5E Prestige Classes

[JNAProductions]

So (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?426347-Mystic-Theurge-Prestige-Class) there's (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?409657-Protection-Master-Prestige-Class) a (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?409635-Two-Weapon-Master-Prestige-Class-PEACH) lot (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?409698-Dueling-Master-Prestige-Class) of (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?410608-Prestige-Classes) homebrew (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?410684-Blade-Knight-Sub-Classes) Prestige (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?414410-Eberron-Prestige-Classes) Classes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?426168-Blazing-Champion-Prestige-Class) for (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?426273-Frostrager-Prestige-Class) 5th Edition, but what are people's thoughts on official Prestige Classes, or the use of Homebrew Prestige Classes?

[ThermalSlapShot]

I could see prestige classes making a return as a type of multiclassing.

[Nifft]

I think that Prestige Classes ended up selling a lot of 3.x books, and WotC likes selling books, so I assume that PrCs will come back around the time core book sales start to decline, if not earlier.

I think that making them an aspect of the optional rules about multi-classing is very sensible.

[Submortimer]

I think that Prestige Classes could fill a specific niche, and should be used for that purpose. A lot of 3.5 was hampered by the fact that, to play your character concept, you needed to get to level X and pick up X level in X prestige class first. This has been alleviated by Subclasses to a great extent, so if prestige classes are to come back, they should be HIGHLY specific, and story driven: We don't need a "Duelist" prestige class, but "Arakanian Swordmaster" would work.

[JNAProductions]

Actually, Duelist is one of the niches that isn't filled super well. There is no benefit to using a one-handed weapon and no shield. The only person who might do that is a Rogue, and that's because they lack proficiency in shields.

I do agree, though, that a lot can be covered by subclasses rather than Prestige Classes. (Despite being the author of about half those prestige classes myself.)

[Chaosvii7]

I wouldn't be opposed to the idea, but I'm afraid that archetypes have nudged PrC's too far out of the limelight for them to be able to get back in. Unless they replaced ASI's/Feats or worked like the old bard(a very specific set of multiclass levels which in turn grants you alternate abilities at certain points; essentially using a build off of this website with special benefits for doing so). A big deal of PrC's were that they were for specialization on a scale that Archetypes eventually for. Of course it eventually drifted away from that a bit in that some PrC's made or broke classes, either becoming staples or getting buried in splatbooks that weren't worth their actual investment.

They've moved away from the concept of 1) loads of book-specific content that players can't get a hold of IRL if they can't afford it, and 2) making meaningful characters over 20 levels in ways that don't require obnoxious bookkeeping or optimization to get it to work. Two things which made PrC's both very successful AND sell a lot of books. With the Elemental Evil Player's Companion, they made it clear(at least in my opinion) that they want at least their player options to be plentiful and available semi-regularly at no cost. Unearthed Arcana suggests that they want to make splatbooks, but I wouldn't be surprised if even segments of campaign settings or other splatbooks would still be available online for free like the Elemental Evil Comapnion.

That said their Psionics playtest looks promising, so if they can bring new life to the idea of a system of specialized subclasses or multiclasses then sigh me up. I'm just saying that their design philosophy kind of nipped this idea in the bud, at least from the traditionalist mentality that prestige classes were founded on(more content without unnecessary class bloat).

[CyberThread]

https://diaryofadepressed20something.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/stop-trying-to-make-jif-happen-its-never-going-to-happen1.jpg


Goes totally against the sub-class system. To many balance issues for the current system also.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Goes totally against the sub-class system.

Except that it doesn't. You could use it to give classes a second "sub class" that will allow classes to further customize themselves.

[Chaosvii7]

Except that it doesn't. You could use it to give classes a second "sub class" that will allow classes to further customize themselves.

Which is fine, but I have to agree that it would either require a brand-new subsystem or it'd run the risk of feeling very clunky to have two archetypes.

Perhaps it could work if the prestige classes were special generic archetypes; things that multiple classes can qualify for(possibly at different levels or what have you) that succeed your regular archetype or perhaps replace ASI's/feats. I'm sure there's a way to make it work, but it couldn't heavily disrupt the archetype system or else it really kind of just turns it back into 3.5 IMO.

[ProphetSword]

I thought I read that the developers had nixed the idea of doing prestige classes for 5th Edition. If that's true, there will likely never be official prestige classes.

[djreynolds]

Awesome topic, I just posted on this.

I don't want change the archetypes or their flavor. I would just like something that augmented the class a little. I would propose that any class could get a prestige class and it would be at 10 or 11th level. In your new progression you would still be your class but your new class feature would change.

Say a paladin becomes a demon killer, and any can become one, at 11th level he gets 1d8 radiant damage vs everyone, now upon selecting demon killer, he would get 1d12 vs demons and devils, and against others he'd get 1d4 or 1d6 instead of 1d8.

A battlemaster, upon reaching tenth, becomes a defender lets says, he's still a battle master but he can choose two new maneuvers that are more specialized and defensive, but he loses out on choosing other maneuvers.

So anyone can become a dragonslayer. A druid or mage or monk, doesn't matter and even ranger and their class features are changed only. Still get spells. A wizard dragon slayer is not going to get more attacks, he just gets spell options that kill dragons easier. A hunter gives up his volley for something more specialized and dangerous to dragons, but he's still a ranger and is not learning what the monk would get if he chose the dragonslayer.

[JNAProductions]

The issue is, that requires either ridiculously universal abilities, or twelve seperate sets of abilities. At that point, that's not one class, that's twelve.

It is a good idea, though.

[djreynolds]

The issue is, that requires either ridiculously universal abilities, or twelve seperate sets of abilities. At that point, that's not one class, that's twelve.

It is a good idea, though.

I just cannot think of anything that doesn't blow things out of proportion. Say a fighter became a Harper, a champion say, he would lose remarkable athlete and would get a social skill bonus instead, half proficiency in those skills and maybe he had to take linguist feat as well to qualify. You're still a fighter and you don't have lose that, you're just better now at espionage that at physical skills. You're not a rogue or bard, but you can you pose as a guard in the evil army as you investigate or gather info, its easier for a fighter to pose a fighter, that's your niche.

[JNAProductions]

I meant you need a Fighter class, a Monk class, a Rogue class, a Wizard class, a... So on and so forth.

The idea itself is sound. Just a butt-ton of work.

[djreynolds]

I think for now it would be just a reasonable homebrew. But that's the dilemma. And you're right, its a lot of work. And I have no clue how multi classing would work. Perhaps just a list of class features you could choose at the expense of your own and "buyer beware." But that would turn away players.

[Submortimer]

Awesome topic, I just posted on this.

I don't want change the archetypes or their flavor. I would just like something that augmented the class a little. I would propose that any class could get a prestige class and it would be at 10 or 11th level. In your new progression you would still be your class but your new class feature would change.

Say a paladin becomes a demon killer, and any can become one, at 11th level he gets 1d8 radiant damage vs everyone, now upon selecting demon killer, he would get 1d12 vs demons and devils, and against others he'd get 1d4 or 1d6 instead of 1d8.

A battlemaster, upon reaching tenth, becomes a defender lets says, he's still a battle master but he can choose two new maneuvers that are more specialized and defensive, but he loses out on choosing other maneuvers.

So anyone can become a dragonslayer. A druid or mage or monk, doesn't matter and even ranger and their class features are changed only. Still get spells. A wizard dragon slayer is not going to get more attacks, he just gets spell options that kill dragons easier. A hunter gives up his volley for something more specialized and dangerous to dragons, but he's still a ranger and is not learning what the monk would get if he chose the dragonslayer.

This isnt a terrible idea...somewhat like the "three tier" system used in 4e. I wouldn't even make any class give something up for it, its just something they get at a certain level in addition to their other abilities. In this case, though, EVERYONE would eventually specialize.

It'd go something like this:
Torc is a Fighter. For levels 1-2, he's just a fighter. Then, at level 3, he chooses between champion, Battlemaster, and Eldritch knight. Torc decides to be a champion. then, at level 10, he makes a new selection: what kind of champion to be. He chooses from Unbroken, Dragon Slayer, and Weapon Master(or whatever you wanted them to be).

This would add an extra layer onto the subclass system for level 10+, every character would get one, and it would create a ton of new opportunities for character bilding.

[Nifft]

Awesome topic, I just posted on this.

I don't want change the archetypes or their flavor. I would just like something that augmented the class a little. I would propose that any class could get a prestige class and it would be at 10 or 11th level. In your new progression you would still be your class but your new class feature would change.

Say a paladin becomes a demon killer, and any can become one, at 11th level he gets 1d8 radiant damage vs everyone, now upon selecting demon killer, he would get 1d12 vs demons and devils, and against others he'd get 1d4 or 1d6 instead of 1d8.

A battlemaster, upon reaching tenth, becomes a defender lets says, he's still a battle master but he can choose two new maneuvers that are more specialized and defensive, but he loses out on choosing other maneuvers.

So anyone can become a dragonslayer. A druid or mage or monk, doesn't matter and even ranger and their class features are changed only. Still get spells. A wizard dragon slayer is not going to get more attacks, he just gets spell options that kill dragons easier. A hunter gives up his volley for something more specialized and dangerous to dragons, but he's still a ranger and is not learning what the monk would get if he chose the dragonslayer.
That sounds like a feat, not a whole new class.

Seriously, pick the right tool for the job. "ME HIT DRAGONS GOOD" is not a thing which requires a whole new class.

[djreynolds]

That sounds like a feat, not a whole new class.

Seriously, pick the right tool for the job. "ME HIT DRAGONS GOOD" is not a thing which requires a whole new class.

I am by no means an expert, its just a suggestion.

I can see your point that it resembles a feat, but I guess what I mean is, every class would be styled to fight dragons, perhaps the cleric is better an elemental protection and the monk and the ranger beast master are great at harassing the enemy.

But I guess you could see it as feat and perhaps that is better, I just don't want to destroy the class itself. The post about like paragon 4e is a good idea to. But for me it is just a change of a class feature that you would normally get but slightly tweaked, not too overpowering but not the best for all situations.

Also the adventurer's league has you choose Harper, etc at the game's beginning. I'm just suggesting a subtle tweak like social skills for remarkable athlete for Harper, and maybe nature focus for the Emerald Enclave.

[eastmabl]

That sounds like a feat, not a whole new class.

Seriously, pick the right tool for the job. "ME HIT DRAGONS GOOD" is not a thing which requires a whole new class.

A feat, a magical item... the system has ways to make you cooler without having to make the system unnecessarily complicated.

[djreynolds]

A feat, a magical item... the system has ways to make you cooler without having to make the system unnecessarily complicated.

I agree. I'm just throwing out some ideas.
But the question is, if there were prestige classes how would you implement them.
I could live without them. And right now our campaign is living without feats. Its not bad, we may not even multiclass. And I'm okay with that. Perhaps were just small fishes right now and not ready for the next step, but we're growing... just into bigger meals.

[Hawkstar]

I sure as hell hope prestige classes stay dead. The need to wait 6-8 levels just to play a basic character concept is STUPID STUPID STUPID!

[RagnaroksChosen]

I am hoping they don't bring back prestige classes. I think it would add a very bad flavor to the game. (Don't get me wrong I love 3.5/PF and prc's).

I do hope that they make a lot more Class paths, and use that as the prestige class esc thing. I could see them making some Generic Paths that more then one class could take.

Or Prestige Paths or something that kick in at higher levels and replace class features. Though I don't think they will copy them I hope they take a page from PF with the alternate class features.

[Person_Man]

Prestige classes are a terrible idea, and always have been, though I personally didn't realize it until 5E.

Prestige classes encourage writers (both designers and homebrewers) to write a large number of different prestige classes, which leads to power creep, which breaks game balance and renders older material obsolete.

Prestige classes overly reward system mastery. The guy who owns more books and/or spends more time on the forums is going to have a much more powerful character then the newb who just wants to enjoy a roleplaying game.

Prestige classes encourage the idea that you need to use a class with specific crunch in order to support that fluff. If you want to be a Dragon Slayer, you do not need to take levels of the Dragon Slayer prestige class.

There are other problems as well with pre-reqs, overly specific abilities, metagaming, etc. But those are the big ones.

[djreynolds]

Prestige classes are a terrible idea, and always have been, though I personally didn't realize it until 5E.

Prestige classes encourage writers (both designers and homebrewers) to write a large number of different prestige classes, which leads to power creep, which breaks game balance and renders older material obsolete.

Prestige classes overly reward system mastery. The guy who owns more books and/or spends more time on the forums is going to have a much more powerful character then the newb who just wants to enjoy a roleplaying game.

Prestige classes encourage the idea that you need to use a class with specific crunch in order to support that fluff. If you want to be a Dragon Slayer, you do not need to take levels of the Dragon Slayer prestige class.

There are other problems as well with pre-reqs, overly specific abilities, metagaming, etc. But those are the big ones.

Fair enough. All valid points. There is enough now to make up any character concept. Thanks for setting me straight.

[Morty]

Prestige classes are a terrible idea, and always have been, though I personally didn't realize it until 5E.

Prestige classes encourage writers (both designers and homebrewers) to write a large number of different prestige classes, which leads to power creep, which breaks game balance and renders older material obsolete.

Prestige classes overly reward system mastery. The guy who owns more books and/or spends more time on the forums is going to have a much more powerful character then the newb who just wants to enjoy a roleplaying game.

Prestige classes encourage the idea that you need to use a class with specific crunch in order to support that fluff. If you want to be a Dragon Slayer, you do not need to take levels of the Dragon Slayer prestige class.

There are other problems as well with pre-reqs, overly specific abilities, metagaming, etc. But those are the big ones.

Pretty much. Prestige Classes are a fairly spectacular failure in terms of design. Most of what they allow to do can be done better using other means.

[PotatoGolem]

Prestige classes overly reward system mastery. The guy who owns more books and/or spends more time on the forums is going to have a much more powerful character then the newb who just wants to enjoy a roleplaying game.

Prestige classes encourage the idea that you need to use a class with specific crunch in order to support that fluff. If you want to be a Dragon Slayer, you do not need to take levels of the Dragon Slayer prestige class.


These two really sum most of what I had to say. Splats and overly complex systems ruin balance for new players. My last 3.5 game, the DM and I were the only ones who had played 3.5 before. I rolled the lowest stats of anyone, but my character was by far the most powerful, because I had read more books and had more system mastery. We started at level 2, and the differential between my Warforged Warblade with reasonably optimized feats and flaws (3+ splats) and the Half-orc Druid and Half-elf Bard (core only) was ridiculous. One of my favorite things about 5e is that it's relatively hard to unbalance- newbies and veterans alike can make a fun, strong character with just one book.

The other thing is that people do start to think you have to have taken the right class to call yourself something. Head of a mage's guild? Better have archmage levels. Hunt dragons? Gotta be a dragonslayer. Right now, the classes are purposefully broad, and I like that a lot. I can be a templar, or a samurai, or a jaguar warrior, or a dragon hunter, and still just be a paladin/fighter/barbarian/whatever mechanically. It's nice to have super-general fluff for classes so that you don't HAVE to take one particular path.

[LuisDantas]

I will admit that I am speaking from a distance, but Prestige Classes seemed to me to ever be at least questionable. There is basically no reason not to invent them just for immediate convenience.

They seem to work a lot like fanfic, in that desired features are simply decreed in, with little or no regard to the integrity of the rules system or the fictional world. And they sure seemed to breed like fanfic. Not a few of them are literally fanfic, as I understand it, which sort of defeats the purpose of calling it D&D as opposed to a homebrew based on D&D, IMO.

[djreynolds]

But in fairness to the question, what would you do? If there were prestige classes, how would they work without disrupting the game.

I know many are against it and every argument made has been solid, I'm convinced. But if people are making them anyhow, how do "we" regulate that, so people aren't killing the game. I loved 3.5, but it got out of hand. People just wanted characters who did everything, had every skill. I like team work, I like working as group to figure out problems. Its more than just hack-n-slash.

I hate change too, but I'm glad 5E came around because 4E lost me. When I played with 1st edition, you played a fighter cause didn't role well enough for ranger or paladin, that's the truth. You had a thief to open locks, and he was probably multi-classed demi-human as was the fighter.

So, for the sake of the game and people not ruining it with out proportion prestige classes, what could be made? Because people are making them and some are out of hand.

[LuisDantas]

But in fairness to the question, what would you do? If there were prestige classes, how would they work without disrupting the game.

It seems to me that in practice it would take some combination of strict dependency on DM approval and a balance system, probably involving mutually excludent choices from some sort of selection poll or even a full numeric points system for choosing the options. Better yet, make them tied to the game world so that they have a clear role and mechanics that arise from the society, ecology and/or culture of that world. Such characters tend to have built-in balances in the very sources of their power.

Of course, that is very much drifting apart from some of the traditional appeals of D&D, such as the somewhat charming need that you mention: that of "rolling with the rolls of the dice" and play whatever character they allow as opposed to an optimal one. Another appeal that one risks losing is that of having a nice previous expectation of the development paths of PCs and NPCs alike.

Then again, those are not necessarily problems, but rather features. As a GURPS gamer I know how difficult it is to curb the "good at everything" itch, yet being constrained in one's choices is of course not always appealling even for die-hard system fans.

[Demonic Spoon]

But in fairness to the question, what would you do? If there were prestige classes, how would they work without disrupting the game.

I know many are against it and every argument made has been solid, I'm convinced. But if people are making them anyhow, how do "we" regulate that, so people aren't killing the game. I loved 3.5, but it got out of hand. People just wanted characters who did everything, had every skill. I like team work, I like working as group to figure out problems. Its more than just hack-n-slash.

I hate change too, but I'm glad 5E came around because 4E lost me. When I played with 1st edition, you played a fighter cause didn't role well enough for ranger or paladin, that's the truth. You had a thief to open locks, and he was probably multi-classed demi-human as was the fighter.

So, for the sake of the game and people not ruining it with out proportion prestige classes, what could be made? Because people are making them and some are out of hand.

WotC is unlikely to release any prestige classes. Rather than worry about people making bad homebrew, just don't use bad homebrew.

Prestige classes as a concept don't work because it works based on multiclassing, which is a really janky way to build a character...except instead of enabling you to build a character without multiclassing, prestige classes make you multiclass more.

[aspekt]

The argument against home brew + D&D doesn't appeal to me much. I can't think of a table I played at that didn't have some homebrew. Just be sure to read and even test any homebrew before generally accepting it.

As for PrCs, why not just more subclasses? You can keep them as generic or specific as you want for your particular game.

And while I agree that powercreep is a problem, I also hold that people in general enjoy options. If they aren't offered more options they will simply create their own.

Perhaps it's time to get away from the idea that all published material is acceptable and for WotC to begin creating expansions for a large variety of game styles. That way the table picks what they want, what fits without feeling obligated to tag in material that would skew their game.

[EggKookoo]

Perhaps it's time to get away from the idea that all published material is acceptable and for WotC to begin creating expansions for a large variety of game styles. That way the table picks what they want, what fits without feeling obligated to tag in material that would skew their game.

It might be a good idea for them to make a "core" game and then various extensions that add options. That way it's easier for me, as a DM, to declare which extensions I'm allowing (if any), rather than needing to always deal with the individual bits themselves.

[Hawkstar]

It might be a good idea for them to make a "core" game and then various extensions that add options. That way it's easier for me, as a DM, to declare which extensions I'm allowing (if any), rather than needing to always deal with the individual bits themselves.

And then everyone yells at you for not liking Psionics/ToB and refusing to let players play them.

[Nifft]

As for PrCs, why not just more subclasses? You can keep them as generic or specific as you want for your particular game.


Yeah, this is working for me so far.

I don't have any particular objection to the idea of PrCs, but so far I haven't seen any concrete need for them. The existing tools in 5e seem to be sufficient so far.


And then everyone yells at you for not liking Psionics/ToB and refusing to let players play them.

Heh. I'm already banning core stuff, like the Wild Mage Sorcerer, which has no place in the current campaign.

[EvilAnagram]

Heh. I'm already banning core stuff, like the Wild Mage Sorcerer, which has no place in the current campaign.

The only thing in the core books that's begging for a ban is Wish.

[djreynolds]

I get everyone hates prestige classes. I don't see much there either.

But right now I'm at work, shirking my duties and I rather talk about this than here anything else about my co-worker's dog and his upcoming neutering.

I could see something to go along with organizations you pick at the game's beginning. Harper, emerald enclave, etc. Perhaps even a team work benefit. The spell-less ranger is a nice alternative.

I really like 5e, so far its D&D's best system. Reminds me a lot of the original, but still has the number crunching. I like pulling out the old graph paper and drawing out the dungeon and realizing just how off I was and that in real life I'd probably be the skeleton that you guys are looting.

[EggKookoo]

And then everyone yells at you for not liking Psionics/ToB and refusing to let players play them.

I have zero problem with this. If I'm going to run a game with and without certain features, that's my choice. If my players don't like that, then we don't play. There's no point in running a game I don't want to run any more than there's a point for players to play in a game they don't want to play.

I game with a core group of four people, plus some more come-and-go types. Of that core group, three of us are also GMs (and we all play in each others' games). So I'm lucky in that a have strong GM representation among my players. We all understand how much work it is to GM and we all cut each other considerable slack when it comes to adjudicating and ruling, and when we want to experiment with rules or streamline or heavily homebrew or whatever.

If one of my group wanted to run a D&D game with psionics, I'd certainly consider playing in it because I don't need to deal with them as a barbarian or rogue or whatever class I ended up using.

[Sindeloke]

As for PrCs, why not just more subclasses?

Suppose I have a magic-hating religious organization that conveys special training on its initiates, teaching them ways to disrupt active spells, defend themselves against magic to a degree even mundane monks would envy, and track or identify casters no matter where they hide. There's too much in the package here to put in a single feat, and many of the abilities gained are helpful against non-magic enemies, so the game balance would simply break if the player didn't give up some of their normal progression to collect this faction's perks.

Now, I can go ahead and write out five different subclasses with slightly different abilities coming at slightly different times, all with a different degree of power based on how much each character is getting from their base class chassis and what level the abilities are coming at, in order to allow any martial character (monk/rogue/fighter/barbarian/spell-less ranger) to be a member of this faction. That sounds like an obscene amount of work. Or, I could write out a single five-level class progression, available at a specific level, and only have to worry about balancing its abilities against itself and the general power level expected of that particular five levels. That sounds much more reasonable.

3.path PrCs were broke as hell because the requisites were broke as hell, and all of them were worried about preserving a specific base class, so when you wanted to make a class based around dragon-riding you had to actually make like seven classes based around dragon-riding and have one advance your paladin smites and one advance your cleric spells and one advance your bard songs and sneak attack and whatever, and all of them required a certain - usually nearly totally random - assemblage of useless feats and skill ranks that really didn't have anything whatsoever to do with whether it made sense to be able to take the PrC. None of that is fundamental to the concept of a PrC, which is simply: a mini-class that represents a set of specific skills that are base-class agnostic, too small and specialized to warrant 20 levels of investment, and too broad to be packed into a single feat, feat chain, or boon.

There's no reason 5e can't support or wouldn't benefit from such a thing. In fact it would do so much better than 3.path did, because 5e subsystems generally play better with each other than 3.path subsystems did so it's not crippling to your concept or performance to lose a few levels of your base class' signature shtick in favor of something different.

[EggKookoo]

Maybe PrCs should be packaged as setting-specific, rather than added as core.

So we'd have PrCs meant to go with Ravenloft, PrCs meant to go with Forgotten Realms, PrCs meant to go with Greyhawk, etc. Not that you couldn't use a Greyhawk PrC in your FR campaign, but by associating them with specific settings it reinforces the idea that PrCs exist mainly to provide context to the character, rather than to function merely as additional pew-pew.

[djreynolds]

Maybe PrCs should be packaged as setting-specific, rather than added as core.

So we'd have PrCs meant to go with Ravenloft, PrCs meant to go with Forgotten Realms, PrCs meant to go with Greyhawk, etc. Not that you couldn't use a Greyhawk PrC in your FR campaign, but by associating them with specific settings it reinforces the idea that PrCs exist mainly to provide context to the character, rather than to function merely as additional pew-pew.

That's what I said. If you're in forgotten realms, and playing for the Harpers you could change out a class feature for an exchange. Tough to keep track of?!?!? Do you know how many D&D books I have? My kid has to take loans for school.

I understand the arguments vs prestige classes. But if people are doing it.... I say profit from it and don't allow cheese builds, because I'm lactose intolerant.

[Mr.Moron]

I dislike the idea. Most of what Prestige classes could do can be done with sub-classes. Things that can't be done with sub-classes could probably be done with feats with strong prerequisites.

[EggKookoo]

That's what I said.

Minds, alike, thinking, something like that.

[Dralnu]

I'd rather just have more subclasses and feats.

I just don't see the advantage of the PrC system. Subclasses add the thematic layering that PrC's traditionally did -- berserker, arcane trickster, shadow monk -- but without the need for requirements, multiclassing, all that messy stuff. If "duelist" isn't currently supported, you could make a new feat that grants you advantages to fighting one-handed without a shield, or make a subclass that fits (rogue swashbuckler missed out here).

I think multiclassing, subclasses, and feats/spells can cover anything a PrC did in the past while throwing out the needless complexity and power creep.

[ImperiousLeader]

It does seem to me, that there are better ways to skin this particular cat. A combination of multiclassing, more subclasses and more feats could model most of what prestige classes provide.

I have been debating the idea of "Prestige Feats", feats that are more powerful than regular feats, but have more prerequisites, and are mutually exclusive, ie. Only One Prestige Feat. (Or perhaps split into two feats, an Initiate and Adept Feat, but you can only have one type of prestige feat.) They can model a lot of prestige classes, Arcane Archer used to be a feat, for example.

[Dralnu]

I would caution against more powerful feats. Monsters are not designed around feats at all.

I've already had to throw the CR system out the window once my PCs reached mid level and discovered the wonders of GWM/sharpshooter. If anything, some existing feats could use a nerf.

[aspekt]

While this certainly adds a slippery slope element, I think if my campaign needed something as specific as a mage hunter and there was no way just a core or sub class could handle it, I would homebrew a third tier subclass ala Final Fantasy.

It would allow a subclass to specialize further if need be. Yes, a bit like a PrC, but one that kept within the subclass mechanics.

However, I just cannot see a situation where instead my adjusting of an already existing class/subclass or even elements of the campaign itself wouldn't be preferable.

[ImperiousLeader]

Another option, I'd be tempted to do prestige classes like 4e paragon paths. So it's an added template, for a more high-powered campaign. Everyone gets a prestige class/paragon path at 8th level, and it levels up with the main class.

[eastmabl]

Suppose I have a magic-hating religious organization that conveys special training on its initiates, teaching them ways to disrupt active spells, defend themselves against magic to a degree even mundane monks would envy, and track or identify casters no matter where they hide. There's too much in the package here to put in a single feat, and many of the abilities gained are helpful against non-magic enemies, so the game balance would simply break if the player didn't give up some of their normal progression to collect this faction's perks.

Have you considered magic items? Magic items might be just what you're looking for.


ways to actively disrupt spells

The MHRO gives its initiates a magic bracers with X charges. When the wearer makes an unarmed attack against a caster or against a magical item, the monk can spend Y charges and cast dispel magic as a 3rd level spell. (May spend Y+2Z to scale the spell up to 5th level, but no higher). At dawn, the bracers regains 1dQ charges. This item requires attunement and is rare or very rare.


defend themselves against magic

The MHRO gives its initiates of a higher level a magical amulet with X charges. The amulet can be used to avoid the effects of spells, using (spell level + 1) charges. At dawn, the amulet regains 1dY charges. This item requires attunement and is either rare or very rare.


track or identify casters no matter where they hide

The MHRO gives its greatest members the rarest of goggles, which allow the wearer to see traces of the arcane in the world. The wearer can automatically detect whether a person he sees has arcane power, as determined by the ability to cast a cantrip or spell from the bard, sorcerer, warlock or wizard spell lists. Additionally, the wearer may double his proficiency bonus when using Survival to track an arcane spellcaster. Rare, requires attunement, either very rare or artifact.

... or however you want to do it. I don't think you need to make a 5 level subclass to achieve these goals when you can do the same thing with plot + magic items. Magic items are easier to balance in my opinion, and they provide 1/3 the page count in the DMG of options to utilize, reskin, beg or borrow.

[Nifft]

Suppose I have a magic-hating religious organization that conveys special training on its initiates, teaching them ways to disrupt active spells, defend themselves against magic to a degree even mundane monks would envy, and track or identify casters no matter where they hide. There's too much in the package here to put in a single feat

Just wondering: how is this not the Mage Slayer feat? (Which already exists and is in the 5e PHB.)

[TheOOB]

IMO, while prestige classes in 3e were a good idea conceptually, they were rarely executed correctly, but WotC kept making PrCs and feats to sell books, which is in part what lead to the brokenness of 3e.

As such, while I'm not opposed to the concept of PrC's in 5e, I kind of hope they never happen officially(though I would like to see more archtypes being release, and maybe a new class or two).

[Steampunkette]

I love the idea of prestige class feats.

Feats that you can take, whenever, and give you a specific set of benefits that either grant or alter abilities.

It jis seems like the easiest way to handle it. Especially if you make 2 or 3 feats per PrC with the previous feats, or just the base feat, as prerequisites.

[JNAProductions]

The issue is that 2-3 Feats is about all most people will ever get, and it'll leave them behind in ASIs.

[Steampunkette]

Sure. But it's a cost to offset the increased ability gain above and beyond the class they're taking.

And it is a cost that I think can offset really well. Especially since it makes humans just that much more attractive!

[Nifft]

Sure. But it's a cost to offset the increased ability gain above and beyond the class they're taking.

And it is a cost that I think can offset really well. Especially since it makes humans just that much more attractive!
Also Fighters.

Obviously that means that Fighters can have the most prestige.

[Steampunkette]

They can have the highest stat bumps and special ticks, so sure! Most Prestige, too!