D&D 5E Prestige Classes?

[Tony Vargas]

So PrCs didn't seem to catch on after the one dip UA took. Anything that PrCs might be good for? Anyone want to see them? Not?

Feel free to discuss anything touching on PrCs. Except Warlord PrCs, of course. 'Nuff of that in other threads right now.

 

[Illithidbix]

No.

Whilst the idea of a Prestige class with roleplay led entry is pretty cool, in practice I found prestige classes to be one of the largest contributors to system bloat and optamised cookie cutter builds which I was never at all keen with.

A key issue, which perhaps could be avoided, is that the mechanical gating to Prestige Classes in 3E and co. would often require you to plan ahead with the character, from level 1.

Prestige Classes were designed so that they were balanced at the lowest possible level they could be entered.
Which is of course sensible.
But meant they were often somewhat underwhelming when entered at higher level.
Which is not a problem in every game of course.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

There is a design space for prestige classes, but it is a very tricky space to get into, and once into not unintentionally fall out of.

In general, I like the approach for prestige classes in the Scarred Lands Player's Guide; there are some which are only two levels and are more like a "super feat" when taken by the sort of character that would typically take them, and some which have a few more levels to them (but not more than 5) that further emphasize a particular feature of the sort of character that would typically take them at the expense of other features. And all of them include in-character story elements as requirements rather than just mechanical bits (which I think is important because any mechanical bits that don't have story stuff attached to them are probably best incorporated as additional choices within already existing classes).

However, even in the relatively small set of prestige classes in that book (there are 6), there are things which aren't really all that great because of how the multi-classing rules work. Such as a prestige classes which are clearly intended for spell-casting classes to take, which end up with results like the Tattoo Adept prestige class adding tattoo-themed powers to a bard, sorcerer, warlock, or wizard, in exchange for being 1 or 2 levels delayed in picking up your higher-level spells known/prepared - which could easily turn a player's attitude from "sounds cool" to "hmm, I dunno..."

 

[Dualazi]

I've said elsewhere I support the sensible inclusion of them, since there are some concepts like Kensei that really don't need to be tied to a specific class and instead should be available to a broader range of interested parties. The catch is that you have to make them good without being so good they obsolete the base classes, which is a tricky line to walk. I also like them as thematic tie ins; the purple dragon knight is probably one I would have preferred as a prestige class, since I feel like the majority of the time you're going to have to refluff that one unless you're actually playing in Cormyr.

As for prerequisites, I'm not really sure they're necessary at all. Just say you need at least 5 levels in a base class and call it good. By their nature prestige classes would be so focused in purpose that I don't think you'd have to worry about it too much.

 

[Leatherhead]

I'm going to go with no.

Realistically, PrCs did only three things:

• Get most of the powers of a Base Class with an additional hyperspecialized powerset.
• Combine Two Base Classes progression, sometimes with a theme, because the normal multiclass rules tended to suck.
• Give a mechanical framework for some RP focused abilities that was of questionable practical use, and tended to make a character that is worse than if they had just stuck to the base class and actually roleplayed out that kind of stuff.

Subclasses fill the majority of the niche that was once occupied by PrCs. They provide both specialization and RP abilities. If the devs had coordinated the core classes powers by level better, they could have even had subclasses that plugged into multiple different base classes, and totally filled the niche for the RP PrCs that made you into a "knight of the campaign setting" or whatever.

Multiclass rules are perhaps some of the best they have ever been in regards to lower level abilities, spells, and powers being useful at high levels. Making the twofor PrCs obsolete or way to powerful to even consider.

There are still some small gaps, but given the way that the devs have set up subclasses, feats are now the best place to clean up what little bit of PrCs aren't accounted for. You want to cast spells via runes? Take the "runecaster" feat that lets you do that for every class that can cast spells. It's not like you were planning on doing it at level 1 anyway, and feats are now like an entire feat tree: Giving out three or four related abilities, more than enough to account for an entire PrC's worth of progression.

 

[ccs]

In general I like the idea of PrCs, but I'm not impressed with their mechanics in 3x/PF. And I don't think those mechanics would fit 5e particularly well.
To be fair, I haven't gotten around to reading the UA on them. so who knows, maybe Wizards came up with something I'll like better this time....

 

[Mouseferatu]

Nope. I think they would do more harm than good, and I'd much rather see the design space filled with themed feats and subclasses.

 

[Li Shenron]

So PrCs didn't seem to catch on after the one dip UA took. Anything that PrCs might be good for? Anyone want to see them? Not?

I don't feel a strong need for PrCls, but I would have no problems with them.

Their main usefulness would be to represent progressions of special abilities that are supposed to be available to all classes.

Subclasses can represent progressions, but only for a single class.
Feats are available to all, but they don't represent progressions.
Feat chains can represent progressions and be available to all, but will be largely spaced in terms of level.

So overall PrCls can be useful in 5e to open up new mechanical and concept opportunities (but the Runecaster in UA was a bad example, because it could be much more easily be implemented as 1-2 feats).

I think the fear of PrCls is irrational (in fact, if they published PrCls in 5e with a different name such as "kits" or "themes", many PrCls-haters will probably go like "woot! kits are back!" or "these new themes-thing are great"). It was not the mechanic of PrCls that damaged 3e, it was the publishers decision to fill the market with thousands of them to milk the cows (how many of those who cry today against PrCls, were the same people that kept asking for more PrCls in the 3e era?). That just cannot happen in 5e with the ultra-slim publishing scheme.

 

[Eubani]

PrC's strike me as something that you can use that would fit in any class so as to not be a subclass to a single class. For example anyone could be a diplomat regardless of class so instead of a lets say Bard Subclass you could have it as a PrC for any class.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Subclasses are pretty much Prestige Classes now. Look at the Purple Dragon Knight from SCAG. That's a prestige class dressed up as a subclass.