D&D 5E Prestige classes in Next?

[pming]

Hiya.

I can see Prestige classes as being a replacement for feats/ability improvements. Lets say you enter a PrC at level 8, ...

Hold it right there, Tex. I see where/why you are going this way, but I think you have the wrong "baseline thinking". If, and that's a big IF, they do have full-on PrC's, I don't think they will be the equivalent of a "class". Not that they will be 'weaker', but that they aren't something the player can just up an "decide to take". At least I hope not!

If they do some sort of PrC, I hope WotC keeps with the 5e mantra of "The DM's involvement is NEEDED". I don't want rules that just "let" a player suddenly decide to join the "Super Secret Society of the Silver Swords". I want there to be blatant, can't miss it, in your face sentences all throughout the PrC section that basically states and restates "If you want to join a PrC, you need to do it over the course of the campaign", and "Campaign story requirements are needed to join a PrC, not simply gaining a level and having the mechanical requirements; your DM will have more information".

The way I see them, its like someone working at a gas station for 17 years, then walking up to the doors of Exxon and saying "Hi. I want to be CEO, tell me what to do". Gas Station Jockey is the core class, but Major Petrol Company CEO would be the PrC. If you want it, you are going to have to have actually *done* stuff to get noticed by the suits...you can't just decide one day to "become a CEO". You know the old saying...it's not only what you know, but who you know.

That's my take on it anyway. PrC's should not be a choice that is more or less entirely up to the player...it should be based on the characters in-game experiences, desires, tasks, goals, etc. Not just "I have the numbers so I'm taking it!".

PS: And yes, I know a DM can always require this anyway...but having it explicitly stated in the rules...would go a loooooooonnngg way to getting it through some players thick skulls (hopefully saving endless hours of arguing "But it doesn't actually say that in the book!" from said, player types).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Uder]

Very good points PMing. I would prefer benefits from organizations be handed out without any charoppy cost - you join in play as a result of events in game and receive a small mechanical benefit.

 

[ranger69]

I think that Southpaw79 is on the right lines mechanically, and pming is on the right lines rules and fluff wise. Now we just have to combine the two.
Therefore a character can enter a prestige class at say level 10, and gains a prestige class feature instead of an ability score increase. However, there has to be roleplaying reasons why that Prestige class is available to the character. It could be entry into the King's guard for saving the Kings life, which could be DM led. Or player led by wanting the features of the prestige class. However, the player would have to talk to the DM about joining up. To enter the Kings guard the character would have to apply, have suitable tests (which may be more that martial), and have interviews. Depending on the NPC's involved in running the Kings Guard money may have to change hands, either openly or behind closed doors. It may be that the character has to be seen in the correct circles of society also.
If it is done right a character trying to enter a prestige class would lead to great social roleplaying experience's, rather than just combat. think of D'Artagnan trying to get into the Musketeers.

 

[Li Shenron]

Hold it right there, Tex. I see where/why you are going this way, but I think you have the wrong "baseline thinking". If, and that's a big IF, they do have full-on PrC's, I don't think they will be the equivalent of a "class". Not that they will be 'weaker', but that they aren't something the player can just up an "decide to take". At least I hope not!

I agree with your post, and more or less I think it'll be a good thing if WotC after all doesn't do prestige classes for 5e.

As I mentioned previously in this thread and others, I believe prestige classes are a great tool for world-building and character variety and they DO have a place in 5e that isn't properly covered by feats and subclasses. But at the same time, I don't believe that WotC can publish prestige classes without screwing them up like they did in 5e. They would do exactly the same mistakes as in 3e, making prestige classes all about mechanics, hyping up again the "character build" race, and using requirements to balance each prestige class without thinking that such balance is thrown away when combining more than one prestige class. Published material entitles the players and leaves the DM only with the bitter choice of vetoing.

But left in the hands of each gaming group they will have much less problem. Because even if a DM designs a "broken" prestige class, then it's natural to recognize the mistake and fix it, which won't happen for published material. And because the main "brokenness" of prestige classes lied in having many hundreds of them available with no restrictions on combining them, while each DM won't probably have the time to design more than a few, and can always withdraw or amend her own custom material.

 

[dwayne]

I can see Prestige classes as being a replacement for feats/ability improvements. Lets say you enter a PrC at level 8, from here on out when ever you would have gained a ability score improvement or feat, you instead gain an improvement from your PrC. This would lock you in though, so you can not go back later and collect more feats/ability score improvements that are not a part of your PrC unless your class gives you that option at different levels other than 4,8,12,etc like Fighter.

For instance: A wizard takes the PrC Archmage at level 12. At that point she/he can not take the normal ABI or feats, but she/he can select a enhancement from the list provided under Archmage like a one off Metamagic ability used once per short rest, an ability that allows you to convert any spell of one damage source to another, or an enhancement that gives you +2 int and one additional spell know, etc.

This method would keep your core class complete, be easily balanced against feats, be accessible at multiple spots in your adventuring career, yet be flavorful enough to become a dominating aspect of your character. Being able to enter once every four levels ( although very restrictive ) does allow the player and DM to work the PrC into the game prior to the character gaining the advancement which would allow for a more natural inclusion in most games.

I think your on the right track there and with the way the wildmage and arcane trickster are done I see them doing something like this also prevents stacking for abilities which was very bad in 3.x

 

[pming]

Hiya.

I agree with your post, and more or less I think it'll be a good thing if WotC after all doesn't do prestige classes for 5e.

As I mentioned previously in this thread and others, I believe prestige classes are a great tool for world-building and character variety and they DO have a place in 5e that isn't properly covered by feats and sub classes. But at the same time, I don't believe that WotC can publish prestige classes without screwing them up like they did in 3e EDITfixed that for you). They would do exactly the same mistakes as in 3e, making prestige classes all about mechanics, hyping up again the "character build" race, and using requirements to balance each prestige class without thinking that such balance is thrown away when combining more than one prestige class. Published material entitles the players and leaves the DM only with the bitter choice of vetoing

I'm on the fence about this. I was actually quite convinced they were going to screw up 5e after Monty left (I can definitely see his influence though...a lot of 5e reminds me of his "Diamond Throne" or "Arcana Unearthed"). I figured it was going to totally suck spherical man-meat. I was pleasantly surprised when I actually got up the guts to try and run the Starter Set. Now...I'm rather fond of 5e.

Anyway, I think WotC could make it work...but they have to stick to their guns and NOT give in to all the loud, gotta-have-it-all-and-gotta-have-it-NOW crowd. They have to stick to the "less is more" BECMI/0e/1e line of game design. The moment they start to fall into the "well, I suppose we could just give this class an extra +1 to their Proficiency checks, but only with regards to ranged combat"...that will be the pebble that starts the landslide.

But left in the hands of each gaming group they will have much less problem. Because even if a DM designs a "broken" prestige class, then it's natural to recognize the mistake and fix it, which won't happen for published material. And because the main "brokenness" of prestige classes lied in having many hundreds of them available with no restrictions on combining them, while each DM won't probably have the time to design more than a few, and can always withdraw or amend her own custom material.

We are both firmly on the same page on this one. The thing many of those clamoring for more "splat book choices" are, if I had to guess, players and not DM's. They want things that they can just "pick and choose". I can see the allure, really I can. However, more splat book choices will NOT make for a better campaign experience. I guarantee that. My 34+ years of DM'ing has taught me that giving a player 4 choices, all laid out in perfect mechanical detail will give them 4 choices. But giving them 4 choices, laid out with so-called "vagueishness" in some of the aspects will give the player two, five, or ten choices. Why? With it all laid out, they use what they see and never go any farther than that. With a few well-placed "vague" sentences, the player is guaranteed to think of at least two or three interpretations himself. He then goes to the DM for clarification, and the DM adds in another one or two interpretations. They talk, the player says what he thinks would be cool, the DM considers what would be cool for his campaign, they work out what they want it to mean and there you go. The next time a player wants to do something with the same 'choice', the player may have a different take, as the DM may, and then you have yet another variant. Both are custom tailored to the player and DM campaign. That "adjudication/creation/interpretation" gives all around a special feeling of attachment to their game world. Like painting a picture, building a scale model, or building a gazebo in the back yard; a feeling of actually creating something. Something that nobody else did...others may have painted the same picture, but it won't be exact and it won't be "yours".

So, PrC's; less mechanics is better, but some mechanical differences are definitely needed. They need to be additional, not "exceptions", and they need to be on-par with regular class abilities. They can't "break" anything a class can/can't do (re: a PrC shouldn't allow a thief to wear heavy armor and ignore armor penalties, for example), and the player should never, ever be heard uttering "Well, yeah, this is exactly like the {class ability}, but you don't have to {insert classes balancing factor for ability}". I don't want my Barbarian playing player to hear another player, who's not playing a Barbarian, say "Yeah, I can rage too...but I can do it any time I want as long as I make a DC 15 Wisdom check".

Oh, and as for "level requirements". Nope. Don't want them. They are never accurate to everyone's campaign and place a distinctly "gotta level as fast as I can, and make sure I get all the doo-dad and thingamajig abilities by that level" stress on the player (and DM). For example, if (as someone mentioned), a PrC not being available to level 10. My group and I generally like low to mid level. In our games (BECMI, 1e, even PF), rarely did PC's crack the level 7 or 8 marker. We just like lower level stuff. If 10th level became the 'standard PrC level requirement', I'd be forced to rework it to be lower. But, chances are, that 10th will have certain other mechanical things that simply are not possible unless you are level 10. How do I fix those? I could, but now I'm going down a huge path of "fixing all of WotC's mistakes for my game". I'd much rather be going down the path of "using my imagination to custom-fit WotC's stuff for my game" (re: add to is better and easier than take away...just ask the people who think THAC0 is "too difficult"... ).

I don't think there should be ANY 'level requirement' for a PrC. If a PC lives up to the standards of some PrC's tenants by the time he hits level 4, then by the gods he should be allowed to petition to join their ranks. Any other mechanical requirements should be significantly low, or open-ended (e.g., "Requirement: skill in at least one weapon with the Versatile trait.", or "Able to cast 1st level spells"). IMHO, any and all PrC mechanical requirements should be attainable by the time the character hits 3rd level. This is low enough so as to be open to any D&D campaign (except for something crazy extreme...like "no levels above 2nd", I guess...). Low is good. Less is more.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[prosfilaes]

If they do some sort of PrC, I hope WotC keeps with the 5e mantra of "The DM's involvement is NEEDED". I don't want rules that just "let" a player suddenly decide to join the "Super Secret Society of the Silver Swords". I want there to be blatant, can't miss it, in your face sentences all throughout the PrC section that basically states and restates "If you want to join a PrC, you need to do it over the course of the campaign", and "Campaign story requirements are needed to join a PrC, not simply gaining a level and having the mechanical requirements; your DM will have more information".

I don't see many PrCs ever come into play if DMs actually use those rules; PrCs have to fit well with the character, and you're talking about insisting DMs fit PrCs in well with the campaign too. Maybe in those heralded campaigns where DMs actually read back stories and integrate them into the campaign, I can see it working, but in the rest, it just isn't going to happen. DMs are going to offer PrCs, and players are going to go "and lose my 9th level spells to join an organization my character swore he would drive from the Desnan church in his backstory and has been working with under duress for the last few levels?"

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

I don't see many PrCs ever come into play if DMs actually use those rules; PrCs have to fit well with the character, and you're talking about insisting DMs fit PrCs in well with the campaign too. Maybe in those heralded campaigns where DMs actually read back stories and integrate them into the campaign, I can see it working, but in the rest, it just isn't going to happen. DMs are going to offer PrCs, and players are going to go "and lose my 9th level spells to join an organization my character swore he would drive from the Desnan church in his backstory and has been working with under duress for the last few levels?"

even worse if it is a large group and each want to get different prc that all make sense in the world you are just asking for a bad hackney story or splitting the party in a major way

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't see many PrCs ever come into play if DMs actually use those rules; PrCs have to fit well with the character, and you're talking about insisting DMs fit PrCs in well with the campaign too. Maybe in those heralded campaigns where DMs actually read back stories and integrate them into the campaign, I can see it working, but in the rest, it just isn't going to happen. DMs are going to offer PrCs, and players are going to go "and lose my 9th level spells to join an organization my character swore he would drive from the Desnan church in his backstory and has been working with under duress for the last few levels?"

even worse if it is a large group and each want to get different prc that all make sense in the world you are just asking for a bad hackney story or splitting the party in a major way

the first 3.0 game I ran had 3 players day one and 3 more come in over the first 3 sessions. We all agreed Prc where an awesome idea, and 4 PCs went for them... we all agreed you needed to have a teacher or special thing added to each one. We spent SOOOO much time training PCs that it felt like it was half the game... by the second campaign I ran we dropped that.

years later (3.5)a friend (who was not a PC in that campaign) ran a game and created 2 dozen prc that where campaign special, and had a few slightly modified ones. He made this same rule about teachers and organizations for ingame needs... he droped it after the first time it caused a conflict at the table

 

[pming]

Hiya.

Well, [MENTION=40166]prosfilaes[/MENTION] and [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION], I don't think the DM handled it correctly then. The player should give the DM a rough outline of his characters current goals. If/when they change, the player needs to inform the DM. It is the DM's job to keep notes on this kind of thing (nobody said DM'ing is easy...contrary to popular 3.x/PF/4e belief, the DM needs to do a LOT of behind the scenes prep to keep a well run and interesting campaign...just flinging dice for monsters is simply not going to cut it).

As for "teachers and training", that seems to be a DM fault. In the example GMforPowergamers gave, everyone at the table agreed to something (teacher/special training), and then added what I can only see as being convoluted or extensive rules for 'time spent in training'. Obviously they didn't work for that game (or the next)...but the old saying "dont' throw the baby out with the bathwater" comes to mind. Maybe a reduction in the mechanical rules would have sufficed. Maybe letting this "training" happen in the background would have done it. There are a lot of different ways it could have been changed that may have kept with the players and DM's idea of what it should take (story/campaign wise) to join a PrC.

But no matter what direction WotC decides to go in this I just hope to all the gods that they don't attempt to use "Three NEW Prestige Classes!" as a primary selling point for every firk dang book they put out!

PS: Just an aside for my preferred way of handling PrC's....any optional rules in the core books should not play a part in any PrC requierments (yes, Feats, I'm looking at you!).

^_^

Paul L. Ming