LordEntrails
Hero
There's no need for them, never was. Just add some role-playing elements to your character (like story!) and forget the specialized mechanics.
D&D 5E Prestige Classes?
- Thread starter Tony Vargas
- Start date
Mercule
Adventurer
Burn them. They have no place in 5E. 90%+ of the benefits are covered by subclasses. Anything that was a 5-level-or-less PrC would be adequately served with a feat or two. Both options would also avoid adding yet another mechanic to the game. That said, PrCs sound like a great "module" for someone to throw up on the DMs Guild. I'd just prefer to nix anything even remotely official.
I would be open to re-introducing feat chains, but very, very cautious. The rampant feat list was one of the things that killed 3E, for me. It was problematic from both a choice overload and chasing the gold ring perspective.
An over-abundance of sub-classes would also be a concern. I've long maintained that there's a maximum number of options any player can effectively manage. That'll differ from player to player, but official content should follow the 80/20 rule (i.e. aim for the middle ground and let the DMs Guild handle the outliers). Yes, there's a minimum viable number of choices, but we've probably got that covered. My gut says that 15-16 classes would be around the most that should be available, with 20 as an absolute upper bound and the assumption that not all would be used in any given campaign.
By virtue of having a second-tier decision, sub-classes greatly expand the options. I think the number is smaller than for top-level classes; say, 6-8 sub-classes before it starts getting unwieldy. That's still 8 x 16 = 128 character options. I'm also assuming that most folks will have a pretty good idea of which sub-class they'll use at character creation, even if they don't get/have to pick until later.
Prestige classes typically served three functions in 3E:
1) Refine large-grain concepts. That is to say, make a Fighter into a specific kind of Fighter or a Wizard into a specific kind of Wizard. This is exactly what the sub-classes do in 5E. Any PrCs with this purpose would directly compete with them. This would either take up some of the above "options space" or have unintended consequences (i.e. increase the odds of a breaking combination with a sub-class). Bad plan.
2) Make certain multi-classing combinations more viable. Generally speaking, this was around spell-casters and should be handled with the 5E multi-classing rules. Do not need.
3) Force a trade-off for a set of abilities. Even in 3E, this could have been done with a feat chain. As I said before, I'm dubious of feat chains and don't want to see them come back in a big way, but it would be better to use an existing mechanic.
I would be open to re-introducing feat chains, but very, very cautious. The rampant feat list was one of the things that killed 3E, for me. It was problematic from both a choice overload and chasing the gold ring perspective.
An over-abundance of sub-classes would also be a concern. I've long maintained that there's a maximum number of options any player can effectively manage. That'll differ from player to player, but official content should follow the 80/20 rule (i.e. aim for the middle ground and let the DMs Guild handle the outliers). Yes, there's a minimum viable number of choices, but we've probably got that covered. My gut says that 15-16 classes would be around the most that should be available, with 20 as an absolute upper bound and the assumption that not all would be used in any given campaign.
By virtue of having a second-tier decision, sub-classes greatly expand the options. I think the number is smaller than for top-level classes; say, 6-8 sub-classes before it starts getting unwieldy. That's still 8 x 16 = 128 character options. I'm also assuming that most folks will have a pretty good idea of which sub-class they'll use at character creation, even if they don't get/have to pick until later.
Prestige classes typically served three functions in 3E:
1) Refine large-grain concepts. That is to say, make a Fighter into a specific kind of Fighter or a Wizard into a specific kind of Wizard. This is exactly what the sub-classes do in 5E. Any PrCs with this purpose would directly compete with them. This would either take up some of the above "options space" or have unintended consequences (i.e. increase the odds of a breaking combination with a sub-class). Bad plan.
2) Make certain multi-classing combinations more viable. Generally speaking, this was around spell-casters and should be handled with the 5E multi-classing rules. Do not need.
3) Force a trade-off for a set of abilities. Even in 3E, this could have been done with a feat chain. As I said before, I'm dubious of feat chains and don't want to see them come back in a big way, but it would be better to use an existing mechanic.
steeldragons
Steeliest of the dragons
Ah. But what if a 5e subclass IS, simply, just a pre-set "Feat Chain"?
3 or 5 levels of special features -and specific thematic flavor- that are a bit "bigger" than class features. That's all. Maybe even sometimes augment existing features...or have to be tied into proficiency so they "grow" with the character regardless of level.
Take them at level 5 or level 10, they do the same thing. They soak up 3 or 5 levels of your progression, then back to your original class...or on to something else?
There are few here who despise 3+e style multiclassing as much as I and bar it uniformly from my games. But, given 5e's class structure and the fact that it seems most tables do not share my sensibility in that arena, this LOOKS (on the drawing board) ilke it should work.
And even for those who do NOT wish to use the OPTIONAL multiclassing rules in 5e, you could lay these 3-5 level "layer" on top of a single classed character just fine...and still get the special and specific flavor and features of archetypes too "small" or "narrow" in flavor (too few features) or story (setting specific) to warrant an entire subclass of their own.
I don't know. I don't mind the UA's first attempt. I don't think it really worked the way they wanted. But it had potential. I WOULD probably reclassify them by a different name than "Prestige Class" since that has some baggage and, apparently, bad feeling that comes with it.
3 or 5 levels of special features -and specific thematic flavor- that are a bit "bigger" than class features. That's all. Maybe even sometimes augment existing features...or have to be tied into proficiency so they "grow" with the character regardless of level.
Take them at level 5 or level 10, they do the same thing. They soak up 3 or 5 levels of your progression, then back to your original class...or on to something else?
There are few here who despise 3+e style multiclassing as much as I and bar it uniformly from my games. But, given 5e's class structure and the fact that it seems most tables do not share my sensibility in that arena, this LOOKS (on the drawing board) ilke it should work.
And even for those who do NOT wish to use the OPTIONAL multiclassing rules in 5e, you could lay these 3-5 level "layer" on top of a single classed character just fine...and still get the special and specific flavor and features of archetypes too "small" or "narrow" in flavor (too few features) or story (setting specific) to warrant an entire subclass of their own.
I don't know. I don't mind the UA's first attempt. I don't think it really worked the way they wanted. But it had potential. I WOULD probably reclassify them by a different name than "Prestige Class" since that has some baggage and, apparently, bad feeling that comes with it.
As an additional option you can increase the number of skills in the game to achieve this result as well. While at the same time removing the majority of the +X feats as well.
Tales and Chronicles
Jewel of the North, formerly know as vincegetorix
I'd like the concept of prestige class/paragon path to be something new. Archetypes already covers the idea of classes mix-mash or super-specialization. I'd use PrC to give some level to some things that dont have level progression in the game: races and background.
ex: someone with the guild artisan background could take the Guimaster PrC to increase the background feature and gain new features related to his increasing status within the guild.
A dwarf could take the First-born of Moradin PrC to increase his dwarf-ness, like immunity to poison, shape earth cantrip or precious metal-sense.
ex: someone with the guild artisan background could take the Guimaster PrC to increase the background feature and gain new features related to his increasing status within the guild.
A dwarf could take the First-born of Moradin PrC to increase his dwarf-ness, like immunity to poison, shape earth cantrip or precious metal-sense.
OB1
Jedi Master
I thought the UA approach to PrCs was a solid one, and I've used that design in my current campaign to create a Lycanthrope PrC for a character who was bitten by a Wereboar. The PrC allows him to gain greater and greater control over the curse as he takes additional levels in the class. Feats would not be usable as a substitute for what I was able to accomplish.
So I think there is interesting design space to be used, but I wouldn't mind at all if WotC just gave some advice, templates and rules in the AD&D book this fall and maybe one example. I do get the concern over design bloat and the poor way these were handled in 3, but that doesn't mean that every implementation of the concept is going to be a bad one. Given how much WotC has gotten right with 5e, I trust them to get this right as well.
So I think there is interesting design space to be used, but I wouldn't mind at all if WotC just gave some advice, templates and rules in the AD&D book this fall and maybe one example. I do get the concern over design bloat and the poor way these were handled in 3, but that doesn't mean that every implementation of the concept is going to be a bad one. Given how much WotC has gotten right with 5e, I trust them to get this right as well.
Gardens & Goblins
First Post
Hmm.
No.
Because: Reasons.
...each more reasonable than the last..
No.
Because: Reasons.
...each more reasonable than the last..
FitzTheRuke
Legend
Nope. Subclasses work just fine. Add feats if you want a finer customization. Do it carefully to avoid system bloat.
Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app
Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app
Rather than creating actual "levels" and specialized mechanics for Prestige Classes... I think the more sensible method would be to make Prestige Classes be entirely "story based" design, and then it tells you what existing mechanics in the game (skills, feats, multiclassing) you could select to "create" it.
It's basically the same recommendation I had when the talk about "fluffy" Fighter subclasses occurred last year. For that, it was basically "Write up the fluff of what you want-- say a Gladiator-- and talk about what the Gladiator does, what is important to it, what it focuses on... and then give a recommendation of the Battlemaster maneuvers and feats you should select to exemplify that fluff mechanically."
For Prestige Classes, it should be the same way. Come up with a story for this Prestige Class-- what does it do, who would it be important to, how does once become one-- and write up the fluff of it. Then, using multiclassing rules, skills, feats, spells and the exchange of class features as necessary (like how the spell-less ranger took out spells and replaced it with maneuvers)... create examples of how you could build the mechanics for the five levels of this Prestige Class.
The reason why this rarely happens though... is because more often that not multiclassing is used not from a story perspective but rather an optimizing one. 20th level characters are "built" to maximize their work for whatever job they are being built for at 1st level. Story progression during the campaign itself usually has nothing to do with it. A PC doesn't have Sorcerer and Warlock levels because the story worked out that a innate magical character somehow found and made a connection to some extraplanar being and made a deal for additional power during the campaign... instead, the PC has Sorcerer and Warlock levels because it was built from the beginning to have those levels to maximize their Eldritch Blast cantrip with metamagic and the like.
Usually if a PC multiclasses "mid-game" due to how the campaign just happened to play out... optimizing is the last thing that happens. And quite often the PC actually ends up being less-powerful because the levels of the new class do not necessarily "synergize" with the existing one (and indeed, the character would have been more powerful mechanically had they not multiclassed at all.) Which means that Prestige Classes of this type would not result in "power creep", because usually the character would end up less powerful mechanically (white room speaking) than they would have otherwise.
Instead though... they become optimized in another way: in the story. Story-wise they are more powerful because they gain via the fluff much more than they just get with the mechanics. Becoming a 'Lord's Alliance General' (for example) garners them more power within the story than any extra numbers they get on their sheet when they roll a die.
Prestige Classes that are there just to give out "new mechanics" cause the problems. Prestige Classes which symbolize the evolution and power of a character within the confines of the story give us a reason for their existence. So create the stories, or create the templates for individual DMs to layer them in to their own stories. And then give a few examples of how that can mechanically be presented using the current methods already available in the game.
It's basically the same recommendation I had when the talk about "fluffy" Fighter subclasses occurred last year. For that, it was basically "Write up the fluff of what you want-- say a Gladiator-- and talk about what the Gladiator does, what is important to it, what it focuses on... and then give a recommendation of the Battlemaster maneuvers and feats you should select to exemplify that fluff mechanically."
For Prestige Classes, it should be the same way. Come up with a story for this Prestige Class-- what does it do, who would it be important to, how does once become one-- and write up the fluff of it. Then, using multiclassing rules, skills, feats, spells and the exchange of class features as necessary (like how the spell-less ranger took out spells and replaced it with maneuvers)... create examples of how you could build the mechanics for the five levels of this Prestige Class.
The reason why this rarely happens though... is because more often that not multiclassing is used not from a story perspective but rather an optimizing one. 20th level characters are "built" to maximize their work for whatever job they are being built for at 1st level. Story progression during the campaign itself usually has nothing to do with it. A PC doesn't have Sorcerer and Warlock levels because the story worked out that a innate magical character somehow found and made a connection to some extraplanar being and made a deal for additional power during the campaign... instead, the PC has Sorcerer and Warlock levels because it was built from the beginning to have those levels to maximize their Eldritch Blast cantrip with metamagic and the like.
Usually if a PC multiclasses "mid-game" due to how the campaign just happened to play out... optimizing is the last thing that happens. And quite often the PC actually ends up being less-powerful because the levels of the new class do not necessarily "synergize" with the existing one (and indeed, the character would have been more powerful mechanically had they not multiclassed at all.) Which means that Prestige Classes of this type would not result in "power creep", because usually the character would end up less powerful mechanically (white room speaking) than they would have otherwise.
Instead though... they become optimized in another way: in the story. Story-wise they are more powerful because they gain via the fluff much more than they just get with the mechanics. Becoming a 'Lord's Alliance General' (for example) garners them more power within the story than any extra numbers they get on their sheet when they roll a die.
Prestige Classes that are there just to give out "new mechanics" cause the problems. Prestige Classes which symbolize the evolution and power of a character within the confines of the story give us a reason for their existence. So create the stories, or create the templates for individual DMs to layer them in to their own stories. And then give a few examples of how that can mechanically be presented using the current methods already available in the game.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
