D&D 5E With the reintroduction of PrCs which are on your 'must see' list?

[Li Shenron]

For specialty priests I could actually see specialty domains. Rather than taking the knowledge domain a priest could take the Mystra/dweomerkeeper domain, it may even just be a current domain which is modified to diferentiate it.

In general all subclasses can work great for representing specializations, the only problem is their fixed starting level, even more in the case of domains since they have to be chosen at 1st level. So they are really not very good to represent an "elite/prestige" group... if the Mystra's Dweomerkeeper are supposed to be an elite group that only the best can enter, then using a domain to represent it means that you enter it at 1st level, so you must be a 'chosen' since the start, but it can't happen later on in the campaign, and it can't be based on story requirements...

Unless you consider one of these options:

- a domain that can be taken later in the campaign and replaces the starting domain: for example you have the regular Knowledge domain, then at some point in the story you are invited into the Dweomerkeepers and gain their specialty domain, but lose the Knowledge domain. This requires some ret-conning, but we already have a precedent in the game (the Paladin Oathbreaker).

- not a full domain but rather substitution levels i.e. some specific features that will replace the benefits of your current domain and/or base class features, at specific levels

 

[Delazar]

I would also really like Prestige Classes to have absolutely NO connection with existing classes. Or better, to be something that can be added to EVERY class.

I really think they could be used to introduce things like Vampirism, or campaign setting related stuff like Dragonmark Scion, or Bloodlines from the Birthright Setting. Maybe even Spellfire from Forgotten Realms.

Could also be a good way to play monstrous races (Giants, Ogres, Trolls, etc.)

 

[JediGamemaster]

Because of this, I think specialty priests PrCls would be good only if they don't require you to be a Cleric. If everybody can become a Sworddancer or Dweomerkeeper, then they can be great PrCls. If they are supposed to be Cleric-only, then I think substitution levels will be much better.

that's why I like the idea of becoming a chosen... a fighter picked by a god or war, a wizard for a god of magic, or with a really good story the reverse....

I played an Incantatrix for almost 2 years in a City of the Spider Queen campaign, and it was one of my favourite characters. But honestly it felt more like a fix/boost for the Sorcerer, which was the only class to be nerfed by 3.5 while everybody else was beefed up. And I think it will be a bad idea to let non-Sorcerers gain access to metamagic in 5e. To the contrary, I would want more metamagic options for the Sorcerer to be designed.

I have seen wizard and see no reason one can't be made like the rune guy with there own spell casting so a fighter or monk could pick it up...

Loremasters as in the original 3e DMG are a bad idea as a PrCl,

I disagree (although excustion could use some tweeking

But the original PrCl had almost nothing of its own. Bonus feats and skill proficiencies are opposite of 'prestigious'. Really, you can't design a PrCl in 5e that just gives you 'more' of something you can get anyway from the basic rules. It will be a huge waste of design effort, and can only be exploited or ignored. And if you don't find more than 2-3 unique abilities to represent a concept, then you should totally avoid the PrCl mechanic and just do it with feats.

a class built around expertise (like bard and rogue) but also built with lots of ability score/feats (like fighter) with some unque lore abilities (maybe things like diviner) and d6's for hd could be really cool.

 

[Celebrim]

Banning all PrC's was my first 3e house rule. It remains to this day my least favorite 3e mechanic, and the one I most blame on 3.X's ultimate self-dismantling through power creep, rules bloat, mechanical diversity, multiple ways to do the same thing, and an inappropriate MMORPG like focus on character advancement as the main point of the game.

 

[JediGamemaster]

I really think they could be used to introduce things like Vampirism, or campaign setting related stuff like Dragonmark Scion, or Bloodlines from the Birthright Setting. Maybe even Spellfire from Forgotten Realms.

all great suggestions... anything that gets birthright off the back burner and front and center is gold in my book

 

[Li Shenron]

that's why I like the idea of becoming a chosen... a fighter picked by a god or war, a wizard for a god of magic, or with a really good story the reverse....

If it happens at 1st level (like with domains) I hate it. It makes the PC special even compared to other PCs, without having to earn it.

I have seen wizard and see no reason one can't be made like the rune guy with there own spell casting so a fighter or monk could pick it up...

The reason is that metamagic is the main thing that makes Sorcerers unique, and they don't even have much of it. If you start having feats or other stuff granting metamagic to other spellcasters, then you seriously hurt the Sorcerer's identity. It's similar to having a feat which grants the Sorcerer a spellbook into which copying spells like a Wizard.

The Runecaster is not a problem, nobody can use runes out of the box, so the idea is fair to everyone.

I disagree (although excustion could use some tweeking

a class built around expertise (like bard and rogue) but also built with lots of ability score/feats (like fighter) with some unque lore abilities (maybe things like diviner) and d6's for hd could be really cool.

There are already two classes like that, and they are exactly the Bard and the Rogue. The Fighter doesn't really get "lots of feats", only 1 more than Rogue and 2 more than everybody else. Bard and Rogue get expertise and are free to select knowledge skills with that. What is missing is unique lore abilities (that aren't once again just more feats and skills...), but we don't really need a whole class for them, we need a feat or two.

That's why I am against a Loremaster PrCl. The original one in 3e had nothing unique, all its features were just extra skills, feats, languages, spells or flat bonuses. The closest thing to being unique was a copy of Bardic Knowledge. If you can think of at least five unique lore-based abilities then you can definitely build a 5-levels prestige class. Otherwise it's wasted effort, one or two feats can do a better job.

 

[Knight_Marshal]

I would love to see a PRC designed around making a thrown weapon character more viable. I have been longing to make my Gnome or Halfling dagger/dart thrower based off the Columbian from Desperado live.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would prefer them to be Prestige Classes in name only. Back in the day, Prestige Classes were essentially "Super-Classes" or "Combo-Classes". Unlearning what we know about them from previous editions, and instead replacing them with alternate "sub-classes" or specializations that would fit into multiple Base Classes.

That doesn't sound like a PrC mechanic, at all. Actually, it sounds more like a 'Theme' - any class can take it, it lets you swap out existing class abilities for 'theme' abilities.

The problem is that sub-classes aren't consistent when it comes to how much of the class is in the base class vs under the sub-class. Each Theme would need to specify how it interacted with each class, individually. (In another thread, I was pushing the pro-5e idea that 5e could handle any concept from prior editions, I guess I might have just found an exception. Annoying.)

For example: If you want to be good at riding a horse (or dragon, whatever) in combat, that is theoretically something that multiple classes could benefit from. Horses are not well suited for typical dungeon crawls, so branching it off into one of these new Prestige classes would be an ideal fit for people who want to run a game about Mongols or the equivalent.

How would that work, though? You give up several levels of you main class? That's a big sacrifice for some horseback (or even dragonback) riding lessons.

OK, or feats, sounds more like a feat, then....

 

[Tony Vargas]

I've been trying to think of prestige classes that I'd like to see in 5e but can't think of any specifically, it has been a while since I've looked through 3e though. I'm actually wondering if the Warlord would be a good fit for a prestige class.

A PrC could work for Warlord concepts that don't seem 1st-level appropriate. For instance, any character can start as a Soldier and have military rank, so a 1st level Warlord who's a battlefield-commissioned veteran or a fresh-out-of-the-academy lieutenant is totally doable at 1st, but a high military rank who commands a large force or holds a castles is completely inappropriate - at high level, a PrC that represented that kind of thing could work. So Warlord as a prestige class, no, but Warlord-appropriate PrCs, like a Marshal, Border Lord, or General of Cormyr, could be very appropriate - and open to Fighters and perhaps other classes, as well.

 

[the Jester]

Ur-Priest.

I totally agree on this one. It's actually really hard to represent with the existing classes. Warlock is probably the closest match, and it's pretty far off.

Warlord

That might work. *ponders*

I really think, for me, it has to be a concept you just can't do with other existing mechanics. I see no need for any of the multiclass-patch classes, since the multiclassing rules themselves seem pretty well patched to me in 5e, for instance. If you can do it with existing classes, subclasses and feats, leave it out. If it only applies to a single class, then it should be a subclass option or feat instead of a prestige class.

In the rare cases where you have something that you can't otherwise build and that doesn't fit into a subclass or feat, then we can talk about it.

All IMHO, of course.

I can think of a couple that qualify. I'd like to see an alienist, a defiler, a green star adept, and a cavalier, for instance; I think all of those could be used across a wide swath of classes. The blighter is a tricky one, as it's totally druid-focused but anti-druidic. I'm not sure how to handle that one.