D&D 5E PrCs: Anathema, or just lack of interest? (Pick two!)

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm curious. The developers only released the one, and never talked about it again (much like a number of things from 5e's development history...) So it seems an open question: Was the response just lukewarm, or was it hostile? How do YOU feel about prestige classes in 5e? You may select up to TWO responses, but you are NOT allowed to change your vote, so choose wisely!

 

[Parmandur]

They did discuss the survey results:

Rune magic and our inaugural prestige class, the rune scribe, met with mostly positive results. We have some room to improve the runic magic items and how they interact with the prestige class. However, the really interesting piece comes down to the overall reaction to prestige classes.

We’re definitely seeing mixed responses to the concept. Of those of you who played third edition D&D, nearly 90% of you used prestige classes. However, overall support for them fell short of those marks. Just short of 60% of players want to use them in fifth edition. It’s interesting to see that while prestige classes saw a lot of use, many players didn’t particularly like the concept. It’s definitely something for us to consider as we examine the concept for fifth edition.

The Rune magic rules were published in Storm King's Thunder as magic items, and Prestige Classes are not a thing in 5E, probably never will be.

2016 February Survey | Dungeons & Dragons

dnd.wizards.com

 

[Blackrat]

Many of the those that used to be prestige classes, are now a sub-class (arcane archer, eldritch knight for example) and I kind of like it. Then again, some of the high-level prcs could still be done...

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

The main thing I could see Prestige Classes being used for in 5e is if a player wanted to be something like a Vampire or a Lycanthrope and start off as one early on.

Beyond that I don't see a use for them really. Prestige Classes kinda got replaced by Subclasses.

 

[Li Shenron]

I'm curious. The developers only released the one, and never talked about it again (much like a number of things from 5e's development history...) So it seems an open question: Was the response just lukewarm, or was it hostile? How do YOU feel about prestige classes in 5e? You may select up to TWO responses, but you are NOT allowed to change your vote, so choose wisely!

I think that the PrCl mechanics would fit in 5e without a problem, and could be useful to represent some special archetypes that make sense across multiple (not necessarily all, but also) classes.

PrCls arent a thing in 5e only because they were largely abused in 3e and people are afraid the same thing would happen again in 5e. But it's not happening with subclasses (not within official material), so it probably also won't happen with PrCls. All that WotC would need to do is keep the publishing pace slow, and add a simple rule that limits PrCls to 1 per character, or limit them somehow by tier. Either way the problem has never been PrCl mechanics but rather having hundreds of them available and letting players go PrCl-shopping and stack multiple of them just to reap their benefits with zero regard to their narrative.

 

[LordEntrails]

Never liked them. Never saw a need for them. And, if it matters (doesn't to me), but they are a relatively "recent" invention in the history of D&D.

Don't see a need for them now. And, besides being abused, all I can see is for them to detract from the game rather than add to it.

 

[Yaarel]

I voted ‘other’.



The idea of a minor class with only a few levels that a character can multiclass into, seems solid.

Certain character concepts seem bigger than a feat, but smaller than a 20-level class. For example, race features as levels, getting a ‘pet’, maybe wildshape. or so on seem worthwhile as a class that has upto 5 or ten levels.

These mini classes could even work by tier. Some classes might be available at levels 1 to 4. Other mini classes might only become available at higher levels, like 5 to 10, or whatever.

In any case, a particular concept that more than one class might be good at, might work better as a mini class, rather than rewriting a separate subclass for each class, each one doing the same thing.

In hindsight, ‘healer’ could have been a miniclass. Then the Cleric, Bard, Druid, Paladin, Sorcerer and others could have taken some levels in it, if they wanted their character concept to access the very same healing spells.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The subclass system takes away any need. You want a Rune Scribe? Make a subclass for it.

The prerequisite system made them rather restrictive in 3rd edition. Want to Play as X? Then you need to pick A, B, C and D. Whist some of the individual PrCs where interesting, the hoops you had to jump through to qualify for them where not.

 

[cbwjm]

I think they'd have a good niche within the game. The rune scribe example in UA was great because it was a single path for using runes that any class can take. Much easier than creating a fighter rune warrior, a cleric rune domain, and a wizard rune tradition.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Never liked them. Never saw a need for them. And, if it matters (doesn't to me), but they are a relatively "recent" invention in the history of D&D.

There's the 1e bard. A character had to be a 5th level fighter, then get up to 5th level as a thief, then they could become a bard.