige class that summons hordes of Celestials will know all, see all, destroy all while Jack and his + n armor, flaming sword, and the prestige class that hits MOAR harder with his flaming sword will be my undoing (as a DM).

I'm not sure what purpose a vacuum of balance with vague, abstract "advice" or "guidelines" serves. What's more, I'm not sure I trust such hand-waving advice as I've seen it before and I'll just have to end up performing my own play-testing to confirm the statistical confidence implied by a designer quantified, abstract power level definition within a system with wildly different resource schemes and wildly different bindings on "what magic can do" and "what mundane can do". Just as important, this will almost assuredly be adjudicated by multiple designers, especially as time goes on, with multiple subjective determination of malleable words like "epic" or "heroic" thereby further reducing the usefulness of such vague terminology.

I already have my fears about the impacts of, and inevitable reliance upon, magic items "off the books" on the output equation for PCs. Tethering Prestige Classes (and thus furthering the perturbation of paragon/epic play toward wild swinginess) to the same design framework seems to be asking for a house of cards.

On the other hand, if they used your idea (provided a hard-coded, play-tested, quality controlled "grade") for prestige classes, did the same thing with magic items, and then gave us a module that properly quantified the impact of magic item A and prestige class B within the scope of a PCs build output (and correspondingly against an encounter budget), then we would have something.

However, as is, if we're going to put both magic items and prestige classes "off the books" and then have a legitimate (gratuitous in this case) book for budgeting encounter design...well, I personally would expect 11th - 20th level play to be just as gut-wrenchingly maddening and dissatisfying in both prep and play that many (as has been the case in the past) will just forgo it altogether.

 

[Starfox]

The OPs idea seems a bit like the heroic classes Pazio just released as a playtest for [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate] - these prestige class suggestions feel very comparable top those heroic paths.

I sympathize on the "Prestige classes should not be a planned thing" issue, but that requires that a LOT of prerequisites be removed from all aspects of the game - things like feat prerequisites would have to go.

Edit: Pathfinder calls their classes "Mythic", not heroic.