Prestige Classes: Do you think they will happen?

[Wartex1]

The title pretty much sums it up, but do you think that PrCs will be released in 5E or just stay as archetypes for classes?

I personally believe that they won't, but if they are, that they'll be mostly off to the side, like having two archetypes or pseudo-gestalting.

[asorel]

I doubt it. Archetypes were meant to replace prestige classes completely. Multi-archetyping seems like it would be substantially overpowered, to the point of the developers not allowing it to happen.

[Daishain]

Archetypes were meant to replace prestige classes completely.
Perhaps, but they do a really pathetic job of it. Prestige classes often changed the way a character worked, not just tacked on a couple of extra abilities.

Regardless, Asorel is not wrong. The devs seem to be trying to keep things focused and simple, with truly new content being the purview of the DM. Their insistence on categorizing things many gamers consider nigh intrinsic to D&D, (from feats to dragon spellcasters among many other things) as variant rules shows that much.

An understandable approach given the way 3.5e exploded out of control, but I do wish they had kept their scope a little wider.

[Kane0]

The best I expect to see are prestige subclasses and alternate class features (eg. spell-less ranger).
Between them one should be able to get close to the the customization ability that 3.PF PrCs afforded.

[Naanomi]

I think new feats can also step in to give a 'unique feature' of an old PrC if a subclass can't seem to fill the role

[MadBear]

No I don't think they'll happen, and with that I say YAY!

I hated prestige classes, and the way they worked in 3.x. I find the archetypes to be a much better representation of what prestige classes were, and I think balancing around adding more archetypes will be far easier then it ever was with prestige classes.

[Tvtyrant]

The title pretty much sums it up, but do you think that PrCs will be released in 5E or just stay as archetypes for classes?

I personally believe that they won't, but if they are, that they'll be mostly off to the side, like having two archetypes or pseudo-gestalting.

Yeah it won't happen. In 3.5 they became a stealth fix for the terrible balance between classes, and if this becomes a problem in 5E archetypes will likely do the same thing. Inequality between archetypes will likely be the big issue this causes as the inevitable bloated caster syndrome starts to become a problem (note the DM Guide already does this with the Necromancer Cleric).

[calebrus]

Inequality between archetypes will likely be the big issue this causes as the inevitable bloated caster syndrome starts to become a problem (note the DM Guide already does this with the Necromancer Cleric).

You mean the one listed under the heading "Villainous Class Options" which is specifically named as an NPC option, wherein you need DM permission to play it?
That one?
Because I'd hardly call that "bloated caster syndrome" by any stretch.

[Kane0]

You mean the one listed under the heading "Villainous Class Options" which is specifically named as an NPC option, wherein you need DM permission to play it?


Also the fact that splat material like the Elemental Evil spells really cut down on the stuff spellcasters that pick daily from the full list can choose (Clerics and Druids). Clerics get nothing and driuds section opens by saying 'Your DM might only give you a couple of spells from here'.

Good to see they're trying to keep splatbloat/powercreep to a minimum so far.

[TheOOB]

It's possible, but I can see why WotC would be hesitant to make them. PrC's in 3.x were done very poorly.

They *could* work in 5e, but theres a number of problems to overcome:

*You have to balance them with every possible entry class
*Most players dont want character defining abilities late in their career
*Classes have many of their best abilities frontloaded which would mean PrCs would have to be weaker by comparison
*they would have to make a *lot* of PrC's, which is all book space they could be using to make other things.

[Xetheral]

Just so long as there is some class-independent way to pick up training from campaign-setting-specific IC organizations, I'll be happy. This could be feats with an IC prerequisite, extra "membership boons", or anything in a similar vein.

Differentiating organizations purely through goals works, but when there are mechanical differences too they start to feel more distinct. (Also, in my experience, players tend to remember the mechanical aspects of each organization better, so having mechanical differences helps them more quickly immerse themselves in the lore.)

[Kane0]

Just so long as there is some class-independent way to pick up training from campaign-setting-specific IC organizations, I'll be happy. This could be feats with an IC prerequisite, extra "membership boons", or anything in a similar vein.


That leads to an interesting idea. Instead of having prestige classes for organisations and factions, have them offer mechanical stuff in the form of something similar to epic boons instead (though obviously less powerful, like half-feat power level). Its plot and not class or feat related, entirely within the DMs control to give and allows defining mechanics without becoming just another option when building a character.

[ChubbyRain]

I for one am getting sick of this FF Mystic Quest ideology of D&D.

Simple is not always the right answer and I feel that archetypes are a pathetic attempt to simply diversify classes. Probably because of the huge gap between what you are allowed to do on a base level for each class, however even the Necromancer Wizard is no where near as cool as Prestige Classes like Dry Lich and Walker in the Waste.

Archetypes almost seem to be a PrC in the form of a template. There is no balance and no real clear abilities that make you fully into the class you are trying to become. It is always (Class) + (Archetype) not (Class Archetype).

All of this simplied and dumbed down classes may give you the general feel of what you want but won't give you the specific feel of what you are looking for. Even the Necro Wizard in 5e doesn't compare to the Dread Necromancer from 3e. You get the base class but you never fully get the archetype because you never get enough of it, and when you do you had to wait 18 fricken levels in order to get it. Most people won't see their third ability in the archetype and since each ability is generalize and low key... You never really get the sense you are the archetype... You are just the base class with a bit of side focus.

Eldritch Knight Fighter is Sword + Some Magic... The Swordmage from 4e was Swordmagic.

5e has a good core system and it is a shame to see it go to waste on such lazy work.

I would love to see some 3e prestige classes or some 4e paragon paths though.

[Xetheral]

That leads to an interesting idea. Instead of having prestige classes for organisations and factions, have them offer mechanical stuff in the form of something similar to epic boons instead (though obviously less powerful, like half-feat power level). Its plot and not class or feat related, entirely within the DMs control to give and allows defining mechanics without becoming just another option when building a character.

That's what I had in mind. I was thinking each organization could offer several options, to appeal to different types of builds (assuming the organization in question has sufficiently-diverse membership, anyway).

[Gwendol]

I seriously doubt it as the archetypes (and MC rules) clearly tries to cover that. Also, PrC's were terrible.

[Xetheral]

I seriously doubt it as the archetypes (and MC rules) clearly tries to cover that. Also, PrC's were terrible.

The multiclass rules and archetypes don't help much for modelling IC-organization-based abilities. If a 12th level wizard joins a mages guild that offers special training, a guild-specific archetype would be useless to her.

And while I understand that many people hated PrC's, I thought they were one of the best features of 3.5. Sure, most of the printed ones were terrible, but the concept allowed endless setting- and character-specific customization.

That being said, I think organizational boons or organization-prerequisite feats would work better with 5e's mechanics than trying to shoehorn in prestige classes.

[Gwendol]

Most of the organization-themed PrC were really, really bad. Notable exception being Zhent fighter. As you say, getting faction boons for whatever class one is playing is a much better way to handle this.

[Kane0]

That's what I had in mind. I was thinking each organization could offer several options, to appeal to different types of builds (assuming the organization in question has sufficiently-diverse membership, anyway).

Mage of the arcane order: once per extended rest you can swap out a spell prepared for another using a bonus action

Inititate of the sevenfold veil: learn a new spell that is counted in addition to normal spells known/prepped, the effect of which changes depending on what spell slot is used to cast it (1st-7th).

Hellfire Warlock: can spend a bonus action to deal extra 2d6 fire damage on a hit with an eldritch blast at the cost of 1d4 damage to yourself for each attack made.

Order of the bow initiate: if you have the extra attack feature you can forego any additional attacks to deal your level in bonus damage on your attack

Cavalier: add your proficiency bonus to your mounts AC and Saving throws

So on and so forth. Could work much better than building a 5-10 level class just to give one or two signature abilities that have to be balanced across all possible entry classes/subclasses.

[Broken Twin]

I honestly hope they don't bring prestige classes back, but if they do, I really hope they stick to them being 3-5 levels max, and preferably setting dependent.

I think organization specific abilities would be better handled with boons and fluff benefits. Other stuff can be handled by archetypes or new base classes.

[dev6500]

Prestige classes were one of the best parts of 3/3.5 to be honest. The ability to go down a base class and 5 or 10 levels in switch up your character theme was awesome. The downside of some prestige classes was the often high list of great prerequisites to qualify. I think weapon master was the one of the worst for that.

In 5e, I think archetypes currently do a limited and poor job of replicating that. But we still need to wait for a little more material before making our judgment on that.

[DanyBallon]

Prestige class should have been tied to organisation like they tried to in the first few 3.0 splat books. But I don't think they will or need to be implemented in 5e. Special boon would be an easier way to reflect appartenance and progression into an organisation.

[eleazzaar]

I for one am getting sick of this FF Mystic Quest ideology of D&D.

Simple is not always the right answer and I feel that archetypes are a pathetic attempt to simply diversify classes. Probably because of the huge gap between what you are allowed to do on a base level for each class, however even the Necromancer Wizard is no where near as cool as Prestige Classes like Dry Lich and Walker in the Waste.

Well, if you compare the level of customization you can do with the 3 5e books to the customization you could do with all the 3e books ever, yeah you might call it "pathetic". If you make a reasonable comparison instead, 3.5e PHB to 5e PHB, 5e comes out way ahead in the number of character concepts you can build, and the balance is much better too. For instance the different cleric domains give a substantially more varied and interesting alteration on your cleric than the domains did in 3.5 There's no class as pathetic as the 3.5 monk. Full casters, while still powerful don't totally overshadow the melee types like they used to.

While everyone may have a favorite PrC that isn't replicated by a 5e archetype (I have a few too), I can't deny that the average quality and balance of the Archetypes is much higher the the average for PrCs. It seems to be the strong consensus that the majority of 3.5 PrCs made your character worse, or at least did not improve it. And then there were that small handful of PrCs that offered a crazy huge boost in power. While 5e is certainly not perfectly balanced, it is much closer. The beast master Ranger is not nearly so useless as a lot of lousy PrCs.

And i expect the improved quality to continue--- it's a lot easier to keep archetypes balanced since they know exactly how the player will enter them. It may be simplification, but it is a smart simplification.


In answer to the original question: Like many other posters in this thread, i think Archetypes and Feats take the place of PrCs, and do a good job of it.

[ChubbyRain]

And i expect the improved quality to continue--- it's a lot easier to keep archetypes balanced since they know exactly how the player will enter them. It may be simplification, but it is a smart simplification.


In answer to the original question: Like many other posters in this thread, i think Archetypes and Feats take the place of PrCs, and do a good job of it.


Sorry but I can't take you seriously.

Archetypes/subclasses aren't balanced. Within a class and compared across different classes. To say otherwise is at best wishful thinking and at worst blind optimism.

They don't do a good job of replacing because they don't replace much. You get small little bits of the specific subclass/archetype spread across 18 or so levels. The current system is spread too thin. Couple that with the fact most games don't go past level 10 and most people won't even get the features that really show off the archetype/subclass.

It would be like if they took a 100 page book and turned it into a 1 page summary. The summary can't do justice to the book (no matter how good or bad the book really is).

They switched ideologies and have played the buyers. On one end they say that Macrofeats are the way to go because of bounded accuracy and balance issues but then they turn around and make prestige/paragon choice in micro choices relative to what they were before.

[MadBear]

Sorry but I can't take you seriously.

Oh good, were going to start off with you being insulting. I'm sure the rest of your post will be fine though.


Archetypes/subclasses aren't balanced. Within a class and compared across different classes. To say otherwise is at best wishful thinking and at worst blind optimism.

or, it's in fact fairly true. There isn't enough data to draw a conclusive conclusion on higher levels, but most people seem to agree the game is balanced at low levels. To state that this is obviously false, just reeks of opinion. Which would be fine if you weren't being so condescending in giving your opinion.


They don't do a good job of replacing because they don't replace much. You get small little bits of the specific subclass/archetype spread across 18 or so levels. The current system is spread too thin. Couple that with the fact most games don't go past level 10 and most people won't even get the features that really show off the archetype/subclass.

all this is just personal opinion. not fact. Many find that they do a great job of replacing prestige classes. The only reason I'm pointing out that your opinion is just an opinion, is because you've gone out of the way to insult others opinions, so I'll just point out that yours doesn't merit any additional credit, no matter how strongly you share it.


It would be like if they took a 100 page book and turned it into a 1 page summary. The summary can't do justice to the book (no matter how good or bad the book really is).

this is a complete non sequitur. The current game already offers more variety then the core set of 3.x. Instead of prestige classes, more full classes/archetypes could cover specific concepts better then the garbage that was prestige classes (which is of course my opinion).

[eleazzaar]

Archetypes/subclasses aren't balanced. Within a class and compared across different classes. To say otherwise is at best wishful thinking and at worst blind optimism.


But 3.5 PrCs are balanced??? The balance might not be perfect, but as I see it, 5e is much better ballanced.

Now that we both aren't taking each other seriously, the conversation can end, as nothing else productive can come of it.

[Mr.Moron]

I hope not. I don't need another bloated pile of mostly-similar-concepts-implemented-differently.

[Fwiffo86]

I personally think that all PrCs can rot. I didn't like a single thing about them. They were either overpowered (due to ridiculous abilities or having next to no requirements), or they were some silly idea someone thought would be neat and didn't work at all.

While the "idea" behind them is valid (Arcane archer concept is still one of my favorites), I always felt they were run badly in games. This is largely due to my experience with people "building to" PrCs, that they as characters, have absolutely no in game reason to be informed about.

I'm an oldschooler. A character doesn't immediately level when he hits his required Xp. They have to train, and practice (very similar to the Optional rule in the DMG). Which means, someone would have had to chase down someone of the PrC and get actual training (assuming they met the requirements).

PrCs were supposed to be "special" variations. Nearly unique, or area specific, or race specific, etc. Something akin to Special Forces to the Army. Not some other class to be flouted about like a base class.

Too many options statistically makes very unbalanced options. Favorable unbalanced options are always used. Instead of balance, you get 1001 options of BS that shouldn't have been there in the first place.

But then again.... I'm oldschool, and old.

[Zyzzyva]

They won't, because the system is based around different ideas, and they shouldn't, because 3.X prestige classes were silly. A level 20 character should be a level 1 character, just better in every way; characters shouldn't have to zig and zag crazily through life to become more powerful. Not that multicasting is bad; but it should come out of characterization, not crazy dippy late-3.X multiclassing.

[silveralen]

I think feats are a moire elegant solution to this, and given the fact feats are fairly powerful this edition it is much easier to make so significant changes via a feat. At least ideally. The feats do have a bit of range to them, so it might be more fair to say some feats offer this level of power.

[MrStabby]

I only ever played with the early prestige classes but I used to love them. They were characterful, gave you new options and really felt your character was developing. I really do hope they add them to the game but I hope they do a good job.

The new feats seem like they cant be prerequisites, or maybe not easily and the subclasses take up a lot of that space. Maybe, as suggested, allowing some 3 level dips in prestige classes could work well if there are enough characterful ones that fit and could be done this way.

All we need after that is templates...

[eleazzaar]

I think feats are a moire elegant solution to this, and given the fact feats are fairly powerful this edition it is much easier to make so significant changes via a feat. At least ideally. The feats do have a bit of range to them, so it might be more fair to say some feats offer this level of power.

At one point, late in the beta test, "Arcane Archer" was a feat. I'm not sure why they dropped it, obviously it at least looked at one time like something suitable. The good part of many PrCs (which usually only have a few substantially novel points anyway) should be able to be implemented as a feat or two.

[Naanomi]

They might work as an Epic progression 'sub class' if the system ever releases a supplement for that

[asorel]

They might work as an Epic progression 'sub class' if the system ever releases a supplement for that

If it comes to that, I wouldn't expect epic play to come in the form of prestige classes. 5e's design strategy tends to involve making major choices at the early levels. All skills and proficiencies are resolved at first level, and subclass specialization comes online at level 3 at the latest. There may be choices to make, but nothing that would drastically alter character identity, as prestige classes would.

[Naanomi]

If it comes to that, I wouldn't expect epic play to come in the form of prestige classes. 5e's design strategy tends to involve making major choices at the early levels. All skills and proficiencies are resolved at first level, and subclass specialization comes online at level 3 at the latest. There may be choices to make, but nothing that would drastically alter character identity, as prestige classes would.
Probably, which is why I said 'maybe'. If they did it would probably be like a list of second subclass for level 21+ existing classes; ones that didn't advance class features traditionally but added specialization options to refine a character for his epic career without adding too much raw power

[Vogonjeltz]

The title pretty much sums it up, but do you think that PrCs will be released in 5E or just stay as archetypes for classes?

I personally believe that they won't, but if they are, that they'll be mostly off to the side, like having two archetypes or pseudo-gestalting.

I'd say never. Prestige classes were interesting, but the problem they came with was that, instead of being optional fun things a DM could introduce to their characters, they became front and center critical elements supplanting classes instead of supplementing them.

Why go Wizard 20 when you could take levels in Archmage or Blood Mage instead?


I doubt it. Archetypes were meant to replace prestige classes completely.

Where did the developers say this? I mean, I hope it's true because I immensely dislike how adding them in would disrupt the balance of the game, I just want to see for myself.


Also the fact that splat material like the Elemental Evil spells really cut down on the stuff spellcasters that pick daily from the full list can choose (Clerics and Druids). Clerics get nothing and driuds section opens by saying 'Your DM might only give you a couple of spells from here'.

Good to see they're trying to keep splatbloat/powercreep to a minimum so far.

I think so long as they continue to caveat anything (or say: This is only appropriate to add in the context of your characters going on this adventure...) then it won't be a problem.

[archaeo]

I for one am getting sick of this FF Mystic Quest ideology of D&D.

Simple is not always the right answer and I feel that archetypes are a pathetic attempt to simply diversify classes. Probably because of the huge gap between what you are allowed to do on a base level for each class, however even the Necromancer Wizard is no where near as cool as Prestige Classes like Dry Lich and Walker in the Waste.

There's an argument to be made that a lot of people, myself included, were turned off by how much material you really needed to get into D&D in previous editions. I've seen numerous people talk about the 4e character builder as a necessary component for playing the game, for example, and a quick look at the 3.5 boards here and elsewhere suggest that you'll get pretty lost in the community if you're not familiar with a huge library of feats and PrC and all the other bells and whistles.

It's also, you know, still not even a year since 5e's official release.

Edited to add: also, it's worth suggesting that D&D really shouldn't be the most complicated TRPG available on the market. I think WotC would be kind of dumb to try to compete head-to-head with Paizo in the "granular and complex D20 system" market; instead, they're pretty wisely placing D&D as a comfortable, middle-of-the-road system, in between the austere simplicity of FATE and the baroque complexity of GRUPS (or, increasingly, PF).


I'd say never. Prestige classes were interesting, but the problem they came with was that, instead of being optional fun things a DM could introduce to their characters, they became front and center critical elements supplanting classes instead of supplementing them.

I figure that if they want to indulge in some prestige-esque mechanics, popping it in as an "epic level" mechanic would be totally fine. I like the idea of the "epic destinies" from 4e, for example, and basing a mechanic around that general concept might allow for some neat things at the top end of the system.

[EvanescentHero]

I doubt they will, at least not in their previous form. And I'm okay with that. The feats and archetypes add enough customization right out of the gate for me, and 5e is a very easy system to homebrew for (especially since that article about class design came out). Plus I look at builds here that use four or more classes (prestige or otherwise) and I just...I can't stand it. It's ridiculous.

As someone who skipped 4e because of reasons, did it have prestige classes?

[asorel]

I doubt they will, at least not in their previous form. And I'm okay with that. The feats and archetypes add enough customization right out of the gate for me, and 5e is a very easy system to homebrew for (especially since that article about class design came out). Plus I look at builds here that use four or more classes (prestige or otherwise) and I just...I can't stand it. It's ridiculous.

As someone who skipped 4e because of reasons, did it have prestige classes?

I never got into higher level 4e, but I understand that each class has Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies that they could take. However, as I believe these weren't shared among classes (and multiclassing doesn't truly exist in 4e), they were more like the 5e archetypes, in design if not in quantity, but activated at higher levels.

[squiggit]

I'd say never. Prestige classes were interesting, but the problem they came with was that, instead of being optional fun things a DM could introduce to their characters, they became front and center critical elements supplanting classes instead of supplementing them.

Why go Wizard 20 when you could take levels in Archmage or Blood Mage instead?

Well WoTC seems to have learned from their mistake of making one class everything another class does +1.

Or they could take it the 4e route and make them automatic and "free" supplementary packages. Like backgrounds only.. more.


However, as I believe these weren't shared among classes (and multiclassing doesn't truly exist in 4e)
4e multiclassing did let you pick another class' paragon paths though. There were also racial ones and ones with other requirements.

[JNAProductions]

I'd actually enjoy some 5 or less prestige classes. Some universalish things. Something that requires Extra Attack or Spellcasting 5th level slots or higher, something like that.

[dev6500]

While the "idea" behind them is valid (Arcane archer concept is still one of my favorites), I always felt they were run badly in games. This is largely due to my experience with people "building to" PrCs, that they as characters, have absolutely no in game reason to be informed about.

I'm an oldschooler. A character doesn't immediately level when he hits his required Xp. They have to train, and practice (very similar to the Optional rule in the DMG). Which means, someone would have had to chase down someone of the PrC and get actual training (assuming they met the requirements).

PrCs were supposed to be "special" variations. Nearly unique, or area specific, or race specific, etc. Something akin to Special Forces to the Army. Not some other class to be flouted about like a base class.

Most dnd campaigns I've been in, my character has never had a teacher. How do we assume that my lvl 1 barbarian just figures out how to get more juice out of getting angry just by stabbing stuff? Or how does your wizard or druid learn new spells out of the ether without someone to explain the concept.

In game experience is meant to loosely transfer into the skills your class gets as it levels. In 3.5, all those prestige classes have requirements that are considered the building blocks of the prc. Your Arcane archer how to more directly apply magic to his arrows by having a mixed background of magic and archery.

From what I recall, very few prestige classes were like the Special Forces of the Army and the ones that were like that specified that you needed to join the group to get the prestige class. The vast majority of the prcs were meant as ways for characters from different classes to customize some of their class abilities.

So a Ranger, fighter, or barbarian could become a weapon master and mesh with it differently, which is cool. With archetypes, you only get 1 point of access for customization. Its less cool but I will live with it.

[Xetheral]

Plus I look at builds here that use four or more classes (prestige or otherwise) and I just...I can't stand it. It's ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous, it's just a different playstyle. You find single-classed characters more believable--great! I find multiclass characters more believable.

[MeeposFire]

Well WoTC seems to have learned from their mistake of making one class everything another class does +1.

Or they could take it the 4e route and make them automatic and "free" supplementary packages. Like backgrounds only.. more.


4e multiclassing did let you pick another class' paragon paths though. There were also racial ones and ones with other requirements.

True that 4e multiclassing allowed you to take other class's paragon paths (and I do think that archetypes are the paragon paths idea redone to fit the current system in many ways) and you could apply the same concept to to archetypes if you wanted to.

Take the assassin for example. If you wanted to bring back an assassin based off of the ranger then you would create the assassin archetype (ranger) and give abilities that fit with its progression and the theme. The abilities gained could be similar or fairly different from the rogue assassin archetype (poison use probably should be kept but the assassinate ability might be changed perhaps). This would in fact allow for multiple types of assassins with some overlap but also some unique abilities which would allow you to have some creative things to happen. In this case this would bring back the 3e spell casting assassin whcih would be nice for those that liked that idea.

[Mr.Moron]

Where did the developers say this? I mean, I hope it's true because I immensely dislike how adding them in would disrupt the balance of the game, I just want to see for myself.


I don't think there is an explicit statement anywhere but the design of the things makes it hard to feel otherwise. The kind of "Variations on a theme", that was PrCs is so easily encapsulated by archetypes it's hard to imagine it wasn't an intentional design decision. Even if it wasn't, Archetypes can so easily be used to fill the PrC space as the game expands, I think anyone looking to do something PrC-like would probably stop and go "Hey wait, this can be an archetype".

[EvanescentHero]

It's not ridiculous, it's just a different playstyle. You find single-classed characters more believable--great! I find multiclass characters more believable.

Not inherently. I don't mind adding another class as long as it's done for character concept reasons and not for the mechanical benefit. I personally can't stand the optimizing playstyle and think that character choices should be made based on what your character would actually do, which I know puts me in the minority on these forums, so that's why it rankles when I see builds that require so many different classes. It's actually a big chunk of why I like 5e best--the subclasses, feats, and backgrounds make it a lot easier to make an effective representation of the character you want to play without requiring more than one extra class (most of the time).

I'm not going to jump down anyone's throat about optimizing here, so I'd prefer it if no one jumped down mine. Play the game how you want to and let others play how they like.

Now, one addition I would gladly take over prestige classes would be Pathfinder-styled hybrid classes. It always bugged me that without multiclassing, there was no way to give a ranger sneak attack, which is why I was so happy when the slayer came out. It's basically the perfect class for me.

[Fwiffo86]

PrC classes aside for a second, I do like the idea of say Prestige Feats.

Play test Arcane Archer as an example. Fits nicely into the established level system. Doesn't require reconfiguring of classes or rules. And can be taken or not at the whim of the player.

Things of this nature are a plus to the established system. Needless spells and repetitive feats to break class designed weaknesses are not.

[MrStabby]

5th Ed is simple. It is pretty low in both content and complexity. Whilst it works beautifully the number of characters you practically see are pretty limited.

Vengence Paladins are the most common Paladin, Assasin is the most common rogue, Battlemaster the most common fighter, Fiend is the most common warlock pact, Totem is the most common barbarian etc.. This, and the limited feats/weapon types (and coupled with only being able to raise stats so high) tends to make a lot of characters either within a party or between games pretty similar. I think that PrCs that allow characters to branch out in more ways would be good to break things up a bit, importantly something that forces different choices and lets people differentiate their characters mechanically.

I do think that mechanics are important as they have such a profound effect on roleplay. I just want to Yawn and walk away every time I hear about a Pyromaniac Chaotic Red dragon sorcerer.

Multiclassing already helps with this a lot. I don't want to overstate the problem but I feel that well done PrCs would help here.

[Naanomi]

Multiclassing is only problematic if you see classes as real things and not building blocks. My witch hunter doesn't see himself as a fighter/ranger/crusader; just as a warrior with particular skills and focus. Perhaps this is why all the dipping/optimization with Prestige Classes always felt 'worse' to me... A wizard can represent a lot of things, but a Alienist is a pretty set concept. If prestige classes were implemented I'd like some system to limit the mechanical temptation to jump around them... Maybe 'only one PrC', or 'once you start a PrC you have to finish it'; or even both if shorter PrCs are around

[silveralen]

Multiclassing is only problematic if you see classes as real things and not building blocks. My witch hunter doesn't see himself as a fighter/ranger/crusader; just as a warrior with particular skills and focus. Perhaps this is why all the dipping/optimization with Prestige Classes always felt 'worse' to me... A wizard can represent a lot of things, but a Alienist is a pretty set concept. If prestige classes were implemented I'd like some system to limit the mechanical temptation to jump around them... Maybe 'only one PrC', or 'once you start a PrC you have to finish it'; or even both if shorter PrCs are around

It's actually worth mentioning that one D20 system I played, spycraft, had a mechanic to help with this. Typically your first core, prestige, and master class each gave you additional benefits that you wouldn't get if you had already taken another. I think the 2nd version even disallowed multiple master classes, which were basically a type of prestige class you typically couldn't access till lvl 15, outright.

It didn't prevent hopping around, it just meant that the first level of each class was often a little less rewarding if you'd already had one of the same type.

[eleazzaar]

This, and the limited feats/weapon types (and coupled with only being able to raise stats so high) tends to make a lot of characters either within a party or between games pretty similar. I think that PrCs that allow characters to branch out in more ways would be good to break things up a bit, importantly something that forces different choices and lets people differentiate their characters mechanically.

I do think that mechanics are important as they have such a profound effect on roleplay. I just want to Yawn and walk away every time I hear about a Pyromaniac Chaotic Red dragon sorcerer.

Multiclassing already helps with this a lot. I don't want to overstate the problem but I feel that well done PrCs would help here.

Admittedly there is a limited amount of content in 5e. But why are PrCs the answer instead of just more archetypes and feats? If you look at it a certain way, and archetype is a PrC that you can qualify for in 3 levels or less, without taking a complex and silly set of prerequisites. In some ways more limited than 3.5 PrCs, but in other ways more open. And if you want content that can be added to any class, a feat serves.

[silveralen]

What I would like to see are variant base classes classes that can be mixed with existing archetypes. For example, the new ranger variant without spells can be used with either existing archetype. This creates a lot of unique possibilities for concepts. This idea of mixing archetypes is fun in pathfinder, but somewhat hampered by the fact you have to be very careful nothing overlaps when doing so, whereas 5e is set up so that you can modify one without requiring much change, if any, to the other.

I think that opens up customization in a much better way than prestige classes did.

[MrStabby]

Admittedly there is a limited amount of content in 5e. But why are PrCs the answer instead of just more archetypes and feats? If you look at it a certain way, and archetype is a PrC that you can qualify for in 3 levels or less, without taking a complex and silly set of prerequisites. In some ways more limited than 3.5 PrCs, but in other ways more open. And if you want content that can be added to any class, a feat serves.

More archetypes wouldn't help here unless they were worded very differently to the way they are at the moment. Take caster classes - of course you can multiclass but that severely reduces your power as most of your power comes from getting higher level spells. A prestiege class that lasted for say 3 levels, but was phrased to advance your spells known as well as spell slots would then be a realistic option.

The same is kind of true for martial characters. Once you have a second attack, further instances won't stack so instead of being a characterful mix of martials you remain shoehorned into a single class. Certainly there are multiclass options out there that are viable but the majority of them are all about sticking with classes to get some particular, desirable attribute of that class. By having so many characters stick in an archetype to the same point it also narrows the range of characters people will play.

More feats could maybe work, It would depend on specifics. In order to preserve the feeling of developing down a path they would have to be chained together like they were in 3rd edition (and at one every 4 levels you are pretty slow to get that feeling that sets you apart). Chaining "prestige feats" would need an extra rules paragraph but it would be no more complex than whatever rules would be needed for PrCs anyway.

[eleazzaar]

The same is kind of true for martial characters. Once you have a second attack, further instances won't stack so instead of being a characterful mix of martials you remain shoehorned into a single class.

Yeah, i see what they were trying to do, but i wonder if the rules of stacking extra attacks could have been better written to support multiclass martial/martial characters.



More feats could maybe work, It would depend on specifics. In order to preserve the feeling of developing down a path they would have to be chained together like they were in 3rd edition (and at one every 4 levels you are pretty slow to get that feeling that sets you apart). Chaining "prestige feats" would need an extra rules paragraph but it would be no more complex than whatever rules would be needed for PrCs anyway.

I guess it is up in the air weather you would call features you got by spending a feat a "feat" or "PrC", or something new ("Prestige Feat"?), if it had features that were chained to other feats, and perhaps also came on-line gradually possibly over the four levels. But especially if you want spell-casting progression to continue uninterrupted, a "Prestige Feat" seems more graceful.

[JNAProductions]

I made a prestige class (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?409635-Two-Weapon-Master-Prestige-Class-PEACH&p=19109414#post19109414) for 5E.

[Demonic Spoon]

Can someone explain any character concepts that are only possible to do with prestige classes, that cannot be performed by one of the following:

1. Modifications/feature replacements to the base class
2. Subclassing
3. Feats

[Naanomi]

Can someone explain any character concepts that are only possible to do with prestige classes, that cannot be performed by one of the following:

1. Modifications/feature replacements to the base class
2. Subclassing
3. Feats
I suspect most people's ideas of PrCs is formal, official examples of #1 there

[Xetheral]

Can someone explain any character concepts that are only possible to do with prestige classes, that cannot be performed by one of the following:

1. Modifications/feature replacements to the base class
2. Subclassing
3. Feats

Bob the Barbarian is 13th level. He just slew the dragon threatening a Templar chapterhouse, and as a reward the Grandmaster has offered to induct him into the prestigious order. In this setting, the Templars learn how to parry aimed spells and reflect them back at their caster.

1. Bob already took levels of barbarian, so modifying the class doesn't work unless the DM is willing to on the fly modify the base class specifically for Bob and swap out upcoming features for the Templars' abilities at exactly the right levels (which would effectively be creating a custom prestige class).
2. Bob already has a barbarian subclass, and cannot take a second one.
3. One could add a custom Templar-only Feat, but Bob wouldn't be able to take it for 3 more levels, assuming the campaign even lasts that long.

[Naanomi]

Bob the Barbarian is 13th level. He just slew the dragon threatening a Templar chapterhouse, and as a reward the Grandmaster has offered to induct him into the prestigious order. In this setting, the Templars learn how to parry aimed spells and reflect them back at their caster.
Sounds like a (rather powerful) boon from the DMG; which is how I would handle most 'organization' related stuff

[Xetheral]

Sounds like a (rather powerful) boon from the DMG; which is how I would handle most 'organization' related stuff

Me too. I don't think prestige classes are the way to go... I was just answering Demonic Spoon's question.

[silveralen]

Bob the Barbarian is 13th level. He just slew the dragon threatening a Templar chapterhouse, and as a reward the Grandmaster has offered to induct him into the prestigious order. In this setting, the Templars learn how to parry aimed spells and reflect them back at their caster.

1. Bob already took levels of barbarian, so modifying the class doesn't work unless the DM is willing to on the fly modify the base class specifically for Bob and swap out upcoming features for the Templars' abilities at exactly the right levels (which would effectively be creating a custom prestige class).
2. Bob already has a barbarian subclass, and cannot take a second one.
3. One could add a custom Templar-only Feat, but Bob wouldn't be able to take it for 3 more levels, assuming the campaign even lasts that long.

I've group my responses by situation, specifically which problems they address.

1/2. The obviously solution is that this technique/ability isn't unique to a babarian subclass. In fact, it makes little sense for an entire templar order to be filled with barbarians. So it could be added to one of the alternatives and multiclass.

2/3. This could be solved by allowing retraining like 4e did. Let people change previous traits when they level due to changing focus or learning new abilities at the cost of old ones.

The latter really should be in usage anyways, what if bob the beserker finds (some) inner peace via his connection to nature and wants to be a totem barbarian?

3. This is exactly the sort of situation described in ch 7 of the DMG, p231, training.

With some downtime, he can take that feat without gaining a single level, if he actually takes time to learn said feat. This is almost exactly what is being described above, being given training as a reward for a service.

[MrStabby]

I've group my responses by situation, specifically which problems they address.

1/2. The obviously solution is that this technique/ability isn't unique to a babarian subclass. In fact, it makes little sense for an entire templar order to be filled with barbarians. So it could be added to one of the alternatives and multiclass.

2/3. This could be solved by allowing retraining like 4e did. Let people change previous traits when they level due to changing focus or learning new abilities at the cost of old ones.

The latter really should be in usage anyways, what if bob the beserker finds (some) inner peace via his connection to nature and wants to be a totem barbarian?

3. This is exactly the sort of situation described in ch 7 of the DMG, p231, training.

With some downtime, he can take that feat without gaining a single level, if he actually takes time to learn said feat. This is almost exactly what is being described above, being given training as a reward for a service.

letting it be an archetype of another class doesn't help - not unless it doesn't include any aspect that doesn't stack - like extra attack.

PrCs let you have classes specifically designed to avoid duplicate features and can have features that are only balanced because you cant take them at low levels.

[BRC]

I could see them happening, but they would be less common, and serve a different purpose, than in 3.5.

In 3.5, A PRC was a specialized version of a class, or a version with a gimmick. Something like the Assassin, Shadowdancer, or Eldritch Knight. Now, that stuff is more likely to get wrapped into Archetypes or Feats. Once you took a PRC, you were unlikely to return to your base class unless the campaign went on for an extended period of time.

If Prestige Classes showed up in 5th edition, I think they will be very short (maybe 3 levels long), and be about drastically changing something about the base nature of the character. Not just a new skillset, or a focus on a gimmick. This would be stuff like "You are the wielder of a legendary weapon" or "You're some sort of Lich now", or "You've tapped into ancient elemental heritage, and are now part-elemental".
More like templates than old-style PRCs. You sink a few levels into it, to unlock it's nifty toys, then you go back to your standard class.

[Alikat]

I hope PRC's stay out of this edition. I'm happy without them and didn't like them in 3.5e. I think the archetypes are a perfectly fine replacement. I look forward to seeing more archetypes and feats added but I really don't think PRC's are needed.

[Zyzzyva]

If Prestige Classes showed up in 5th edition, I think they will be very short (maybe 3 levels long), and be about drastically changing something about the base nature of the character. Not just a new skillset, or a focus on a gimmick. This would be stuff like "You are the wielder of a legendary weapon" or "You're some sort of Lich now", or "You've tapped into ancient elemental heritage, and are now part-elemental".
More like templates than old-style PRCs. You sink a few levels into it, to unlock it's nifty toys, then you go back to your standard class.

I like this idea but I don't think it goes far enough: classes are the core mechanical identity stuff: you are a fighter, or a wizard, or a fighter-wizard, and you level up in that. Legendary weapons are items, maybe with some attached templatey abilities; you're a wizard-loch or fighter-lich or wizard-fighter-lich, as indicated by slapping a template on your character; ditto for an elemental.

Small, static, feat-like templates seems more in keeping with the system (to me, at least) than very short, weird classes.

[eastmabl]

Bob the Barbarian is 13th level. He just slew the dragon threatening a Templar chapterhouse, and as a reward the Grandmaster has offered to induct him into the prestigious order. In this setting, the Templars learn how to parry aimed spells and reflect them back at their caster.

1. Bob already took levels of barbarian, so modifying the class doesn't work unless the DM is willing to on the fly modify the base class specifically for Bob and swap out upcoming features for the Templars' abilities at exactly the right levels (which would effectively be creating a custom prestige class).
2. Bob already has a barbarian subclass, and cannot take a second one.
3. One could add a custom Templar-only Feat, but Bob wouldn't be able to take it for 3 more levels, assuming the campaign even lasts that long.

It fallls outside of the purvey of the original question, but I could also see a magic item stepping in and taking this place.


Sword of Spell-Parrying (rare / very rare) (requires attunement)

When the wielder is targeted by a spell attack, this +1 long sword allows the wielder to parry the attack back at the caster.

Then, without getting too much in the fiddly bits:

- Must be an attack; cannot be a spell which requires a saving throw.
- Use reaction to parry.
- Has charged like a wand, and each use of the parry ability deducts charges equal to spell level.
- When an attack is successfully parried, the return volley uses the attack bonus of Dex + Proficiency Bonus. If the user is not trained by a Grandmaster in how to use the sword of spell parrying, he is not proficient in the "parry attack."
- Provides for +2 and possibly a +3 version of the sword at higher levels.

I think that does everything you want it to do, no?

[silveralen]

letting it be an archetype of another class doesn't help - not unless it doesn't include any aspect that doesn't stack - like extra attack.

PrCs let you have classes specifically designed to avoid duplicate features and can have features that are only balanced because you cant take them at low levels.

The specific scenario mentioned that 3 levels to get a feat was too long to wait for said ability. Meaning more than 4 levels was a non issue in that specific example.

Why wouldn't PRC's offer a non stacking extra attack anyways? opens it up for classes that might not get one initially, doesn't boost power too high for classes that do get it.

[eleazzaar]

In answer to the original question: Like many other posters in this thread, i think Archetypes and Feats take the place of PrCs, and do a good job of it.

Based on the other comments i've read, I'm going to modify my answer. I still think the above is true, but...

I think the could add prestige classes to 5e in a way that would be good and consistent. They just would have to be very different from 3.5 PrCs in execution.

[Rowan Wolf]

While prestige classes had their uses (for many types of players) I think that the development of that system was handled poorly as the principles ideas they were working with changed greatly through the lifetime of the addition. I understand that some would say that those that are 'weak'/more poorly designed of the earlier examples were not up to a standard, but really the those few that were considered good/great were kind of rare. But then again at the beginning of the system pounce was a thing you bent over backwards to get at the end one level dip switch out a class feature.

As for 5th edition the amount of freedom that the boons and feats give (along side the training section) really allow for a lot of what I think the feel of the prestige class was intended to be about.

[MrStabby]

I think I missed out on the worst of the Prestige classes in 3rd ed.

A lot of people seem to think that most were rubbish - either thematically, or underpowered or overpowered or being too specific or too DM dependant for their abilities.

Can someone point out the good ones to me to go and look up? Things with a strong theme but that could work in any campaign setting, that you can access in a reasonable amount of time and that are powerful enough to be rewarding and let you do new things but are not so overpowered that they ruin the game for anyone else?

Based on the hate that prestige classes seem to be getting I am guessing this will take them down from about 120 to about 4.

[Xetheral]

I think I missed out on the worst of the Prestige classes in 3rd ed.

A lot of people seem to think that most were rubbish - either thematically, or underpowered or overpowered or being too specific or too DM dependant for their abilities.

Can someone point out the good ones to me to go and look up? Things with a strong theme but that could work in any campaign setting, that you can access in a reasonable amount of time and that are powerful enough to be rewarding and let you do new things but are not so overpowered that they ruin the game for anyone else?

Based on the hate that prestige classes seem to be getting I am guessing this will take them down from about 120 to about 4.

Obviously, personal preference will mean such lists will vary a lot from person to person. That being said:

Arcane Hierophant
Mage of the Arcane Order
Warshaper
Enlightened Fist
Ultimate Magus
Master Thrower
Exotic Weapon Master
Deepwood Sniper
Lyric Thaumaturge
Mystic Wanderer
Seeker of the Misty Isle
Champion of Corellon Larethian
Divine Oracle
Church Inquisitor
Sacred Exorcist
Assassin
Dread Commando
Geometer
Loremaster
Master Specialist
Mystic Theurge
Nature's Warrior
Spellsword
Ordained Champion
Spellwarp Sniper
Devoted Defender
Geomancer
Holy Liberator
Halfling Outrider


You might want to try asking in the 3.5 forums too.

[eleazzaar]

Based on the hate that prestige classes seem to be getting I am guessing this will take them down from about 120 to about 4.

If I recall correctly there were close to a thousand WotC Prestige classes for 3.5. Which is one of the problems.

[Wartex1]

On DnDtools, between 3e and 3.5e, there are 825 prestige classes, not counting repeats, with a total number of classes numbering at 1036, again, not counting repeats and re-releases.