Gradine
The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
I came here to post exactly this, though I'm not sure how I'd implement it. In 4e it was a straight-up add-on, though I'm not sure how well that would fly in 5e
D&D 5E PrCs: Anathema, or just lack of interest? (Pick two!)
I came here to post exactly this, though I'm not sure how I'd implement it. In 4e it was a straight-up add-on, though I'm not sure how well that would fly in 5e
Parmandur
Book-Friend
Essentially, what I'm thinking of is a 5-step Feat chain (all PCs get at least 5 ASI/Feat slots).
I'm not a fan of Prestige classes, but then, I'm also not a fan of level-based Multiclassing in general. Conceptually, I like the idea of another ... thing for PCs, which allows narrower concepts that are too big for a feat, too small for a full class and don't fit as a subclass.
Not a fan of that implementation, I dislike feat chains, and fighters do have a different Feat/ASI progression. Also, I'm becoming a fan of awarding feats as downtime rewards, like crafting magic items.
Just make it a straight addition to characters, as an option for a higher power level campaign. Like Gestalt rules from 3.5, the DM only allows it if they want a more powerful party.
Say, for example, you just get a Theme at 5th level (though I hate this name, it's better than Prestige Class or Paragon Path, so for now, Theme it is). Some may have prerequisites and all require DM approval. This'll allow things like transformative options like Vampire or Lycanthrope, unearthing hidden heritage like Demi-God, or niche casting like Rune Magic. I'd also consider this another way to do Multiclassing, offer Dual-classing as a theme. So that Wizard can add Rogue as a Theme/Dual Class without surrendering any caster levels. (Obviously, Dual-Classing and the current multiclassing rules will have to be mutually exclusive, and there's some funkiness with certain subclasses, I wouldn't allow an Arcane Trickster Rogue to dual class).
This means you can have a level progression, I'd guess themes only run from level 5 and finish at level 15.
Not a fan of that implementation, I dislike feat chains, and fighters do have a different Feat/ASI progression. Also, I'm becoming a fan of awarding feats as downtime rewards, like crafting magic items.
Just make it a straight addition to characters, as an option for a higher power level campaign. Like Gestalt rules from 3.5, the DM only allows it if they want a more powerful party.
Say, for example, you just get a Theme at 5th level (though I hate this name, it's better than Prestige Class or Paragon Path, so for now, Theme it is). Some may have prerequisites and all require DM approval. This'll allow things like transformative options like Vampire or Lycanthrope, unearthing hidden heritage like Demi-God, or niche casting like Rune Magic. I'd also consider this another way to do Multiclassing, offer Dual-classing as a theme. So that Wizard can add Rogue as a Theme/Dual Class without surrendering any caster levels. (Obviously, Dual-Classing and the current multiclassing rules will have to be mutually exclusive, and there's some funkiness with certain subclasses, I wouldn't allow an Arcane Trickster Rogue to dual class).
This means you can have a level progression, I'd guess themes only run from level 5 and finish at level 15.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
It looks like we...almost agree. It depends on what you consider "weird" requirements. Going back to my silver pyromancer example above: this is a PrC specifically for arcane (and only arcane, not divine and not warlock) casters who are vetted by, and then inducted into, a religious institution that teaches them special applications of their arcane casting. Given the explicit vetting process, I don't consider "you have to be trained in Religion" to be a weird requirement in this context. From both personal experience and knowing several others who have initiated into lay-faithful organizations, I would in fact think it weird to not have such a requirement for this specific example. Likewise, a prestige class that deepened the options available for wild shape might require proficiency in Nature--you need that baseline.
However, I am absolutely in agreement that naughty word things like requiring Channel Divinity and Bardic Inspiration or Superiority Dice and Smite Evil (etc.) would be completely inappropriate. Every prestige class should be viable for most characters with, at most, picking up a trained skill at the start, or taking a feat at level 4 in order to qualify (Skilled, specifically). You should never need careful build planning, because that is bad design and we have the entire crumbling edifice of 3rd edition to demonstrate it.
The reason I say "most" characters is I do think some PrCs warrant the ability to cast spells. That does, technically, cut off a portion of classes...but not a particularly big portion, depending on the details. (Heck, a five-level PrC that requires 3rd level spells would still fit into an arcane trickster or eldritch knight, to say nothing of Paladins and Rangers.)
All of this sounds perfectly cromulent to me. A silver pyromancer, by being someone who started off with arcane spellcasting and then got some religious training atop it, would make sense as an expert (leaning into master) class: by the time you finish it, you very much are an expert in the field of fighting evil outsiders and undead, and potentially have risen to a position of influence (dare I say mastery) within the non-cleric church hierarchy.
Is this a feat chain, or a class? As a class this sounds alright, though I'd want some design passes (it feels a little weak, but definitely on-theme.) I am completely opposed to making any kind of "feat chain" that sucks up all your feat opportunities. That's an incredibly punitive cost, and would almost certainly never be worth it--we should be encouraging flavorful choices, not locking them behind a cost almost no one would willingly pay.
Making something that just sucks up all your ASIs seems an excessively punitive cost, given that "you might lose 1-2 ASIs" is seen as an appropriate balance point for getting to multiclass.
See above. The primary result of this would be that no one would take them unless they're okay with being dramatically weaker than everyone else, and that's Pretty Bad. Unless...I guess you could have the 5-step-feat-chain grant stat bonuses to the chain's core stat(s). But then you're looking at them really being "half-feats," and a chain full of half-feats is probably going to be extremely lackluster. This is the problem I kept running into while looking at homebrew silver pyro stuff. On the one hand, anything that sticks to the power curve and exclusively uses feats either ends up bland, fails to capture the core concept, or both. Anything that breaks from the power curve in order to exclusively stick to feats and retain flavor/core concept...well, it breaks from the power curve, being either weak enough that it feels like a punishment for doing something flavorful, or powerful enough that you'd be foolish not to pursue it even if it doesn't fit the character.
That's a big part of why I started thinking: is this the place for "whatever PrCs should have been"? (Because apparently the term 'prestige class' is so poisoned by its 3.5e version that it's become anathema, to invoke the name is to summon its awfulness.) The space of things that:
- several different classes (and perhaps all classes) should have access to
- are too strong to be squeezed into a single feat
- would force players to choose between effectiveness and flavor if it cost multiple feats
Tales and Chronicles
Jewel of the North, formerly know as vincegetorix
Its a Prestige Theme!
Seriously, its a class you multi-class in if you meet the roleplay requirement.
cbwjm
Seb-wejem
4e style themes might be kind of cool in 5e, I had thought about something like that for expanded backgrounds but dropped it after a while.
Themes that have small powers assigned to a theme feat might work quite well, I'd probably want each ability to be a half feat so that the player can add +1 to any stat along with an ability. I could see some being a specific stat.
I have put together a themed class for genasi where they grow their elemental power, it works with my reworked genasi that gain an elemental power at 3rd level like the aasimar gain their ability. They take up to 5 levels and gain additional elemental powers as well as spell slots for elemental spells.
Themes that have small powers assigned to a theme feat might work quite well, I'd probably want each ability to be a half feat so that the player can add +1 to any stat along with an ability. I could see some being a specific stat.
I have put together a themed class for genasi where they grow their elemental power, it works with my reworked genasi that gain an elemental power at 3rd level like the aasimar gain their ability. They take up to 5 levels and gain additional elemental powers as well as spell slots for elemental spells.
Yaarel
He Mage
If a normal class requires some mechanic for its character concept, it GIVES it to the character. For example, the Wizard class GIVES the character the Arcana skill and a spellbook.
Same goes for a miniclass.
For example, I would look at the Silver Pyromancer this way. It is an arcane magic class that specializes in fire. It gives you the Arcana skill or a choice of any skill if you already have Arcana. (This is how a Background works. If you already have the skill that Background grants, you can pick any skill you want instead. So it is useful to pick a Background that gives you skills you already have.) So, any character can start off as a Silver Pyromancer, or later multiclass into it. The class contains all the mechanics that are necessary to be a Silver Pyromancer.
The setting is something separate. For example, the DM can emphasize how the different schools of wizardry are literally different schools. The Eladrin elves might teach enchantment magic from one of their campuses in the Feywild. Meanwhile, a certain enclave of Genasi teach elemental magic. A certain Human wizard tower near a certain city specializes in transmutation magic. And so on. The DM could require players to be familiar with these institutions and their mentors, having gained the relevant knowledge from these places. Some of these mentors might be difficult with specific ideologies, and only friendly under certain circumstances.
Likewise, the spiritual organization that the Cleric belongs to might matter in the setting.
The order that the Paladin or Ranger belongs too. Whether a Rogue is affiliated with a ‘guild’ or not. The Druid circle. The Barbarian clan. Etcetera.
All of this is part of the setting description. For flavor, the Silver Pyromancer might refer to the institution, might while remaining mechanically neutral. Baking a flavor into the mechanics, creates problems, including reducing the usefulness of the class in other settings.
For every reason, a miniclass works best as a normal class.
... Actually, the Silver Pyromancer can include a writeup in two separate design spaces. One is the normal class itself. The other is a Background whose special asset (in addition to skills or tools) relates to the Silver Pyromancer institution.
If a miniclass is too specific, such as ‘Wizards only!’, then it no longer makes sense for a miniclass. It works better as a Wizard subclass.
The point of a miniclass is being a mechanic that any class can take.
Last edited:
Tony Vargas
Legend
PrCs were used too often in 3.x as kludges. Bundles of mechanics meant to elevate a dismal class or class combination to viability - or, layer system-mastery rewards upon already OP options. Not that 5e couldn't use a kludge here or there, but the real potential of PrCs is as a way of connecting the player & setting through the character.
Certain sub-classes - the Cormyr-specific PDK stands out this way, IMHO - are pretty poor as sub-classes, but would make ideal PrCs.
It'd be nice if WotC could investigate the desirability of PrCs as the latter, separate from any stigma they acquired for being the former in the 3e RAW-uber-alles system-mastery era.
The key to seeing that potential develop would be not just in making them optional (MCing is already optional, so it's a given), but it keeping them a DM opt-in, setting-based tool. A PrC should tie into local color - to history, organizations, unique setting considerations of whatever kind. DMs should get PrC design tools in a more generic supplement, as well as a selection of setting-specific PrC in world books & APs.
Edit: To put it another way: a PrC could be something like a background you acquire in play. It needn't give you unique mechanical benefits, though it might give you a unique combination of such, it probably /should/ give you social/interaction and plot benefits, in ways that tie in to it's place in the setting and acquisition - from membership in a group, reputation, secret knowledge, etc...
Certain sub-classes - the Cormyr-specific PDK stands out this way, IMHO - are pretty poor as sub-classes, but would make ideal PrCs.
It'd be nice if WotC could investigate the desirability of PrCs as the latter, separate from any stigma they acquired for being the former in the 3e RAW-uber-alles system-mastery era.
The key to seeing that potential develop would be not just in making them optional (MCing is already optional, so it's a given), but it keeping them a DM opt-in, setting-based tool. A PrC should tie into local color - to history, organizations, unique setting considerations of whatever kind. DMs should get PrC design tools in a more generic supplement, as well as a selection of setting-specific PrC in world books & APs.
Edit: To put it another way: a PrC could be something like a background you acquire in play. It needn't give you unique mechanical benefits, though it might give you a unique combination of such, it probably /should/ give you social/interaction and plot benefits, in ways that tie in to it's place in the setting and acquisition - from membership in a group, reputation, secret knowledge, etc...
Last edited:
Hussar
Legend
This I totally agree with. A lot of the design space, back in the 3e days, was in reaction to the 2e "setting requirements" for balancing. So many elements back in 2e were meant to have "role playing" balances in return for mechanical advantages and, while it's not a bad idea, many groups simply ignored the role playing elements and went for the mechanical advantages resulting in very over powered options.
So, the pendulum swung way back the other way and the idea was that PrC's would be mechanically balanced (for a given value of balance, the rate of success varied wildly) without referencing "flavor" elements. Which resulted in very bland, mostly pointless PrC's which were just bags of bonus mechanics.
I think in 5e though, you can swing things back a bit the other way and make it very clear that the flavor limitations are there for a VERY good reason. If you want to use this PrC, you really should adhere to those in game world limitations, or the result will be unbalanced.
IOW, just be very clear and explicit with why things are the way they are and then trust that the DM's out there will keep a lid on abuses.
Similar Threads
- Poll
