Unearthed Arcana - Prestige Classes and Rune Magic

[obryn]

Yep. I called it months ago when I said that 3e and 5e were super similar in class structure. I was basically told I was crazy and it would never happen. But lookee here.

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/prestige-classes-and-rune-magic

[Demonic Spoon]

Link (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/prestige-classes-and-rune-magic)

I've got to say I'm surprised - I didn't expect to see prestige classes coming back, and I didn't really want to. That said, the way they're doing this seems interesting and I hope I end up changing my mind.

Of note is that the runes also function as an expanded selection of magic items, as the simple rune properties are usable by anyone.

[pwykersotz]

Incredibly lame. I will not be using them.

[Yorrin]

Link (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/prestige-classes-and-rune-magic)

I've got to say I'm surprised - I didn't expect to see prestige classes coming back, and I didn't really want to. That said, the way they're doing this seems interesting and I hope I end up changing my mind.

Of note is that the runes also function as an expanded selection of magic items, as the simple rune properties are usable by anyone.

I agree with everything you just said. In fact, I was just getting on to create this thread myself and say the same thing.

One thing I find interesting about this previewed prestige class is that it actually feels weaker than most base classes, as opposed to 3.5 where you usually prestiged for increased power. It really is specifically for people who are obsessed with the new runes.

Speaking of the runes- I actually really like the way they've been implemented, as well as the example runes presented. I'd be quite happy to see an expanded list of non-elemental runes.

[pwykersotz]

Wait... How is this interesting? It's a carbon copy of 3.5's prestige classes. And sure, the first one is "under powered", but this is the gateway to awfulness. I pray it never leaves unearthed arcana.

[obryn]

I'll close the other thread.

I hate to say I told you so (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?377733-Prestige-classes-in-5e), but ... wait, no. I love saying I told you so, who am I kidding? :smallbiggrin:

[Belac93]

I'm glad prestige classes have come back. I also like the rune scribe. I think it's cool that you need NPCs to actually advance.

[pwykersotz]

I'll close the other thread.

I hate to say I told you so (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?377733-Prestige-classes-in-5e), but ... wait, no. I love saying I told you so, who am I kidding? :smallbiggrin:

I'm hoping that it gets enough negative feedback that it never gets published. Until then it doesn't count!

Edit:
I mean, why even bother to do this? Subclassing already fills the role of Prestige Classes, allowing specialization while still advancing. Prestige classes add needless complication when we already have the option of feats and alternate subclasses. It's nothing other than design bloat.

[Demonic Spoon]

I'm glad prestige classes have come back. I also like the rune scribe. I think it's cool that you need NPCs to actually advance.

Of note is that technically, PRCs were intended to be similar in 3.5 - something you need to perform some ingame action or meet some ingame NPC to get. In practice, it just didn't happen that way.


As always, I worry about their ability to balance PRCs. It seems like most of the abilities don't directly bonus existing class abilities, which is good, but I worry that things like Flame Stoker on a fire-based dragon sorcerer.

[Waazraath]

I don't know... I really don't miss prestige classes this edition, and in 3.x they did bad things to game balance (but so did classes, spells, items and feats). But what I do miss in 5e so far is a way to differentiate some classes. Take the monk: neither the open hand and the shadow variants have any choices to make; no spells, no fighting style, no relevant 'weapon of choice'... the only difference will be race, and maybe feats. After some time, some games, and some shadow monks, I'm afraid they'll all be sort of the same (especially in games without feats and multiclassing). A prestige class can fix that (though then again, it'll be 'variant rules' as well, prolly).

Mhhh. Thinking about it again: better don't. I'd rather see that the dev's time and effort are put in other areas.

[Yorrin]

I mean, why even bother to do this? Subclassing already fills the role of Prestige Classes, allowing specialization while still advancing. Prestige classes add needless complication when we already have the option of feats and alternate subclasses. It's nothing other than design bloat.

This is not a defense of them, yet, as I'm still not sure if I want them in my 5e, but if I had to guess at reasoning it would for something where they want to be a part of you class levels but it really doesn't fit within any single class.

[andhaira]

Wait, if you take this PrC, do you stop leveling in your base class and your base class archtype? Or do you level all these simultaneously?

Because I don't see any base spellcasting class giving up their progression to take Rune Scribe. Since it has Arcana as a pr-requisite, it will be mostly the spell casting classes in the PHB who qualify for this.

[obryn]

I mean, why even bother to do this?
Well... Pick any of the below.

(1) Because it's an easy place to create additional content.
(2) Because 5e is really an extensive mod of 3.5, so naturally...
(3) Because 5e was designed to appeal to 3.x fans, and Prestige Classes are there, so...
(4) Because it's Unearthed Arcana, and it was due today, and they needed to come up with something during the bus ride to work. :smallwink:

Let's face it, most of these Unearthed Arcana articles display less care and thought than most fan-created homebrew materials.

[EvanescentHero]

Wait, if you take this PrC, do you stop leveling in your base class and your base class archtype? Or do you level all these simultaneously?

Because I don't see any base spellcasting class giving up their progression to take Rune Scribe. Since it has Arcana as a pr-requisite, it will be mostly the spell casting classes in the PHB who qualify for this.

It works just like normal multiclassing. It says that right there in the pdf.

On top of that, literally any character can get Arcana as a background skill.

[Demonic Spoon]

Wait, if you take this PrC, do you stop leveling in your base class and your base class archtype? Or do you level all these simultaneously?

Because I don't see any base spellcasting class giving up their progression to take Rune Scribe. Since it has Arcana as a pr-requisite, it will be mostly the spell casting classes in the PHB who qualify for this.

Skill proficiency isn't actually tied to class in any meaningful way.

The biggest thing that rewards spellcasters for taking this class is the spell slots to scale up some of the rune abilities - but then again, blowing a high-level slot on those rune abilities doesn't actually seem worthwhile, so that's probably not a big deal.

[pwykersotz]

This is not a defense of them, yet, as I'm still not sure if I want them in my 5e, but if I had to guess at reasoning it would for something where they want to be a part of you class levels but it really doesn't fit within any single class.

Yeah, they seem to by trying to split the difference between a feat and a new base class. Unfortunately they added 0 protections (the prereqs are weak) against cherry-picking prestige class options to break things. I'm not convinced that because this single one doesn't initially appear (I've only read it over once myself) to be broken, that clever combos won't emerge that are as bad as some of the brokenness of core.


Well... Pick any of the below.

(1) Because it's an easy place to create additional content.
(2) Because 5e is really an extensive mod of 3.5, so naturally...
(3) Because 5e was designed to appeal to 3.x fans, and Prestige Classes are there, so...
(4) Because it's Unearthed Arcana, and it was due today, and they needed to come up with something during the bus ride to work. :smallwink:

Let's face it, most of these Unearthed Arcana articles display less care and thought than most fan-created homebrew materials.

You're right about the quality of Unearthed Arcana so far. My main worry is that valuable design space will be taken up by these prestige classes, giving us less depth to existing systems and more useless complexity.

[tgva8889]

The flavor of this add-on is way more interesting than the mechanical parts, which are mostly not super interesting.

[pwykersotz]

The flavor of this add-on is way more interesting than the mechanical parts, which are mostly not super interesting.

Which is, of course, the worst part. The flavor IS great, and if it had been a feat, a base class, or a subclass, it would have been awesome. That the mechanics bring back baggage of the worst sort just makes me frustratedly sad.

[Demonic Spoon]

Which is, of course, the worst part. The flavor IS great, and if it had been a feat, a base class, or a subclass, it would have been awesome. That the mechanics bring back baggage of the worst sort just makes me frustratedly sad.

Keep in mind you can use the runes as-is as magic items without having to use the prestige class.



Since the thread is starting to fill up with prophecies of doom, let's all remember that this is all playtest content - they want to see how the community feels about it. There's no guarantee it will be published, especially if everyone who dislikes it says as such in the feedback form.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Because I don't see any base spellcasting class giving up their progression to take Rune Scribe. Since it has Arcana as a pr-requisite, it will be mostly the spell casting classes in the PHB who qualify for this.

As mentionned, because of the background options, any class could easily get the Arcana skill. I was thinking, on account of the the Intelligence and Dexterity requirements, that Rune Scribes would come mainly from Wizards, Dex-based Edritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters.

Regarding the UA itself, it's interesting, but I'm not sure I'm on board with the concept of Prestige classes, and the Rune Scribe I don't like in particular because of it's dependence on magic items.

[EvanescentHero]

It's interesting, but I'm not sure I'm on board with the concept of Prestige classes, and the Rune Scribe I don't like in particular because of it's dependence on magic items.

You need one to start the class, and after that you can attune to master runes without having them once you hit second level. Considering you need the DM's approval and involvement to start any prestige class, I hardly see needing one rune to start it up as a dependence on magic items.

[Yorrin]

So, we've all been talking about PrCs, but I'd like to address the runes themselves:

Ild (Fire): The properties seem decent for your basic "I control fire" item, but nothing exceptional. The "brand" is probably the worst of all the elements, as it actually makes your attacks more likely to be resisted. It does have it uses vs creatures that resist nonmagical weapons, though. The "bolt" seems like one of the better ones: auto damage. The reroll Fire ability might appeal to those who entered via caster classes.

Stein (Earth): Creatures have to save vs getting in melee range of you? Sure, the save isn't that high, but that's a powerful effect. Probably the best non-runemaster rune on the list. The "brand" is obviously the best melee choice, and oddly enough works great with a sling. The "bolt" is probably the worst of the bunch, though the bolts in general are pretty standard for low level attack spells. Meld into Stone is fun but highly situational.

Vind (Air): The base properties are all about vertical mobility with free "flight" and feather fall. The "brand" is obviously great for ranged weapon users, and combined with Stein, oddly enough, makes Slings the weapon of choice for Rune Masters (240ft range, 25% knockdown chance? yes please!). The "bolt" is useful for ranged weapon users, as it's a "get out of my face" ability. Overall this seems like the rune for Rogue types.

Kalt (Ice): Ablative armor as an action is a pretty sweet deal. Combine with Stein for some solid tanking. The "brand" is like Ild but slightly better, since cold is resisted less than fire. Still pretty sub-par compared to Stein or Vind. The "bolt" is middle of the road. Of note- Sleet Storm that refreshes on a rest rounds out an otherwise somewhat "meh" rune into something actually worth using. Probably the third or fourth one I'd go for as a Rune Master, but not bad.

[pwykersotz]

Keep in mind you can use the runes as-is as magic items without having to use the prestige class.

Since the thread is starting to fill up with prophecies of doom, let's all remember that this is all playtest content - they want to see how the community feels about it. There's no guarantee it will be published, especially if everyone who dislikes it says as such in the feedback form.

You are right, of course. It might not be a thing, and prestige classes are undoubtedly optional. But if a book is released with 5 prestige classes in it, that's design space that's interesting and valuable. I'm fairly certain that future prestige classes won't be so easily detached from the leveling system. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to be so.

[Demonic Spoon]

You need one to start the class, and after that you can attune to master runes without having them once you hit second level. Considering you need the DM's approval and involvement to start any prestige class, I hardly see needing one rune to start it up as a dependence on magic items.

This is an important point to mention.

While 3.5 PRCs said that you should work with the DM and have some ingame mechanism for finding them, this one actually enforces that by requiring the DM to work in the mechanism by which you get access to the class. I think that might be huge in terms of limiting abuse potential.

[Yorrin]

This is an important point to mention.

While 3.5 PRCs said that you should work with the DM and have some ingame mechanism for finding them, this one actually enforces that by requiring the DM to work in the mechanism by which you get access to the class. I think that might be huge in terms of limiting abuse potential.

Great point! If they can continue to limit prerequisites in a way that absolutely cannot be met without DM assistance then PrCs remain solidly limited. Which will drive theorycrafters (like myself) absolutely crazy, but is much better for game balance.

[DireSickFish]

I like the way the prestige class is represented. It seems almost like a reward for an in game quest, something to include int he plot or a character background on. I'm not convinced it will be used that way in practice. On these forums especially you might find people recommending "Take a level in x, it will give you the best things" without any regard for meeting story based prerequisites.

I would like 5e to have more decision points in it and meaningful options you can take beyond what is already there. Prestige classes would give me this, and as a DM allow me to come up with plots for characters easily.

What I would like is outlines on -how- to make a PrC that works. The Rune Scribe is cool in that it gets a lot of very specific unique mechanics. It doesn't give me a good general idea of how to make my own.

Should they always be 5 levels or is this like other UA where they are only showing the first 5 levels of a 15th level class? Do PrC's never have ASI, or is the Living Rune just a cool stand in for it than can be replaced by ASI in other PrCs?

How do you deal with the power spike that is supposed to come at level 11 when designing a PrC? After all since entry is story based not specifically level based they may not get acess to the class until past 5 and what would be a cool class would be giving up the level 11 power to get level 6 of the PrC to get a similar spike.

[pwykersotz]

This is an important point to mention.

While 3.5 PRCs said that you should work with the DM and have some ingame mechanism for finding them, this one actually enforces that by requiring the DM to work in the mechanism by which you get access to the class. I think that might be huge in terms of limiting abuse potential.

I'm not sure I can agree with this. I totally support DM autonomy to allow or disallow classes, but including them but saying "Nope, haven't found a rune yet!" seems to be an incredibly weak form of control. The option is binary. Either they can take the class or they can't. If they can't, no harm. If they can, you introduce all the mechanical complexity of the prestige class with no added value (my opinion) compared to it being a feat or base class.

Buffet style prestige classing tends to come online when the GM handwaves the roleplay restrictions due to not wanting to be bothered, which happens a LOT. The only thing that would stop this from taking root is something like a requirement that a character can only ever take a single prestige class. But even that is frustrating.

[Maxilian]

I really like it but i hate the need for the Arcana skill (you can learn it in the middle of the campaign so it won't really be a problem, but still...)

[Maxilian]

I like the way the prestige class is represented. It seems almost like a reward for an in game quest, something to include int he plot or a character background on. I'm not convinced it will be used that way in practice. On these forums especially you might find people recommending "Take a level in x, it will give you the best things" without any regard for meeting story based prerequisites.

Noone can recommend you anything based on a "story based prerequisites" cause... is your story, you can work around those prerequisites in some way, just be creative...

always be 5 levels or is this like other UA where they are only showing the first 5 levels of a 15th level class? Do PrC's never have ASI, or is the Living Rune just a cool stand in for it than can be replaced by ASI in other PrCs?


I feel that its incomplete but i actually like it as a "Prestige class of 5 lvls" :smallbiggrin:



How do you deal with the power spike that is supposed to come at level 11 when designing a PrC? After all since entry is story based not specifically level based they may not get acess to the class until past 5 and what would be a cool class would be giving up the level 11 power to get level 6 of the PrC to get a similar spike.

I don't think it would be a problem, i'm pretty sure that's why they made the 5 lvl prerequisites (to make sure everyone get the first big power-spike (3 lvl spells / Extra attack, etc...), and the runes are pretty interesting (some way more interesting than others, but still it looks pretty nice)

[Demonic Spoon]

I'm not sure I can agree with this. I totally support DM autonomy to allow or disallow classes, but including them but saying "Nope, haven't found a rune yet!" seems to be an incredibly weak form of control. The option is binary. Either they can take the class or they can't. If they can't, no harm. If they can, you introduce all the mechanical complexity of the prestige class with no added value (my opinion) compared to it being a feat or base class.

Buffet style prestige classing tends to come online when the GM handwaves the roleplay restrictions due to not wanting to be bothered, which happens a LOT. The only thing that would stop this from taking root is something like a requirement that a character can only ever take a single prestige class. But even that is frustrating.

I think the idea is that this PRC by itself will not break anything. The concern is that this PRC in combination with other weird combinations and other PRCs could hypothetically result in something broken down the line. In most cases, if allowing PRCs in the first place, would work with the player and allow it. However, if the player is clearly trying to abuse it, it gives the DM more leeway to stop such things.


I really like it but i hate the need for the Arcana skill (you can learn it in the middle of the campaign so it won't really be a problem, but still...)


I agree with this. Furthermore, there's nothing that I can see in the fluff thus far that would require preexisting knowledge of magic. Isn't rune magic its own thing that you learn from a master? Besides, it's not like taking a level in wizard requires having Arcana proficiency.

[Ralanr]

I'm actually surprised at how much I like the idea of prestige classes in 5e now. Could make interesting fighter combos without multiclassing into other classes.

Not the best reason. But that's me.

[KorvinStarmast]

Hit Points Hit Dice: 1d8 per rune scribe level
Bad idea. 1d6 would be better for what this prestige class is.

PS: I dislike prestige classes, so in general I find this to be a disappointing development. May it die a horrible death.

All that said, the idea behind the Rune Magic is kind of neat: like a variation on Ioun Stones. I am digging way back into some old games where we used Rune Magic: I think we had it in Runequest and in Chivalry and Sorcery, but I may be confusing those two memories.

[pwykersotz]

I think the idea is that this PRC by itself will not break anything. The concern is that this PRC in combination with other weird combinations and other PRCs could hypothetically result in something broken down the line. In most cases, if allowing PRCs in the first place, would work with the player and allow it. However, if the player is clearly trying to abuse it, it gives the DM more leeway to stop such things.

Again, technically true, but let me challenge it from another angle.

Part of the reason we are not playing GURPS is for the more rigid structure of the D&D class system. Part of the reason that 5e is championed over 3.5 is because of simplicity. Adding a separate design structure that adds another series of situational fiddly bits™ serves neither of these purposes. It is especially annoying since we already have two features that allow for differing abilities to be brought into play. Feats potentially allow any class to take them, letting similar abilities be learned by anyone. Subclasses tie flavorfully into the core of your class, specializing you within that scope. Prestige classes are not only redundant to both of these structures, but they also re-introduce the leveling mini-game which, in my opinion, is a bad thing.

The flavor and versatility of the prestige class could be implemented in a LOT of ways, but this is essentially the spork of classes. We have a spoon and a fork, the spork really shouldn't be there, at least not in an official "dining environment."

[Joe the Rat]

Bad idea. 1d6 would be better for what this prestige class is.

PS: I dislike prestige classes, so in general I find this to be a disappointing development. May it die a horrible death.

That would rather screw over bards, clerics, eldritch knights, etc. Nothing about the class says arcane caster... or being a caster in the first place (though casting is implied), just "Knows Arcana". d8 is the default HD.

That's also why this isn't just an archetype: anyone with the prereqs can do this. A Sage background Barbarian with modest Intelligence investment could qualify. Pretty damn loopy and a bit MAD, but plausible (and if you're into the whole Barbarian = Vikings mindset, thematic).

Could you do most of this with a feat? Yeah. I'd make the first level of it (attune a specific rune without having it, complex rune effect access, you get a rune-making skill prof.. or two) a feat, with most if not all of the prereqs, and be done with it. Hell, with that prereq laundry list, you could pull a Deep Magic and have it grant additional tricks (more "always known" runes, free rune attunement slot) at specific character levels.

Is it underwhelming? A bit. But now you can honestly say you're a woodcarver, not a warlock. Or not just a warlock. Does that make a quick dip worth it? Probably not, and that's a good thing. Roleplay requisites aside, you wouldn't take a level of this to get a cool trick to fill out a build (which would be better served by more levels in one of your other spellcasting classes). You'd take a level of this to be a Rune Scribe, because you want those tricks. The mechanics could be punched up a bit. (I'd add something to scribe spells as lesser runes - lower cost scrolls or the like)

The thing I found coolest about the class is how they made the ASI into a specific class feature: You get a standard ASI you can reassign every long rest. It's only a +1 to your rolls here or there, but that flexibility is interesting.

I actually like the runes-as-items, and will probably steal some of these specific traits for some other items. I'd love to see more.

[Nifft]

Mark my words, this prestige class will rune your character, and may rune your game.

- - -

But seriously it's not very compelling, except for the idea that you need some hunk of elemental "rune rock" to draw magic letters.

The "rune rocks" are mildly cool, and could serve as a source or artifact focus for "prestige spells", which would entirely replace this class.

[JackPhoenix]

Since the thread is starting to fill up with prophecies of doom, let's all remember that this is all playtest content - they want to see how the community feels about it. There's no guarantee it will be published, especially if everyone who dislikes it says as such in the feedback form.

I agree. It looks like WotC is listening to their customers, at least to some degree, and every UA article was followed by survey. If the majority of respondents would be against the return of PrC's, I'm sure the designers will rethink the idea. If most people won't mind...well, they'll go with what will sell better. The fact that the amount of splatbooks will be low speaks against a PrC bloat too.

[Forrestfire]

Personally, I was hoping they'd bring back Prestige Classes and weld them to Paragon Paths. That was a much nicer way of customizing a character; you get abilities but kept being the thing you were before. A "high-power" variant that allows Paragon PrCs would be perfect for keeping it relatively simple (no need to deal with multiclassing, you just get these abilities at these levels), while still keeping the feel.

[Spacehamster]

This is how I feel prestige classes should be implemented, when you pick the p-c you continue to gain what made your original class tick as if you took a level in that class but you loose out on their other features. So as an example a wizard going into a p-c would gain spell progression and new spells as normal but not get any of his subclass perks, with a fighter he would get the extra attacks as normal, rogue sneak attack progression, barb rage improvements and so on.

Cause as it is now I can't really see any full caster take a p-c since he would loose out on level 9 spells and so on. With my system you continue on your path as a rogue but switch the perks from your rogue features into w/e p-c you picked.

[Nishant]

Honestly I'm not sure where I stand. I started in 5e, and I loved the things you could do with prestige classes. Yeah, some could be abused, but to the common player, it was a way to specialize your character and pull them away from 'Oh, I'm generic greatsword fighter #7'. No, I'm a Bloodstorm Blade now. And I feel awesome. Pathfinder and 4e seemed to have paved the way for the sub-classes via paths and archetypes, and admittedly that works pretty well, to a degree. Some subclasses are kinda pitiful without retcon or homebrew, and that's an issue in of itself. I should note I never felt the need to use the prestige classes they did have in Pathfinder; I'm perfectly happy with my grenadier or beastform Alchemist. In short, yeah, it feels like Prestige classes are already covered by the sub-classes.

On the other end, sub classes and classes were left very open and simple. I feel like the question is "Do you make a new sub-class" or "Do I make a prestige class?" If prestige classes stay at 5 levels, I find it hard to knock them so long as they are used respectfully and crafted well. In reality, WotC aren't really responsible for some players making super-omega-death-charge barbarians in 3.5 using a bunch of sourcebooks, prestige dips, and alternate abilities. Its in the same boat as to why there are so many water orc PCs despite it being a rare race, because stats. On the other end, they had SIGNIFICANT FLAWS in class structure as a whole, and that was probably the greatest folly of 3.5. Wizards, Druids, and Clerics were Godlike in their base form, while many classes struggled behind. I think we all remember 'mundanes can't have nice things'. But they fixed that for the most part in 5e, at least in my opinion.

Its a matter of taste I guess. Do you want to make a new sub-class, or do you like your current one? What are you willing to lose? This is, for the most part, an optimization forum, so things are skewed. How many people delve into high level optimization in play, in the entire scope of the game? This isn't an accusation, more of a different lens. I think there should be a level of trust in any of these games. You REALLY SHOULD talk to you DM in any edition when it comes to things that could change the story or the difficulty of the game, and respect the DM's wishes, as well as your other friend's skill levels. Once again, this feels like more of a 3.5 issue, but it may potentially become a 5e issue.

[mephnick]

I'm on the fence with Prestige Classes (leaning away from them), but Rune magic seems like a bunch of fiddly crap I don't feel like having to learn.

I don't want to be that guy who demands Core Only so short into the edition but everything they've put out since then just seems to get worse and worse.

We'll see what the finished SCAG looks like.

[Malifice]

Wow. Am I the only one that loves this?

[pwykersotz]

Wow. Am I the only one that loves this?
Gosh I hope so. :smalltongue:

But in all seriousness, what's there to love? How does it improve the game for you compared to what we have? I'm curious.

[Nishant]

Wow. Am I the only one that loves this?

Nah. The more I think about it the more I like it. I just want to stress communication if it does come out.

[Ivellius]

I like the basic idea of rune magic and a lot of the mechanics shown here, but I would have much preferred to see this as a base class on its own and a feat for anyone seeking to dabble in runic magic. Seems like it would have made more sense based on 5e's general design principles.

[SharkForce]

feels like a mechanic where you need special training from specific individuals could be handled with the boon system, i would think.

in any event, can't say i'm terribly impressed overall with this specific PrC. not sure who's supposed to take it, doesn't really look competitive with regular multiclassing, to be honest.

[Spacehamster]

feels like a mechanic where you need special training from specific individuals could be handled with the boon system, i would think.

in any event, can't say i'm terribly impressed overall with this specific PrC. not sure who's supposed to take it, doesn't really look competitive with regular multiclassing, to be honest.

That's exactly my beef with it, feels like multi classing with harder to reach requirements, my idea is let your main class "bread and butter" keep progressing when you pick PrC levels but loose out on the other perks, that way you keep the feel of your original class but switch out couple of perks.

For example Rothgar the barbarian is a level 9 barbarian, at level 10 he picks up a level of "nature mystic(made up on the spot)" a class that gives him full spell progression and spells from a selection of nature and elemental magic, he proceeds to take all 5 levels of the PrC and at level 14 he does not get the level 14 primal path feature but his rage and brutal critical is that of a 14 barb. This way you still loose something but you gain other abilities instead that adds flavor to your pc.

He is still a barbarian but with the feel of a spiritual leader of the tribe kind of barb.

[DireSickFish]

I'm far more interested in the impact introducing Prestige Classes to 5e has than this class in particular.

I like that it has a lot of prerequisites although the 13 Dex seems odd to me I can handle it. Hard level restrictions are good, 3e was way to scared to call out actual levels and instead used skill ranks and base Attack Bonus as proxy stand ins.

The abilities on the runes are cool, as are the master abilities. The ones with saving throws concern me a bit, instead of basing DC of abilities and proficiency suddenly we are basing it off spell level. And this is on abilities that are already scaling by spell level with damage.

This opens up the abilities to be used by more classes leading into the PrC while giving the advantage to those with casting levels already.

The real question is, am I going to need all of these runes? All of them use up an equipment slot until level5 which is a heavy investment. It also means any magic item you find is going to have to be weighed against having the specific rune. You are going to end up with a long list of options which is cool but it could be hard to keep track of what you have and when it's useful.

The ASI replacement is cool and it's totally worth giving up a feat for.

[Malifice]

Gosh I hope so. :smalltongue:

But in all seriousness, what's there to love? How does it improve the game for you compared to what we have? I'm curious.

It gives you cool options that are entirely and expressly DM dependent, that you can ease in one at a time (or none at all).

Don't like em? Don't use em.

I mean this thing requires DM approval and the insertion of a magic item in game to the PC ('meaning the DM has total control over when, if and how these enter his campaign if at all).

I would have no problem with inserting options for PRCs in game from time to time. You know - the PCs mentor is secretly a 'Eagle sword avenger' who offers one of the PCs special training, or the PCs find a 'magic rune' or other item and can now take levels in a item linked PrC (if they want).

Same deal if a player came to me and said he would really like an opportunity to enter a PrC. I'd consider it, and if it's ok, would let it in at my own pace as DM.

I really like it. I just hope they place a nice capstone on them to really encourage reaching the end and the PrC really becoming part of your identity.

[EvanescentHero]

Wow. Am I the only one that loves this?

I also really like this, so you're not alone. I have a character that would greatly benefit, thematically, from the runes. Meanwhile, I've always liked the IDEA of prestige classes, just not how the community handles them. So the hard-coded limits on these things, plus the fact that they are effectively more for character reasons than optimization reasons, appeals to me greatly. I always like having more options to bring my characters to life.

[obryn]

Prestige Classes in 3e were also supposed to be 100% DM-dependent.

So ... how did that end up working out again? :smallbiggrin:

[TopCheese]

Prestige Classes in 3e were also supposed to be 100% DM-dependent.

So ... how did that end up working out again? :smallbiggrin:

Perfectly?

Wait... Perfectly /s

[pwykersotz]

Prestige Classes in 3e were also supposed to be 100% DM-dependent.

So ... how did that end up working out again? :smallbiggrin:

Exactly this.


It gives you cool options that are entirely and expressly DM dependent, that you can ease in one at a time (or none at all).

Don't like em? Don't use em.

I mean this thing requires DM approval and the insertion of a magic item in game to the PC ('meaning the DM has total control over when, if and how these enter his campaign if at all).

In theory this works, but here's the problem. It takes design space. Ideas that could be fleshed out within the scope of feats, base classes, archetypes, backgrounds, or boons now have yet another chassis that needs to be accounted for. So what do you like about the prestige classes themselves?

I happen to like the idea of a Rune Crafter/Caster. But now I have to rebuild it as something else because apparently we don't have enough ways to provide features to players.


I would have no problem with inserting options for PRCs in game from time to time. You know - the PCs mentor is secretly a 'Eagle sword avenger' who offers one of the PCs special training, or the PCs find a 'magic rune' or other item and can now take levels in a item linked PrC (if they want).

Same deal if a player came to me and said he would really like an opportunity to enter a PrC. I'd consider it, and if it's ok, would let it in at my own pace as DM.

I really like it. I just hope they place a nice capstone on them to really encourage reaching the end and the PrC really becoming part of your identity.

I fully agree on this part, I just don't see any of that as intrinsic to the idea of a Prestige Class.

Edit: I don't mean to Lokiare this thing, please give me feedback if I'm going too heavy handed on my opinion here. I just feel very strongly about it and enjoy talking about it here. But I'll respectfully hold back if I'm annoying anyone.

[Nishant]

I also really like this, so you're not alone. I have a character that would greatly benefit, thematically, from the runes. Meanwhile, I've always liked the IDEA of prestige classes, just not how the community handles them. So the hard-coded limits on these things, plus the fact that they are effectively more for character reasons than optimization reasons, appeals to me greatly. I always like having more options to bring my characters to life.

This, bold for my own emphasis. I feel like I need to point out that everyone is talking about how the community handles them. If you don't think your players can handle them right, don't let them use them. Looking back, I can think of two times my DM let me Prestige jump and bump all around. For a shifter I had that completely on his bloodline, (Moonspeaker, weretouched master, bloodclaw master, etc.) And my Paladin who was slowly falling/ giving into the world Paladin to grey guard, grey guard to shadowbane inquisitor, and finally to blackguard; In the latter I gave up the character at the end of the campaign for the DM to use as a villian later on if he so chose. It's all about trust and responsibility.

[Demonic Spoon]

Prestige Classes in 3e were also supposed to be 100% DM-dependent.

So ... how did that end up working out again? :smallbiggrin:

This was addressed multiple times in this thread. You literally cannot by RAW fulfill the prerequisites of having this prestige class without the DM going out of his way to make it available. If a player comes to the table and says that he has prebuilt a fighter/rune scribe, he might as well have come to the table using some terrible homebrew from dandwiki - both are equally prohibited by the rules.



Edit: I don't mean to Lokiare this thing, please give me feedback if I'm going too heavy handed on my opinion here. I just feel very strongly about it and enjoy talking about it here. But I'll respectfully hold back if I'm annoying anyone.


This UA introduces the concept of prestige classes, so discussing the overall merits of prestige classes doesn't seem like it's Lokaireing the thread. So long as it doesn't devolve into more general edition warring I think it's fine.



In theory this works, but here's the problem. It takes design space. Ideas that could be fleshed out within the scope of feats, base classes, archetypes, backgrounds, or boons now have yet another chassis that needs to be accounted for. So what do you like about the prestige classes themselves?

I happen to like the idea of a Rune Crafter/Caster. But now I have to rebuild it as something else because apparently we don't have enough ways to provide features to players.

How would we have a concept like this without prestige classes?

-Backgrounds? Doesn't work - this concept defines a character's powers which backgrounds do not
-Epic boons? Perhaps, but epic boons come with the problem that you need to simultaneously provide them to all players to maintain balance.
-Archetypes. Could work, the problem is that subclasses need to be chosen at very low levels, which means that the concept behind the subclass needs to make sense from the perspective of a journeyman adventurer. The rune scribe requires that the player already have completed an adventure in some ancient ruin or other locale that would give them access to a master rune - making it a standard thing at levels 1-3 wouldn't work.
-Feats.

Feats are the only mechanism that I can see this working, as ability score increases are basically already slots with which you can shove in extra features not related to your main class. Rune scribe couldn't just be one feat, though - doesn't provide enough mechanical support. It would have to be a feat chain. Feat chains are fairly controversial in the same way that prestige classes are. Would you be okay with the rune scribe being a feat chain? One potential problem that it introduces is that you can only pick a feat once every 4 levels - so if you get a master rune at level 13, it's not until 16 that you can actually make use of it, and 20 until you can reach the second tier of the feat chain.

[CNagy]

I don't know how anyone honestly thought Prestige classes would never grace 5e. I'm all for them, personally.

I hope all PrCs are 5 levels long, though. It feels like the right length for something not broad enough to be a base class, too broad to be a specific class archetype, and too much to be a feat. 10-level PrCs might as well be base classes of their own; figure 10 levels worth of stuff, 5 (6, or 7) ASI levels, and 5 (4, or 3) archetype features.

[pwykersotz]

This was addressed multiple times in this thread. You literally cannot by RAW fulfill the prerequisites of having this prestige class without the DM going out of his way to make it available. If a player comes to the table and says that he has prebuilt a fighter/rune scribe, he might as well have come to the table using some terrible homebrew from dandwiki - both are equally prohibited by the rules.

This is not a central argument to my point, but I'd like to point out that options from the books have strong precedent in most games. A DM often feels honor-bound to provide access to published material (if this ever gets to that point), even if it pushes the boundaries of his campaign while still disallowing homebrew.

Obviously tables vary and you should "respect/trust/love" yadda yadda.

[Theodoxus]

It's an interesting way to insert 5 levels of a different class, without overpowering a base class (hopefully - given the WotC track record, I'm not optimistic).

5 Levels of things are easy to make, easy to keep internally balanced (see above - mixing them with core classes could be problematic) and easy to select (through in game availability) what to allow and what to discard.

I'm with Mephnick - it's fiddly crap. I didn't take the time to grok the psionics system, I'm not going to take the time to grok runes.

I don't disparage anyone who wants expanded options - It's just not my cup of tea. I was burnt on Pathfinder and their ever expanding options. Once 5E moves on to 5.5E, I'm out.

[Demonic Spoon]

This is not a central argument to my point, but I'd like to point out that options from the books have strong precedent in most games. A DM often feels honor-bound to provide access to published material (if this ever gets to that point), even if it pushes the boundaries of his campaign while still disallowing homebrew.

Obviously tables vary and you should "respect/trust/love" yadda yadda.

That's true, and I agree that it was a problem in 3.5. However, there's a difference between "allowing published material", and "designing my campaign around letting this one person get access to all of the prestige classes he needs for his weird desired build". I think it would be easier to restrict ridiculous dipping with this.


Anyway, I edited my above post pretty heavily with some ideas on how to implement this outside of prestige classing.

[obryn]

This was addressed multiple times in this thread. You literally cannot by RAW fulfill the prerequisites of having this prestige class without the DM going out of his way to make it available. If a player comes to the table and says that he has prebuilt a fighter/rune scribe, he might as well have come to the table using some terrible homebrew from dandwiki - both are equally prohibited by the rules.
...and if a campaign starts at higher levels? Many prestige classes in 3.x had similar 'organizational' entry requirements and it never slowed them down much.

I also think it's rather optimistic to assume that just because this single prestige class has such a requirement, that every prestige class will.

[pwykersotz]

How would we have a concept like this without prestige classes?

-Backgrounds? Doesn't work - this concept defines a character's powers which backgrounds do not
-Epic boons? Perhaps, but epic boons come with the problem that you need to simultaneously provide them to all players to maintain balance.
-Archetypes. Could work, the problem is that subclasses need to be chosen at very low levels, which means that the concept behind the subclass needs to make sense from the perspective of a journeyman adventurer. The rune scribe requires that the player already have completed an adventure in some ancient ruin or other locale that would give them access to a master rune - making it a standard thing at levels 1-3 wouldn't work.
-Feats.

Feats are the only mechanism that I can see this working, as ability score increases are basically already slots with which you can shove in extra features not related to your main class. Rune scribe couldn't just be one feat, though - doesn't provide enough mechanical support. It would have to be a feat chain. Feat chains are fairly controversial in the same way that prestige classes are. Would you be okay with the rune scribe being a feat chain? One potential problem that it introduces is that you can only pick a feat once every 4 levels - so if you get a master rune at level 13, it's not until 16 that you can actually make use of it, and 20 until you can reach the second tier of the feat chain.

This is very interesting to point out, and when I have a moment of design time, I'll reread the class and see how I'd implement it instead. Maybe It will alter my perspective.

[Demonic Spoon]

...and if a campaign starts at higher levels? Many prestige classes in 3.x had similar 'organizational' entry requirements and it never slowed them down much.

I also think it's rather optimistic to assume that just because this single prestige class has such a requirement, that every prestige class will.

Organizational requirements are just background fluff. Requiring access to a specific magic item is not.

Regarding future examples of PRCs: when other prestige classes show up that don't have such requirements, you can use that complaint then. Until such a time, pessimism isn't an argument against the concept presented in the UA piece.

[DireSickFish]

...and if a campaign starts at higher levels? Many prestige classes in 3.x had similar 'organizational' entry requirements and it never slowed them down much.

I also think it's rather optimistic to assume that just because this single prestige class has such a requirement, that every prestige class will.

This is a solid point. Just how many ways are there to restrict entry to a PrC? Here I see finding the rune itself to be a more unique and harder to fill entry requirement in 5e's item scares setting than finding a teacher. If we're going to end up with a wealth of PrC's we're going to have to re-use a lot of the same mechanisms for gaining entry.

Now a DM would include a "trainer" NPC for each PC wanting a PrC. And know what PrC they all want. And include them in a timely fashion so everyone can get them by level 6 or so. If you don't include one PrC teacher but include another then the PC will feel slighted.

Starting as a Rune Scribe would require the PC to start with a rare magic item. Away from book at the moment, what level dos tarting PC's move out of 1 uncommon into 1 rare magic item?

[Mr.Moron]

This improves the game about as much as diarrhea improves a vacation.

[DiBastet]

Now... if every class was designed to gain subclass abilities at the same level, this one could have been an "universal subclass" or something like that...

That said I like the idea, but only if all the following ones kept as outlier concepts related to a subsystem or something like that.

[TopCheese]

Now... if every class was designed to gain subclass abilities at the same level, this one could have been an "universal subclass" or something like that...

That said I like the idea, but only if all the following ones kept as outlier concepts related to a subsystem or something like that.

I was so disappointed in 5e when I saw that they gained subclass options at different levels... Like, talk about bashing your head I to a wall.

They could have done a 3, 7, 11, and 15 subclass options for everyone and called it a day. Maybe add in a 18th level one too.

I actually figured them not doing this was a sign of no prestige classes.

[Mandrake]

I actually had a nightmare about 5e introducing prestige classes (actually a short bad moment in a dream but you get it). And now this.

Do I qualify for Dreamweaver or something? Maybe if I take a level of Shadowtrickster Savant of An'Miraj and apply Dual-Core Background Feat...

[DanyBallon]

Even if the player could start with a high enough level and a rare magic item he'll loose somehow as he would be a class x/prc y with a prerequsite magic item, while other characters will be class x+y and might habe a more usefull magic item.
As long as the abilities of the Prc are not far more superior to the base class and habing a better magic item, it may even out in the long run.

As for allowing Prc in my home game, I wasn't sure at first, but I think that they can fill a niche that sub-class couldn't. Prc could be solution to represent concept/organisation that could be done through different build, let say the Knight of the Great Kingdom in Greyhawk, they were an order of Paladins, Blackguards, Clerics and Fighters. Going the route of sub-classes, you could either, build a sub-class for each classes, decide to assign a sub-class to only one class or do nothing and just say it's fluff. Now with prestige class you can have all these classes qualify to the Prc. You could do the same for an Arcane Archer, that could be a fighter, a ranger or a rogue...

Prcs open up new opportunities, but if not done carefully can unbalance seriously the game.

[pibby]

I for one am not a fan of Prestige Classes in the way they are presented. Maybe they can just present Prestige Classes as a way to replace any given class's subclass features. I know that wouldn't be perfect considering that:

-Classes don't present their subclass features at same levels
-Every class gets different numbers of subclass features
-Some subclass features adjust the class's DPR while others are more "flavorful" or utility based

but if they did it that way then it wouldn't mess with a class's progression system in terms of power.

EDIT: Oops, someone already beat me to that idea but I hope it's an idea people would consider instead of the way Prestige Classes work currently as...*shudders*...multiclassing.

[Demonic Spoon]

I for one am not a fan of Prestige Classes in the way they are presented. Maybe they can just present Prestige Classes as a way to replace any given class's subclass features. I know that wouldn't be perfect considering that:

-Classes don't present their subclass features at same levels
-Every class gets different numbers of subclass features
-Some subclass features adjust the class's DPR while others are more "flavorful" or utility based

but if they did it that way then it wouldn't mess with a class's progression system in terms of power.


I don't think it would work for the reasons you described. Some classes would lose a lot from prestige classing this way, whereas others would lose virtually nothing.

If you want to work it into existing progression, then feat chains would be the way to do it I think.

[TopCheese]

I for one am not a fan of Prestige Classes in the way they are presented. Maybe they can just present Prestige Classes as a way to replace any given class's subclass features. I know that wouldn't be perfect considering that:

-Classes don't present their subclass features at same levels
-Every class gets different numbers of subclass features
-Some subclass features adjust the class's DPR while others are more "flavorful" or utility based

but if they did it that way then it wouldn't mess with a class's progression system in terms of power.

EDIT: Oops, someone already beat me to that idea but I hope it's an idea people would consider instead of the way Prestige Classes work currently as...*shudders*...multiclassing.

Another issue with subclasses is how reliant the class is on the subclass for options, DPR, and fluff.

Full casters can determine their fluff with heir core feature, spells, rather than relying on the subclass. The subclass gives best little bonus stuff. A wizard who wants to be an evocation wizard doesn't need to take evocation arcane tradition, they can blast while being a diviner. The cleric is a bit weird for a full caster (but so is the rogue for a martial). A cleric that wants to be a caster, martial, or utility type doesn't really need the domains, they can do it without the domains but the domains help fill out the type of character you want to play. You don't really need to rely on subclasses, and could drop them, to have a caster that IS that subclass.

The martials however (barbarian, fighter, rogue) ARE their subclasses. Their main defining feature is being a bearbarian, battle master, or arcane trickster. They rely a lot on their subclasses. You can't remove subclasses from these classes because they lose too much (except rogue kinda).

So you have these two different types of subclasses with different degree of power and with some of them being do More fluff than crunch.... And it is a mess. A mess that we didn't really need.

A good example to show how the martials are... If wizards only had cantrips till level 3 and then started gaining 1st-whatever level spells. At level 3 the wizard would gain a specific spell list (like warmage, beguiler, dread macro from 3e) and rely more heavily on the subclass than the actual vclass.

Which I don't think is a bad idea, I just think they should have simplified and had a more coherent strategy when it came to class designs.

[ruy343]

This is so far into the thread that I doubt this will be read, but...

These sorts of powers are what the elemental monk should have been getting! (better, of course).

That is all.

[Nifft]

This is so far into the thread that I doubt this will be read, but...

These sorts of powers are what the elemental monk should have been getting! (better, of course).

That is all.

I like the cut of your jib.

[Sindeloke]

Another issue with subclasses is how reliant the class is on the subclass for options, DPR, and fluff.
...

So you have these two different types of subclasses with different degree of power and with some of them being do More fluff than crunch.... And it is a mess. A mess that we didn't really need.

Exactly. People have been talking about PrCs and how terrible the very idea is since the game launched, because "we have subclasses now," but that's basically like saying "oh I don't need a real workbench in my garage, I can just make one out of a pair of wine barrels and a surfboard." Or "why buy earthworms for my garden? I have this bowl of spaghetti right here." A superficial visual similarity does not an equivalent tool make.

Now, I still don't necessarily think 5-level PrCs are a great idea for WotC to be putting out in supplements - I think for the most part "this is an ability set any player should be able to access regardless of class or background" is a concept better served in 5e by feats and boons (there are even some in my sig). But the idea that PrCs are bad because we supposedly "already have" an equivalent, better system is just wrong. Writing four different subclasses at four different balance points for four different classes is a wildly more obnoxious and imbalance-prone endeavor than writing five levels of a single class with a single coherent set of abilities.

[Noldo]

Even though we have subclasses now, some concepts are too narrow to support an entire subclass while still too large to be represented by single feat. Some concepts can fit several chassisses so choosing the right base class could be difficult - and making shamanic druid and shamanic barbarian would either be redundant or strange.

If WOTC chooses short (5 level) PrCs, I suspect that most of them could be turned into a pair of feats. However, at least for now WOTC appears to reject feat chains and go with PrCs instead.

[pwykersotz]

Having looked over the feature a bit, I'm not convinced this needs to be anything so robust as a subclass or base class.

I would make it a magic item, with a feat to unlock complex options, possibly limited to one complex option that can be changed on a long rest. The feat would have to grant one of the runes as well. It would still require attunement.

I would eliminate the spell slot synergy, replacing it instead with 1/short or 1/long rest mechanics for the same benefit. There would be some other minor re-balancing of the options as well, but that's the main part of it.

Design goals:

Work within the existing infrastructure...check
Allow all classes equal access...check
Keep the minimum level requirements...partial check, watch out for Variant Human.



I don't see the need to introduce the following problems:

Differing Hit Die
Delay of class advancement
Benefiting casters over non-casters by introducing additional spell slot mechanics


Any agreement/disagreement? I freely admit this was still a fairly quick look.


Even though we have subclasses now, some concepts are too narrow to support an entire subclass while still too large to be represented by single feat. Some concepts can fit several chassisses so choosing the right base class could be difficult - and making shamanic druid and shamanic barbarian would either be redundant or strange.

I disagree that any concept cannot either be narrowed or expanded to encompass either of these. Heck, just looking at our Rune Scribe here shows that they've expanded beyond the norm. Which I'm fine with.

And I see nothing wrong with making a suite of "Shaman" subclasses. If you have enough to make it a new base class, that's great. If you feel that it should be a subclass for both Druid and Barbarian, that's great too. In fact, it might make for a fun time having different "Shamans" with differing strengths.

[steeldragons]

Not a fan of prestige classes. I do like they had enough sense to add significant prerequisites...though I might go a little higher in level and broader/general, i.e. "Available to Druids, Nature or Knowledge Domain Clerics, Bards, Sorcerers, Warlocks or Wizards of [say] 9th level or higher."

I do not like the idea that this is just another class that you add on and can add levels to other classes you possess as you level up. I think, once moving into a Prestige Class...you should have to stay there/be that.

I'm actually not opposed to this Rune Magic business as a subclass of its own for a Druid, Bard, or Wizard, really.

Prestige Classes in 5e, though? :smallyuk: Think I'll take a pass for now.

[Regitnui]

Personally, I like the idea of PrC's presented here. Barring an Epic Level Handbook, 20 levels are all you get. A five-level dip is a perfectly manageable exchange, as it won't leave your character a mid-level base class. A level 15 barbarian/ 5 (finalized) Rune Mage wouldn't be as focused as a level 20 barbarian, but would have a distinct feel and equal power. I do like the way they make it explicit that PrCs, like feats, are the DM's decision. That would cut down on the min/max munchkins, I think.

But. WotC shouldn't substitute PrCs for feats, races or backgrounds, all of which help to build the character better and simpler. I'd rather see "whisper gnomes" race than a "short-killer" PrC meant for small races.

A few more concepts (3.5e PrCs) I could see becoming 5e 5 level PrCs:
- Alchemist
- Beguiler
- Artificer (braces for flames)
- Extreme Explorer
- Shield Defender

Basically, things that multiple classes could do from the base (eg: Sorcerer/Wizard > Rune Mage) but others could do with a bit of planning (Barbarian/Arcane Trickster > Rune Mage).

[TopCheese]

Exactly. People have been talking about PrCs and how terrible the very idea is since the game launched, because "we have subclasses now," but that's basically like saying "oh I don't need a real workbench in my garage, I can just make one out of a pair of wine barrels and a surfboard." Or "why buy earthworms for my garden? I have this bowl of spaghetti right here." A superficial visual similarity does not an equivalent tool make.

Now, I still don't necessarily think 5-level PrCs are a great idea for WotC to be putting out in supplements - I think for the most part "this is an ability set any player should be able to access regardless of class or background" is a concept better served in 5e by feats and boons (there are even some in my sig). But the idea that PrCs are bad because we supposedly "already have" an equivalent, better system is just wrong. Writing four different subclasses at four different balance points for four different classes is a wildly more obnoxious and imbalance-prone endeavor than writing five levels of a single class with a single coherent set of abilities.

With the ideaology of "simple" one would think they would have made their overall designs simple.

I don't think subclasses are better designed than prestige classes. I actually think they both should have just been made into scaling feats that at later levels you can either take the ASI, a different feat, or your feat feature.

This way you can play a fighter who doesn't have a subclass, has a subclass, or one that eventually prestige classes. Makes it easier to balance.

If redesigning things I would say...

Level 1: Class
Level 2: ASI/Feat/MC or SC Feat
Level 3: Class
Level 4: ASI/Feat/MC or SC Feat
Level 5: Feature Everyone Gets (Extra attack, cantrip boost)
Level 6: Class
Level 7: ASI/Feat/MC, SC, or Prestige Feat
Level 8: Class
Level 9: Class
Level 10: Feature Everyone Gets (+1 Save Throw Proficiency)

Once you take a MC feat you can't take another unless you are a bard.

Once you take a Prestige Class feat you can't take another one.

One SC feat per character.

[pibby]

I don't think it would work for the reasons you described. Some classes would lose a lot from prestige classing this way, whereas others would lose virtually nothing.

If you want to work it into existing progression, then feat chains would be the way to do it I think.

The problem with making it a feat chain is that they'd have to measure each feat in the chain against +2 ASI, which I believe would limit the power of such features. Then again, the features gained from attaining levels of Rune Scribe could probably be as powerful as +2 ASI but science is needed to confirm that.


Another issue with subclasses is how reliant the class is on the subclass for options, DPR, and fluff.

Full casters can determine their fluff with heir core feature, spells, rather than relying on the subclass. The subclass gives best little bonus stuff. A wizard who wants to be an evocation wizard doesn't need to take evocation arcane tradition, they can blast while being a diviner. The cleric is a bit weird for a full caster (but so is the rogue for a martial). A cleric that wants to be a caster, martial, or utility type doesn't really need the domains, they can do it without the domains but the domains help fill out the type of character you want to play. You don't really need to rely on subclasses, and could drop them, to have a caster that IS that subclass.

The martials however (barbarian, fighter, rogue) ARE their subclasses. Their main defining feature is being a bearbarian, battle master, or arcane trickster. They rely a lot on their subclasses. You can't remove subclasses from these classes because they lose too much (except rogue kinda).

So you have these two different types of subclasses with different degree of power and with some of them being do More fluff than crunch.... And it is a mess. A mess that we didn't really need.

If we use Rune Scribe as an example to replace subclass features, then wouldn't it already be a terrible idea in the long run if the bearbarian took Rune Scribe via multiclassing anyways? Sure, he'd have a lot more options and features to play around with but he would be behind on rages per day and rage damage, FOREVER.

Multiclassing is okay for really short campaigns but those of us who run longer campaigns it turns into a trap for the player. The trap is that the player is stuck with being versatile but low powered in combat except through means of synergizing with the multiple classes by always relying on special circumstances.

I am curious about how the current way of Prestige Classing compares to normal multiclassing in 5e so I'm going to science it out and post it in this thread later.


A good example to show how the martials are... If wizards only had cantrips till level 3 and then started gaining 1st-whatever level spells. At level 3 the wizard would gain a specific spell list (like warmage, beguiler, dread macro from 3e) and rely more heavily on the subclass than the actual vclass.

Which I don't think is a bad idea, I just think they should have simplified and had a more coherent strategy when it came to class designs.

From your description I believe you are short-selling martials but I will look over that because I think it's terrible to compare classes that serve different roles.

[Ivellius]

In theory this works, but here's the problem. It takes design space. Ideas that could be fleshed out within the scope of feats, base classes, archetypes, backgrounds, or boons now have yet another chassis that needs to be accounted for. So what do you like about the prestige classes themselves?

I happen to like the idea of a Rune Crafter/Caster. But now I have to rebuild it as something else because apparently we don't have enough ways to provide features to players.

I think this is really well said and am quoting basically just to agree with it. One of the things I like about 5e is that its base system handled a number of different levels of complexity for a concept depending on what you wanted to go with.


How would we have a concept like this without prestige classes?

-Backgrounds? Doesn't work - this concept defines a character's powers which backgrounds do not
-Epic boons? Perhaps, but epic boons come with the problem that you need to simultaneously provide them to all players to maintain balance.
-Archetypes. Could work, the problem is that subclasses need to be chosen at very low levels, which means that the concept behind the subclass needs to make sense from the perspective of a journeyman adventurer. The rune scribe requires that the player already have completed an adventure in some ancient ruin or other locale that would give them access to a master rune - making it a standard thing at levels 1-3 wouldn't work.
-Feats.

I think epic boons would be fine (you can always give other players other treasures), and archetypes make sense if you assume that the class is integrated with unlocking the complex powers of the objects--you gain very simple abilities at 1st-3rd level and start to unlock some of the others later and progress your archetype. Feats would also be fine.

Personally, I would have made this rune scribe a base class, because honestly, why not? They probably didn't want to think about doing multiple archetypes for it, but it wouldn't be that difficult to think of some thematic groupings (just release what was already out as the "Elementalist" Scribe). Otherwise, it also works very well as a "power source" for class variants across the board.

[TopCheese]

From your description I believe you are short-selling martials but I will look over that because I think it's terrible to compare classes that serve different roles.

Barbarians and Evocation Wizards have the same goal, kill enemy via HP.

They are both strikers, the difference is that the wizard gains a ton of options AND they can kill with cantrips and spells WHILE getting a subclass that gives small boosts outside of what is really giving their damage and options.

The barbarian has one option outside of subclass and their primary choice in how to keep doing damage is reliant on subclass choice. The barbarian picks up frenzy or totem and that allows them to take their one option and perform their role.

This isn't a wizards are better than barbarian issue, or a balance issue at all (though it can cause balance issues), this is a fundamental ideology difference in the classes even when they have the same role or different roles.

They made two types of classes, generally speaking.

Those whose subclass abilities support their main class abilities.

Those whose class abilities support their subclass abilities.

[D.U.P.A.]

lawl they used swedish words for runes :D

[Sigreid]

I think this would be better served as a series of boons. Over all I don't think bringing back prestige classes is a good move. More classes and sub classes, sure. I think prestige class items should boons tied to faction status or something along those lines. Additional abilities that are rewards to enhance what you've already got going on.

[Cybren]

Wait... How is this interesting? It's a carbon copy of 3.5's prestige classes. And sure, the first one is "under powered", but this is the gateway to awfulness. I pray it never leaves unearthed arcana.

It seems like they're using a stricter design paradigm and are more willing to put restrictions on the prestige classes. Explicitly needing a tutor (and being capped at the tutors class levels) is a big departure from 3.5

[TopCheese]

It seems like they're using a stricter design paradigm and are more willing to put restrictions on the prestige classes. Explicitly needing a tutor (and being capped at the tutors class levels) is a big departure from 3.5

Not really a departure at all. Many 3e.5.P.Whatever prestige classes needed you to be part of an organization or do XYZ before you became a member. I'm order to join the assasins you had to kill someone for the lol, but if you don't have anyone to verify the how would they know you did it? To be a black guard you had to have peaceful contact with an evil outsider someone else summoned.

The tutor is a bit more specific but nothing new.

[pibby]

So here's the "science" that I said I'd present earlier to try and prove that Prestige Classing through multiclassing is a terrible idea.

---

So let's compare a character has 10 levels of Rogue [Char A], a character with 5 levels of Rogue and 5 levels of Wizard (Divination) [Char B], and a character with 5 levels of Rogue and 5 levels of Rune Scribe [Char C]. For this exercise we'll say that all of the characters have picked Arcane Trickster as their subtype, given that this will synergize with Rune Scribe. Also for this exercise they all have started with 16 Dex (+3) and 14 Int (+2); everything else that's a non-factor in this experiment is also the same for all the characters.

I felt that if I was going to make a fair comparison I couldn't compare something like 8 Rogue (Assassin)/2 Warlock as the representative for normal multiclassing. Besides, I've seen people make multiclass choices that just surprise me...*firmly withholds the fists of judgment*
Also I picked Divination for no particular reason except that Portents can give the Rogue
guaranteed hit.

Char A
+5d8 HD
Continued Arcane Trickster spellcasting
-one 1st level spell slots
-three 2nd level spell slots
-1 more cantrip
-3 more spells known (has all 7 spells readied)
+2d6 Sneak Attack
2nd Expertise
Evasion
2x ASI/feats
Magical Ambush

Char B
+5d6 HD
5th level Wizard spellcasting
-4 cantrips
-Up to 3rd level wizard spells
-one 1st level slot
-three 2nd level slots
-three 3rd level slots
-16 more spells known (has 4+7 spells readied)
-Ritual Casting
Arcane Recovery
Portent
ASI/feat

Char C
+5d8 HD
Proficiencies in select tools
-Calligrapher’s supplies
-mason’s tools
-woodcarver’s tools
Rune Lore
Rune Magic
-one 1st level slot
-three 2nd level slots
-three 3rd level slots
x3 Runic Discovery
Living Rune (flexible ASI)
Rune Mastery

Spells known are not listed out, as any given player could make different choices, but I may add a tentative list later if I feel that it is needed for comparison.

So what does Char A have that stands out?
-least number of spell slots
-Better DPS
-Expertise in another skill
-Evasion
-The ability to bring Dex up to 20 instead of 18 or gain a feat on top of getting Dex to 18
-When leveling beyond 10th level can continue uninterupted Arcane Trickster spellcasting progression while also gaining more sneak attack dice

What does Char B have that stands out?
-Weaker HD (5 less HP if we take the set amount of HP every time)
-Access to 3rd level spells early (ex. Haste)
-The most spell slots to work with (factoring in Arcane Recovery)
-The most spells readied and known
-Assuming no Wizards, exclusive access to ritual spells (ex. Leomond's Tiny Hut)

What does Char C have that stands out?
-stunted progression on spells known
-The ability to use Complex Properties on runes
-At 10th level can have 1 attunement to a rune to not count against the attunement limit
-can access the powers of 3 select runes without physically having them

---

From what I see taking levels in Rune Scribe is neat in that you can have access to a lot of neat passives in exchange for taking up attunement slots. So the player has to decide what magic items he wants attuned to him every day given that he gets more magic items that need attunement.

I still hold the same opinions I said earlier (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19914328&postcount=76) in the thread but I can finally see why people like multiclassing. It just hurts me inside every time I think of delayed class features, however good or terrible they may be.

[TopCheese]

Perhaps my biggest issue with the current MC system is it is so... Odd.

If I'm a environmental scientist who dabbles as a civil technician and do civil technician work I don't suddenly become a civil technician. I'm still an environmental scientist at the same time that I'm gaining skills in another job.

Feat style MC just makes more sense to me.

Edit: my phone auto corrected feat to dear...

[Strill]

I like this prestige class. In terms of power it's medium-tier. The effects are generally on-par with low-level spells. That's good for an Eldritch Knight who wants a little more variety, but bad for full casters like Wizards. Moreover, rather than increase in power as you take more runes, you mainly just increase in versatility. As a result, I think it's fine. I can't find much of a reason to dislike it.

I'm also a bit nostalgic for how similar the Runes are to the magic system in the JRPG Secret of Mana. They both give you a package of three or four spells when you unlock a particular element, no element is necessarily more powerful than another, and the abilities follow a similar pattern. It's even got an elemental weapon buff for each element.

[lordshadowisle]

I like this prestige class. In terms of power it's medium-tier. The effects are generally on-par with low-level spells. That's good for an Eldritch Knight who wants a little more variety, but bad for full casters like Wizards. Moreover, rather than increase in power as you take more runes, you mainly just increase in versatility. As a result, I think it's fine. I can't find much of a reason to dislike it.

I agree with you, the general power of this class seems bounded.

I don't particularly like the "pick from the list" type of advancement for a base class, because it advances more in versatility than power. Once you've picked the choice bits, there's not much incentive to select the others. For a base class, it disincentives you from following up in the class (see Elemental Monk, and to a lesser extent, Battlemaster) because you're getting weaker features as you level. There's a bit of this in this prestige class as well; I don't think the features are compelling enough to merit more than 1 level's investment.

[Rhaegar14]

How would we have a concept like this without prestige classes?

-Backgrounds? Doesn't work - this concept defines a character's powers which backgrounds do not
-Epic boons? Perhaps, but epic boons come with the problem that you need to simultaneously provide them to all players to maintain balance.
-Archetypes. Could work, the problem is that subclasses need to be chosen at very low levels, which means that the concept behind the subclass needs to make sense from the perspective of a journeyman adventurer. The rune scribe requires that the player already have completed an adventure in some ancient ruin or other locale that would give them access to a master rune - making it a standard thing at levels 1-3 wouldn't work.
-Feats.

Feats are the only mechanism that I can see this working, as ability score increases are basically already slots with which you can shove in extra features not related to your main class. Rune scribe couldn't just be one feat, though - doesn't provide enough mechanical support. It would have to be a feat chain. Feat chains are fairly controversial in the same way that prestige classes are. Would you be okay with the rune scribe being a feat chain? One potential problem that it introduces is that you can only pick a feat once every 4 levels - so if you get a master rune at level 13, it's not until 16 that you can actually make use of it, and 20 until you can reach the second tier of the feat chain.

I think Spoon here has kind of hit the nail on the head. Prestige Classes could be a force for good, if they are used for a pretty specific purpose: specialized training characters of multiple classes could conceivably benefit from that needs to be gated past a certain level for balance reasons, and involves too many features to be contained in a single feat.

However, I doubt that this is all we will see them be used for. Prestige Classes COULD be a good thing, but there's so much potential for them to screw up a lot of what's great about 5e that I'm not sure they're a good idea on the whole.

[Enendill]

I think Spoon here has kind of hit the nail on the head. Prestige Classes could be a force for good, if they are used for a pretty specific purpose: specialized training characters of multiple classes could conceivably benefit from that needs to be gated past a certain level for balance reasons, and involves too many features to be contained in a single feat.

However, I doubt that this is all we will see them be used for. Prestige Classes COULD be a good thing, but there's so much potential for them to screw up a lot of what's great about 5e that I'm not sure they're a good idea on the whole.

My thoughts exactly.

Apart from the fact that I'm pretty sure that IF they publish PrCs at some point in the future they will be in the basis of optional rules (as also are Feats and Multiclassing in 5e, nevermind that pretty much everyone uses them).

Yes, I was sick of the insane proportion of options in 3.x, we don't need it in 5e, BUT if people are sensible and a DM can limit down the options available to the PCs, then PrCs can work.

Me, for once, can accept PrCs if I ban multiclassing with the core classes.

[Sindeloke]

I agree with you, the general power of this class seems bounded.

I don't particularly like the "pick from the list" type of advancement for a base class, because it advances more in versatility than power. Once you've picked the choice bits, there's not much incentive to select the others. For a base class, it disincentives you from following up in the class (see Elemental Monk, and to a lesser extent, Battlemaster) because you're getting weaker features as you level. There's a bit of this in this prestige class as well; I don't think the features are compelling enough to merit more than 1 level's investment.

Depends on the list. Caster lists like warlock invocations and wizard or cleric or bard spells advance versatility and power both by an enormous amount as you level. That the lists available to martials don't scale properly doesn't make lists inherently unable to scale properly. Rune Mage strikes me as sort of in-between, like cantrips; the first one you get is the one you want most and you'll never get one you want more, but none of the ones you pick up later will be obsolete by the time you get them since they scale to your level.

[rollingForInit]

This is how I feel prestige classes should be implemented, when you pick the p-c you continue to gain what made your original class tick as if you took a level in that class but you loose out on their other features. So as an example a wizard going into a p-c would gain spell progression and new spells as normal but not get any of his subclass perks, with a fighter he would get the extra attacks as normal, rogue sneak attack progression, barb rage improvements and so on.

Cause as it is now I can't really see any full caster take a p-c since he would loose out on level 9 spells and so on. With my system you continue on your path as a rogue but switch the perks from your rogue features into w/e p-c you picked.

This would make prestige classes much more desireable for full spellcasters than completely martial characters. A Wizard who takes it from level 6 to 10 would miss out on one subclass feature and one ABI. Even if a Rogue got Sneak Attack for free (their "main" thing), they'd loose out on two core class features, one subclass feature, and two ABI's. Fighters would miss out on two ABI's, two subclass features and one core class feature. Barbarians would miss out on one ABI, two core class features, two class features.

So, no, that would be incredibly unfair. Unless you started weighing in even more features from the other classes as things they'd get anyway, but it'd get awfully arbitrary and messy. And you couldn't just say "classes get core class features but not subclass features", because not all subclasses are created equally. Some are better than others, and some classes have more features in their subclasses than others.

[Noldo]

This would make prestige classes much more desireable for full spellcasters than completely martial characters. A Wizard who takes it from level 6 to 10 would miss out on one subclass feature and one ABI. Even if a Rogue got Sneak Attack for free (their "main" thing), they'd loose out on two core class features, one subclass feature, and two ABI's. Fighters would miss out on two ABI's, two subclass features and one core class feature. Barbarians would miss out on one ABI, two core class features, two class features.

So, no, that would be incredibly unfair. Unless you started weighing in even more features from the other classes as things they'd get anyway, but it'd get awfully arbitrary and messy. And you couldn't just say "classes get core class features but not subclass features", because not all subclasses are created equally. Some are better than others, and some classes have more features in their subclasses than others.

Many things would have been so much easier if WotC would have just bothered to actually write down in full casters' entries "1st level spells", "2nd level spells", "3rd level spells", etc. as class abilities gained in the respective levels. There would be no confusion on whether multiclassing casters would be able to cast higher level spells (no, as they would not have the necessary ability even if they would have the spell slot) and players would realise how important class feature higher level spells are.

[TopCheese]

Many things would have been so much easier if WotC would have just bothered to actually write down in full casters' entries "1st level spells", "2nd level spells", "3rd level spells", etc. as class abilities gained in the respective levels. There would be no confusion on whether multiclassing casters would be able to cast higher level spells (no, as they would not have the necessary ability even if they would have the spell slot) and players would realise how important class feature higher level spells are.

But then it wouldn't feel like D&D and it would be too videogamey! /s

But seriously, the Warlock is prbbaaly the go to system for casters. I think this /long rest or /day crap needs stop (Level 7-9 are /long rest and that's fine, but lower level spells? Meh).

[Felhammer]

I think Prestige Classes are a great tool a DM can use to flesh out his world and make it feel alive. This is why I have always been in favor of roleplaying requirements for every Prestige Class. You have to earn the right to this reward. It is not something you just pick up one day. Of course, I always loved the old class quests, like when the Paladin actually had to go on a holy quest to slay a black knight to earn the right to have a magical steed, so I may be a bit biased.

I definitely feel like the theme of 5E is DM empowerment, which stands in marketed contrast to the implied permissiveness of 3.5. I don't think PrCs will become as game breaking because DMs will feel more comfortable simply saying no (or at the very least using the ultra passive aggressive way, (i.e. never having the quest that generates the ability to take levels in the PrC from occurring/procing)).

[ryan92084]

My thoughts exactly.

...snip
Me, for once, can accept PrCs if I ban multiclassing with the core classes.

Pretty much my thought. The group I run with has a no multi-class unless its the only way to play a character concept rule. Coming from that point of view I'd much prefer being able to attain these concepts through prestige and just dropping core multiclass altogether.

[TopCheese]

I think Prestige Classes are a great tool a DM can use to flesh out his world and make it feel alive. This is why I have always been in favor of roleplaying requirements for every Prestige Class. You have to earn the right to this reward. It is not something you just pick up one day. Of course, I always loved the old class quests, like when the Paladin actually had to go on a holy quest to slay a black knight to earn the right to have a magical steed, so I may be a bit biased.

I definitely feel like the theme of 5E is DM empowerment, which stands in marketed contrast to the implied permissiveness of 3.5. I don't think PrCs will become as game breaking because DMs will feel more comfortable simply saying no (or at the very least using the ultra passive aggressive way, (i.e. never having the quest that generates the ability to take levels in the PrC from occurring/procing)).

See, this DM empowerment is a step forward from 3e but a huge step back from what 4e had.

In 4e you had the player options like 3e but if anything came up during play the DM had final say. However the DM was encouraged to talk to the players in the game and come to a conclusion based on that.

So much healthier than pushing DMs to be overlords. Not only does it allow DMs to not have to micromanage but it keeps DMs realizing that each player is just as important as the DM. Without DM there is no game but without players there is no game either.

The way the devs and the book pushes this so called DM empowerment isn't as good as what it appears to be.

In my experience (been injured twice for long periods since 04 so I've had a lot of time to run/play D&D 3e, 4e, and 5e) I've seen more player versus DM fights in the past year of 5e than I ever did with 4e. In 4e the players knew/expected that the DM would talk to them about it later or felt that way at least, in 5e they seem to feel that if they don't get their say in at the time then they never will.

DM "empowerment" is just another hallow tool that 5a uses.

/shrug

[KorvinStarmast]

That would rather screw over bards, clerics, eldritch knights, etc. Nothing about the class says arcane caster... or being a caster in the first place (though casting is implied), just "Knows Arcana". d8 is the default HD.
The nature of this class is mental, not physical: he's a SCRIBE for goodness sake. Also, there is a cost with every choice we make. You want to geek out and become more of a scribe? Accept the HP of a scribe, which IMO belongs in the 1d6 category.

Opportunity cost is one way to give choices meaning.

See also the points by Mr moron (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19913749&postcount=63) and ruy343 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19913966&postcount=71)

[TopCheese]

The nature of this class is mental, not physical: he's a SCRIBE for goodness sake. Also, there is a cost with every choice we make. You want to geek out and become more of a scribe? Accept the HP of a scribe, which IMO belongs in the 1d6 category.

Opportunity cost is one way to give choices meaning.

See also the points by Mr moron (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19913749&postcount=63) and ruy343 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19913966&postcount=71)

Doesn't a scribe need good dexterity in order to be able to scribe correctly?

Dexterity with the hands is a physical trait.

[Submortimer]

I don't particularly like that it's a prestige class, but I sure as hell am going to adapt it as a subclass for something (or multiple things). I'm really feeling a dwarven-themed alternative to the Eldritch Knight, a Yellow Sign themed warlock patron, or some sort of tribal rune caster for barbarians.

[Regitnui]

some sort of tribal rune caster for barbarians.

I think that's what a lot of people are going to use it for. It wouldn't be bad as a subclass for barbarians, instead of eldritch knight or arcane trickster. If it becomes the 'magic barbarian' of 5e, I think very few people would complain.

But, again, it's a concept a lot of character classes could use or go for. Pretty much the definition of the ideal PrC, isn't that?

[Maxilian]

Well... i have been checking the prestige class abilities and... its pretty nice, the main problem is that, right now, that would be a really strong 1 lvl dip, also... i love the Crushing Brand ability cause its base its effect in the damage dice so this make weapons with a low damage dice more powerful (and it make the feat: Savage attacker, useful)

[JNAProductions]

It's got a minimum level 5 entry.

[CNagy]

The nature of this class is mental, not physical: he's a SCRIBE for goodness sake. Also, there is a cost with every choice we make. You want to geek out and become more of a scribe? Accept the HP of a scribe, which IMO belongs in the 1d6 category.

Opportunity cost is one way to give choices meaning.


You're not exactly copying books as this "scribe," you're wielding individual words. You gain proficiency with calligrapher's supplies, sure, but you also gain proficiency with mason's tools and woodcarver's tools. It's hardly academia. A d8 hit dice is appropriate for magic descended from Giants which can be wielded by the mightiest Barbarian (with the right background) or the twiggiest Wizard.

[TopCheese]

I think that's what a lot of people are going to use it for. It wouldn't be bad as a subclass for barbarians, instead of eldritch knight or arcane trickster. If it becomes the 'magic barbarian' of 5e, I think very few people would complain.

But, again, it's a concept a lot of character classes could use or go for. Pretty much the definition of the ideal PrC, isn't that?

I think that's the definition of an ideal Subclass.

I don't think subclasses should have been class specific but made in such a way that any class could take the subclass and gain something from it.

Though some classes would become subclasses with this options.

[Maxilian]

It's got a minimum level 5 entry.

So?

I could just go lvl 5 Fighter and 1 lvl Rune Scribe, no?

I just need to be lvl 5 before taking this prestige class

[JNAProductions]

My bad, I read that as a level 1 dip, not a 1 level dip.

[Belac93]

I think that if they continue this rout of doing prestige classes, they should be available to almost everyone. So no just abjuration wizard, or even just wizard. It should be like bard, sorcerer, and wizard. Or any spellcasting class. Things that are very broad.

[Maxilian]

My bad, I read that as a level 1 dip, not a 1 level dip.

Worry not...

Fun fact: Take 5 lvls in monk, 1 lvl in Rune Scribe with the Earth rune, enchant a fist weapon, THROW EVERYONE PRONE!!!! (fun fact 2: is more effective the lower lvl you are thanks to the low hit dice of your attacks -d4-)

[JackPhoenix]

Worry not...

Fun fact: Take 5 lvls in monk, 1 lvl in Rune Scribe with the Earth rune, enchant a fist weapon, THROW EVERYONE PRONE!!!! (fun fact 2: is more effective the lower lvl you are thanks to the low hit dice of your attacks -d4-)

Unarmed strike is not a weapon, so it can't be enchanted. You'd need to use a club or quarterstaff.

[Maxilian]

Unarmed strike is not a weapon, so it can't be enchanted. You'd need to use a club or quarterstaff.

That's why i said that you need to get a fist weapon first

[TopCheese]

Unarmed strike is not a weapon, so it can't be enchanted. You'd need to use a club or quarterstaff.

Is improvised weapon considered a "weapon" for enchanting purposes? Like couldn't I cast magic weapon in a chair being used as a weapon?

My unarmed strike is an improvised weapon made of skin, bones, and other fiddly bits. :p

[JackPhoenix]

That's why i said that you need to get a fist weapon first

While reasonable and I would allow that, RAW: 1. no fist weapons exists, 2. even if they did, Martial Arts uses unarmed strike for the bonus action, and thus it doesn't matter if you use club or fist weapon for your Attack action. And level 5 monk uses d6 for unarmed strike and monk weapon damage.


Is improvised weapon considered a "weapon" for enchanting purposes? Like couldn't I cast magic weapon in a chair being used as a weapon?

My unarmed strike is an improvised weapon made of skin, bones, and other fiddly bits. :p

I'll pass on this question, there's a 20+ pages long thread on this matter already. But I'll just add that monk can't use improvised weapons with Martial Arts.

[TopCheese]

While reasonable and I would allow that, RAW: 1. no fist weapons exists, 2. even if they did, Martial Arts uses unarmed strike for the bonus action, and thus it doesn't matter if you use club or fist weapon for your Attack action. And level 5 monk uses d6 for unarmed strike and monk weapon damage.



I'll pass on this question, there's a 20+ pages long thread on this matter already. But I'll just add that monk can't use improvised weapons with Martial Arts.

The weapon is both unarmed and improvised (plus I would have tavern brawler) and there you go. Rune Magic fist.

But this is mostly just shows us that Wotc needs to stop with fiddly rules for the sake of fiddly rules.

[JackPhoenix]

The weapon is both unarmed and improvised (plus I would have tavern brawler) and there you go. Rune Magic fist.

But this is mostly just shows us that Wotc needs to stop with fiddly rules for the sake of fiddly rules.

Weapon is either simple or martial. Unarmed strike isn't a weapon, improvised weapon isn't a weapon either, it's non-weapon object used as a weapon for the purpose of attack. If you use unarmed strike, you are using a part of your body (still attached), that can't be enchanted as a weapon. You can use your (or preferably someone else's) cut arm as an improvised weapon, but in that case, it can't be used for the purpose of Martial Arts, as it's neither a simple weapon nor unarmed strike.

Fiddly rules are there for the sake of inner consistency and to avoid future unintended consequences when more stuff comes out in splatbooks, though it's not very effective (as 20+ pages thread dealing with using shield as improvised off-hand weapon proves). GM's are encouraged to change anything to whatever works best, which means rule lawyering is pretty much pointless in the actual game anyway, as long as they keep their adjustments to the rules consistent.

[TopCheese]

Weapon is either simple or martial. Unarmed strike isn't a weapon, improvised weapon isn't a weapon either, it's non-weapon object used as a weapon for the purpose of attack. If you use unarmed strike, you are using a part of your body (still attached), that can't be enchanted as a weapon. You can use your (or preferably someone else's) cut arm as an improvised weapon, but in that case, it can't be used for the purpose of Martial Arts, as it's neither a simple weapon nor unarmed strike.

Fiddly rules are there for the sake of inner consistency and to avoid future unintended consequences when more stuff comes out in splatbooks, though it's not very effective (as 20+ pages thread dealing with using shield as improvised off-hand weapon proves). GM's are encouraged to change anything to whatever works best, which means rule lawyering is pretty much pointless in the actual game anyway, as long as they keep their adjustments to the rules consistent.

Many weapons are both melee and thrown at the same time. If you are making an improvised unarmed strike you are essentially making an improvised weapon attack.

Fiddly rules for the sake of fiddly rules is one of the anti-5e ideologies.

There is no reason why unarmed strikes are not melee light weapons. They may not be items but it is still a weapon.

[JackPhoenix]

Many weapons are both melee and thrown at the same time. If you are making an improvised unarmed strike you are essentially making an improvised weapon attack.

Fiddly rules for the sake of fiddly rules is one of the anti-5e ideologies.

There is no reason why unarmed strikes are not melee light weapons. They may not be items but it is still a weapon.

"Thrown" is a weapon property, the weapon itself is either melee (as with dagger) or ranged (as with dart) and simple or martial. Thrown dagger is still a melee weapon (specific game term), even though its used for ranged weapon attack (another specific game term). http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/19/dagger-archery/

Unarmed strike is not a weapon, even though it's used to make melee weapon attack (specific game term). http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/Errata_PH.pdf

Many problems rose from the fact that "weapon" in itself isn't specific game term.

[druid91]

Great point! If they can continue to limit prerequisites in a way that absolutely cannot be met without DM assistance then PrCs remain solidly limited. Which will drive theorycrafters (like myself) absolutely crazy, but is much better for game balance.

It was like that in 3.5 as well. Most PrC's that I can recall had a little blurb action that you had to take in order to qualify. For example, Pyrokineticist had to light a building on fire just to watch it burn.

[Kane0]

It was like that in 3.5 as well. Most PrC's that I can recall had a little blurb action that you had to take in order to qualify. For example, Pyrokineticist had to light a building on fire just to watch it burn.

But that is slightly different to having to find and appease a tutor (that can only level you to match his level) plus a magic item (which are optional in the first place). Thats a little bit tougher than using burning hands/fireball on a hut.

[druid91]

But that is slightly different to having to find and appease a tutor (that can only level you to match his level) plus a magic item (which are optional in the first place). Thats a little bit tougher than using burning hands/fireball on a hut.

Fine, Sandshaper then.

You had to quest to a SPECIFIC site, perform a specific ritual that required a specific feat. THEN learn your level of sandshaper from the ghosts of the sandshapers of old rising from the grave to whisper their arcane secrets in your ear.

[Nifft]

But that is slightly different to having to find and appease a tutor (that can only level you to match his level) plus a magic item (which are optional in the first place). Thats a little bit tougher than using burning hands/fireball on a hut.

Setting fire to that hut landed your character in prison for 5 years.

[Kane0]

Fine, Sandshaper then.

You had to quest to a SPECIFIC site, perform a specific ritual that required a specific feat. THEN learn your level of sandshaper from the ghosts of the sandshapers of old rising from the grave to whisper their arcane secrets in your ear.

See thats much better. Still sounds easier than the otyugh hole for the free feat though.


Setting fire to that hut landed your character in prison for 5 years.

That actually reminds me of a game where our Pyromaniac evoker had to defend the paladin in court for an unrelated crime. Fun times.

[SharkForce]

That's why i said that you need to get a fist weapon first

find a way to make a blowgun deal bludgeoning damage and it gets even funnier :)

(well, that and find a way to make it fire more than once per round, because apparently you can use a heavy crossbow like a machinegun but blowguns need to be limited).

[Ralanr]

"Thrown" is a weapon property, the weapon itself is either melee (as with dagger) or ranged (as with dart) and simple or martial. Thrown dagger is still a melee weapon (specific game term), even though its used for ranged weapon attack (another specific game term). http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/19/dagger-archery/

Unarmed strike is not a weapon, even though it's used to make melee weapon attack (specific game term). http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/Errata_PH.pdf

Many problems rose from the fact that "weapon" in itself isn't specific game term.

Wait...so a barbarian can reckless attack with throwing daggers? And still get rage damage?

Berserking knife thrower here I come!

[Maxilian]

While reasonable and I would allow that, RAW: 1. no fist weapons exists, 2. even if they did, Martial Arts uses unarmed strike for the bonus action, and thus it doesn't matter if you use club or fist weapon for your Attack action. And level 5 monk uses d6 for unarmed strike and monk weapon damage.


In the end, you're right :smallfrown:

BUT

You can still make a cool character with a Fighter and take low damage weapons (1d4) and savage attacker + sentinel (more OA so you can exploit SA and they will be prone and their speed will be 0 thanks to Sentinel, so... they will stay down for a while :smallbiggrin: )

[SharkForce]

Wait...so a barbarian can reckless attack with throwing daggers? And still get rage damage?

Berserking knife thrower here I come!

no. it is incredibly frustrating to me at this point that they ever used the language they did, because i feel like i've already explained this a number of times. an attack with a melee weapon is not the same game terminology as a melee weapon attack. a melee weapon attack is a melee attack, which happens to be made with a weapon (where weapon is loosely defined enough to include claws, punches, bites, etc).

throwing a dagger is an attack with a melee weapon. you can, therefore, apply the duelist fighting style (as the style keys off of what type of weapon you use. note that the archery fighting style can not be applied to thrown daggers, as it likewise keys off of what type of weapon you use, and daggers are not ranged weapons). you cannot apply things that work on melee weapon attacks, however, including rage and reckless attacks.

[Asmotherion]

What I love about 5e is that it keeps things simple. So, if the introduction of prestige classes means the end of this simplicity, no I'm not interested.

The way the rune Prestige works, I would also say it's not worth your 5 class levels. It might be interesting if it was not taking class levels, and instead existed outside of the leveling system. However:
A) By no means is it usefull to a spellcaster, as most of the features can be mimicked by cantrips, and there are much more usefull spells than this.
B) You need Arcana proficiency to have access, so it's useless for non casting classes. Yes, half casters and 1/3 casters can use them, but I don't really see the benefit being worth the class levels they have to sacrifice. This is not 3.5... 20 levels is your limit, and you can't afford to miss a level for a prestige class.

The way I see it, only the Arcane trickster might get to benefit from the Prestige, and my oppinion on the Arcane Trickster is that, if you want a magic using rogue, you're better off multiclassing or diping into a full caster with an assasin.

[Maxilian]

find a way to make a blowgun deal bludgeoning damage and it gets even funnier :)

(well, that and find a way to make it fire more than once per round, because apparently you can use a heavy crossbow like a machinegun but blowguns need to be limited).

Can't be used on amunition, so it would only work on melee weapons i think... also, even if you could use a blowgun, it would do 1 dmg, you wouldn't have a damage dice (and you need to get the max roll on your damage dice to active the effect)

[Maxilian]

What I love about 5e is that it keeps things simple. So, if the introduction of prestige classes means the end of this simplicity, no I'm not interested.

The way the rune Prestige works, I would also say it's not worth your 5 class levels. It might be interesting if it was not taking class levels, and instead existed outside of the leveling system.



Its not more complicated, its just another MC option with a lvl restriction also if it were something that came outside the leveling system would feel like something that you require (i dislike that idea a lot):smallfrown:



However:
A) By no means is it usefull to a spellcaster, as most of the features can be mimicked by cantrips, and there are much more usefull spells than this.


True, it won't be that usefull for spellcasters, but you don't lose spells, its trully not an overwhelming Prestige class (Not OP or anything, it looks like Wizard was really looking at the balance here), but its not that bad, if you give some though to some of those abilities (like the immunity to piercing / blugeoning / Slashing damage, that's basically a slow fall spell without the slow part :smalltongue: ).



B) You need Arcana proficiency to have access, so it's useless for non casting classes. Yes, half casters and 1/3 casters can use them, but I don't really see the benefit being worth the class levels they have to sacrifice. This is not 3.5... 20 levels is your limit, and you can't afford to miss a level for a prestige class.


Anyone can get Arcana prof from the background, you could even talk to your DM to train for Arcana in case you didn't take it before (some class can get arcana in another way), also... there are some fun options with the Fighter and the fire abilities are actually pretty good -cause its an automatic hit-, also you can enchant your weapon and make it fire damage and that will let you reroll your damage of all your hits.

Note: IMHO i think this PrC can be useful for all class, it only depends on what you want

[Ralanr]

no. it is incredibly frustrating to me at this point that they ever used the language they did, because i feel like i've already explained this a number of times. an attack with a melee weapon is not the same game terminology as a melee weapon attack. a melee weapon attack is a melee attack, which happens to be made with a weapon (where weapon is loosely defined enough to include claws, punches, bites, etc).

throwing a dagger is an attack with a melee weapon. you can, therefore, apply the duelist fighting style (as the style keys off of what type of weapon you use. note that the archery fighting style can not be applied to thrown daggers, as it likewise keys off of what type of weapon you use, and daggers are not ranged weapons). you cannot apply things that work on melee weapon attacks, however, including rage and reckless attacks.

...Wizards does not want much interaction with barbarians do they?

[Asmotherion]

Its not more complicated, its just another MC option with a lvl restriction also if it were something that came outside the leveling system would feel like something that you require (i dislike that idea a lot):smallfrown:



True, it won't be that usefull for spellcasters, but you don't lose spells, its trully not an overwhelming Prestige class (Not OP or anything, it looks like Wizard was really looking at the balance here), but its not that bad, if you give some though to some of those abilities (like the immunity to piercing / blugeoning / Slashing damage, that's basically a slow fall spell without the slow part :smalltongue: ).



Anyone can get Arcana prof from the background, you could even talk to your DM to train for Arcana in case you didn't take it before (some class can get arcana in another way), also... there are some fun options with the Fighter and the fire abilities are actually pretty good -cause its an automatic hit-, also you can enchant your weapon and make it fire damage and that will let you reroll your damage of all your hits.

Note: IMHO i think this PrC can be useful for all class, it only depends on what you want

Forgot about backrounds, sory XD

Still, you might not loose spell slots, but you don't learn new spells, and I don't think anyone focusing on his spellcaster would want to miss 8th and 9th level spells. Now, for spellcaster dipping or 1/2 and 1/3 casters, I guess it's ok but meh... But, with the right backround, it is a good option for non casters to get a few magic effects, I'll give you that. Not worth loosing your 4th attack if a fighter, but an Assasin could profit by dipping 2 levels in this class.

[Kane0]

Hrm. Dragon Sorcadin + Greenfire blade + elemental adept + fire rune + prc dip. Sounds fun.

[rollingForInit]

no. it is incredibly frustrating to me at this point that they ever used the language they did, because i feel like i've already explained this a number of times. an attack with a melee weapon is not the same game terminology as a melee weapon attack. a melee weapon attack is a melee attack, which happens to be made with a weapon (where weapon is loosely defined enough to include claws, punches, bites, etc).

throwing a dagger is an attack with a melee weapon. you can, therefore, apply the duelist fighting style (as the style keys off of what type of weapon you use. note that the archery fighting style can not be applied to thrown daggers, as it likewise keys off of what type of weapon you use, and daggers are not ranged weapons). you cannot apply things that work on melee weapon attacks, however, including rage and reckless attacks.

It's even been clarified.

https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/news/rules-answers-september-2015


What does “melee weapon attack” mean: a melee attack with a weapon or an attack with a melee weapon? It means a melee attack with a weapon. Similarly, “ranged weapon attack” means a ranged attack with a weapon. Some attacks count as a melee or ranged weapon attack even if a weapon isn’t involved, as specified in the text of those attacks. For example, an unarmed strike counts as a melee weapon attack, even though the attacker’s body isn’t considered a weapon.

Here’s a bit of wording minutia: we would write “melee-weapon attack” if we meant an attack with a melee weapon.

I agree that they could certainly have named these concepts in a better way from the start ...

[SharkForce]

...Wizards does not want much interaction with barbarians do they?

there are a bunch of arbitrary restrictions in the game that i don't like, to be honest.

fortunately, they're pretty easy to ignore, and aren't likely to break anything (personally, i think an angry barbarian should throw javelins harder just like they swing their axe harder, and would allow it. but the RAW is definitely against it. i would also allow a monk to use a monk weapon for their flurry attacks as another example, capped at the damage of their martial arts die; if i want to make a monk who fights with a spear or short sword, why should i be compelled to add 1-2 unarmed strikes every single round? heck, why can't i have a monk who throws shurikens (mechanically, darts) as fast as he could attack in melee? why can't i have a fighter who throws daggers as fast as a crossbow expert fighter could reload and fire a crossbow? why can i reload a crossbow super fast with a feat, but not a blowgun?)

[Maxilian]

Forgot about backrounds, sory XD

Still, you might not loose spell slots, but you don't learn new spells, and I don't think anyone focusing on his spellcaster would want to miss 8th and 9th level spells. Now, for spellcaster dipping or 1/2 and 1/3 casters, I guess it's ok but meh... But, with the right backround, it is a good option for non casters to get a few magic effects, I'll give you that. Not worth loosing your 4th attack if a fighter, but an Assasin could profit by dipping 2 levels in this class.

Now reread your comment... :smallbiggrin:

That's the detail of Multiclassing in general, so i don't think its a problem, it depends on what you would sacrifice to get these new shinny things!

Fun fact: You could use Combustion while using Sanctuary without losing it (cause its not a spell nor an attack) and its totally RAW! (Most likely not RAI though, still... its not like its going to break anything)

[Submortimer]

no. it is incredibly frustrating to me at this point that they ever used the language they did, because i feel like i've already explained this a number of times. an attack with a melee weapon is not the same game terminology as a melee weapon attack. a melee weapon attack is a melee attack, which happens to be made with a weapon (where weapon is loosely defined enough to include claws, punches, bites, etc).

throwing a dagger is an attack with a melee weapon. you can, therefore, apply the duelist fighting style (as the style keys off of what type of weapon you use. note that the archery fighting style can not be applied to thrown daggers, as it likewise keys off of what type of weapon you use, and daggers are not ranged weapons). you cannot apply things that work on melee weapon attacks, however, including rage and reckless attacks.

Yeah, this. You can Smite with a javelin (attack with a melee weapon), but you can't thow Rage daggers(melee weapon attack). It's dumb.

[SharkForce]

Yeah, this. You can Smite with a javelin (attack with a melee weapon), but you can't thow Rage daggers(melee weapon attack). It's dumb.

smite is also only on a melee weapon attack, so no, you can't smite with a javelin (at least, not a thrown one - if you meant you can stab someone with a javelin that you didn't throw, then yes).

improved smite is a bit less clear, as it doesn't use the standard "melee weapon attack" language (i believe it specifies a melee strike though).

[Submortimer]

smite is also only on a melee weapon attack, so no, you can't smite with a javelin (at least, not a thrown one - if you meant you can stab someone with a javelin that you didn't throw, then yes).

improved smite is a bit less clear, as it doesn't use the standard "melee weapon attack" language (i believe it specifies a melee strike though).

Smite specifically states "attack with a melee weapon".

Edit: THIS IS WRONG AND I AM DUMB.

Improved Divine Smite says you get bonus damage whenever you hit with a melee weapon.

[TopCheese]

They need to just break it down to...

Weapon Attack and Spell Attack.

Them put a blurb that says "DMs may limit certain weapons with certain abilities. Barbarians who are raging may get their bonus with a thrown dagger but won't gain their ability with a bow since their abilities is based on brute force."

Weapon Attack: Any attack that itself is not a spell or cantrip. Using a dagger, unarmed strike, or a chair are examples of weapon attacks. Using an item or unarmed strike that is enhanced (by magic) counts as a Weapon Attack.

Spell Attacks: Spell Attacks are cantrips and spells that have attack rolls.


===

Needs worded better, I'm sure, but there you go. If you are going to rely on "ask DM" then don't add in fiddly rules that cover "ask DM".

This could probably be put in a way that makes it simpler.

[dev6500]

Its funny that so many people here have had a bad experience with prestige classes. I have always loved having additional options and prestige classes in 3.5 often provided you with a set of options that didn't just start you back at the 1st level of a base class. Also made you more unique which is fun.

More flavor for roleplaying and also you are often given the rules to play your character concept in a way that didn't require dm handwaving it would have otherwise required without the PrC. Also, PrCs have never really been a balance problem since a DM has to let you play it. If the PrC was truly a disaster to balance, I just told them that the PrC wasn't available to them. Wasn't ever a big deal for me. I think someone tried to once link BoED stalker on Kharash into MotW foe hunter in my campaign. That was a good laugh. Was probably still weaker than a wizard.

[Dimolyth]

T h a t i s h o r r i b l e .

I mean, do developpers know they are writing an article for 5e?
That is not 3.X edition. Not a 4.X. And even not 3+4.X.
There already 4 ways to represent prestige classes/paragon path/whatever. 4 core 100% 5e ways.
I see no reason to present 5th way, especcially that one, which ruined balance of the system last time.

Here are 4 existing ways to represent "prestige classes"/"paragon path"/whatever in Dragons&Dungeons 5 edition

1. Archetypes. "I want to be a sorcerer, you know, with wild magic". In-class built choice of 4-5 abilities you get from progression. They even have the names of previous "prestiges" - assasin, arcane trickster, eldritch knight... and even if a shadow way monk is not called as "shadowdancer" - you know, that is not a reason to create prestige class named "shadowdancer".

2. Organizations & Backgrounds. "I want to be a Harper" doesn`t mean you ought to take really class level in "harper" to become a "harper". You can get an "harper unique equipment" to represent an unique "harper feature". 25% of multiclasses in 3.X were setting-dependent organization crap. If you have a lame DM who doesn`t want create organization, ask WoTC to write their hollycrap UA about organizations. And backgrounds - for numerous prestiges/paragon paths that just tell about you "unique especial heritage" thing.

3. Feats. They are legal class independent flavor/power increase. Some of them alredy have prerequirements. This eddition they are powerful enough to represent one special ability - that`s a 70% of all prestige classes from 3.X were about. They are even easier to balance, then archetypes - power equivalence of +2 ability boon. They are a gold niche for that UA developpers. "I want to be a bladesinger as eldritch knight/valor bard/fighter&wizard multiclass/whatever else"? Make up all prerequirements and just take a feat instead of ASI.

4. Multiclass. That is how they made Arcane Hierophant, Mystic Theurge, Abjurant Master, True Necromancer etc, etc this edition. "I want to be a Sacred Fist". Take a bunch of levels in monk, multiclass to cleric. Be happy. If not they have already written "how to modify classes" in DMG and UA. Great: they can continue to modify classes... you know, other than sorcerer and ranger. Maybe spell-less paladin named crusader? Or weapon-bond monk named Kensai? Or even barbarian strengh-based archer named "tribal hunter"? Or a rogue without sneak attacks - named as Tomb Raider?

There is NO reason to return prestige classes. What next? They will mix up epic level 3.X rules with paragon paths of 4e?

[JoeJ]

I never liked prestige classes in 3e, and I don't like the idea of seeing them in 5e. If they're going to do them anyway, however, I'd like them all to be like this; needing not just DM permission but DM fiat to get into.

And I find, to my surprise, that I do kind of like rune magic, although I'm not getting why they named it that, since it doesn't seem very much like the way runes were believed to work in our world. Still, they seem interesting and different from regular spells. (And a big thank you to WotC for not equating elemental earth with acid. That never made any sense to me at all.)

[Prophet_of_Io]

Am I the only one who thinks they actually nailed what 5e PrC's could be?

Yeah, I also never thought we'd actually get Prestige Classes in 5e, nor did I think we needed them. My first reaction to this article was "ok... how will this be different from subclasses?".

The result? A kind of underpowered but specialized class that does it's own thing. It's not a subclass because a wide range of classes could take it. One of my first players once played a Sage Rogue that liked to dungeon delve and look for ancient artifacts. This was pre PHB but he still wouldn't have gone the Arcane Trickster route. Sage Rogue/Rune Mage would be very much in flavor for him.

In 3rd edition the classes were so one route that you needed feats and Prestige Classes just to diversify (unless you were a caster and even then there were still PrC's that let you keep your full caster level). In 5e classes have enough diversity that you usually want to just stick to one class the whole way through. Prestige Classes exchange a little bit of power to specialize in something but you still only get a few levels.

I dunno, I really like the direction. Rune Mage certainly wouldn't bust a game wide open. It's not 3rd edition anymore and I think we can't dismiss Prestige Classes for what they were two editions ago. 5e is a new game. Give it a chance.

[steeldragons]

I mean, do developers know they are writing an article for 5e?
That is not 3.X edition. Not a 4.X. And even not 3+4.X.
There already 4 ways to represent prestige classes/paragon path/whatever. 4 core 100% 5e ways.
I see no reason to present 5th way, especially that one, which ruined balance of the system last time.
-snip-
There is NO reason to return prestige classes. What next? They will mix up epic level 3.X rules with paragon paths of 4e?

Just quoting to say good post. I get that Unearthed Arcana is for optional/experimental/"extra" stuff...But pretty much, this.:smallamused:

[Kane0]

What next? They will mix up epic level 3.X rules with paragon paths of 4e?

Sounds interesting, my group could definitely use more levels. Paragon paths might be a good way to have an extra subclass option at such high levels too.

[KorvinStarmast]

Doesn't a scribe need good dexterity in order to be able to scribe correctly?

Dexterity with the hands is a physical trait. Indeed, it is a prerequisite for high fine motor skills, but I think you will notice that it is Constitution that gives bonus to hit points. Your semantic game with "physical" is noted. A seamstress has high manual dexterity and fine motor skills, but that isn't an argument for the seamstress to be a tank. :smallyuk: The lengths some people go to in order to support an illogical position still surprises me.


Many problems rose from the fact that "weapon" in itself isn't specific game term. What do you mean by that?

[CapnZapp]

I mean, why even bother to do this? Subclassing already fills the role of Prestige Classes, allowing specialization while still advancing. Prestige classes add needless complication when we already have the option of feats and alternate subclasses. It's nothing other than design bloat.
Well, this is "like a subclass" that
a) you can't take already at 1st thru 3rd level
b) any class can take (unlike Thieves that only Rogues can take)
and
c) wait, it's not a subclass at all since it replaces a level of your existing class

Of these three, its b) that is the real draw here.

Providing "subclasses" that can be inserted into any build, as opposed to existing subclasses which
1) effectively force to "start over" (the only way for a Fighter or Wizard to get to the Thief subclass is to start over by Rogue 1)
2) effectively force you to invest in a second class (that Fighter can't get to Thief without investing in at least three levels of Rogue)

In contrast, prestige classes offer a story-based reason to learn something new (a single level of a prestige class) or to jump on to a "prestige" path (switching over to a 5 or 10 level prestige class, and maybe never leaving).

[CapnZapp]

How do you deal with the power spike that is supposed to come at level 11 when designing a PrC?
I'm guessing it's supposed to work just like regular multiclassing where the answer is simply: you don't deal with it (power spike is simply delayed).

[Pex]

I'm not sure I can agree with this. I totally support DM autonomy to allow or disallow classes, but including them but saying "Nope, haven't found a rune yet!" seems to be an incredibly weak form of control. The option is binary. Either they can take the class or they can't. If they can't, no harm. If they can, you introduce all the mechanical complexity of the prestige class with no added value (my opinion) compared to it being a feat or base class.

Buffet style prestige classing tends to come online when the GM handwaves the roleplay restrictions due to not wanting to be bothered, which happens a LOT. The only thing that would stop this from taking root is something like a requirement that a character can only ever take a single prestige class. But even that is frustrating.

Admittedly cynical on my part, while I can appreciate concern about player abuse getting all the goodies I'm concerned of passive-aggressive DMing like this. If you're going to allow a prestige class, then let the player get his prestige class and level in it. It's fine if the PC needs to fine another NPC who is higher level than his first teacher to get level 5 in the prestige class, but that NPC should exist and the PC be able to find him even if it's a main campaign story plot point.

Generally you have to accept that both the Player and DM are not going to be jerks about this. The player can enjoy the game mechanics, but he's not looking for power to win D&D. The DM wants to flavor the prestige class to the campaign in abilities and flavor text, but he's not looking to put the player in his place how dare he think he has a say on how to play his character. 5E Prestige Classes may work out fine in terms of game mechanics and fun to play, but it may not be Jerk-Proof that would ruin it all.

[Oramac]

Disclaimer: I only played 3.5 once for about 3 months.

Having said that, I feel like the Rune Caster would be better served as a subclass, either for the Wizard or Sorcerer. Probably the Wizard.

It just feels incomplete as a multiclass option.

[SharkForce]

eek, zombie thread! kill it with fire!!!!

[Regitnui]

Have we gotten a new arcana?

[the secret fire]

Admittedly cynical on my part, while I can appreciate concern about player abuse getting all the goodies I'm concerned of passive-aggressive DMing like this. If you're going to allow a prestige class, then let the player get his prestige class and level in it. It's fine if the PC needs to fine another NPC who is higher level than his first teacher to get level 5 in the prestige class, but that NPC should exist and the PC be able to find him even if it's a main campaign story plot point.

Generally you have to accept that both the Player and DM are not going to be jerks about this. The player can enjoy the game mechanics, but he's not looking for power to win D&D. The DM wants to flavor the prestige class to the campaign in abilities and flavor text, but he's not looking to put the player in his place how dare he think he has a say on how to play his character. 5E Prestige Classes may work out fine in terms of game mechanics and fun to play, but it may not be Jerk-Proof that would ruin it all.

The real danger of introducing all of these prestige classes into the core game lies not in how it will specifically affect any given gaming table, but in how it will affect the culture of the game, most specifically its online culture. Mimic the mechanical complexity of 3.5, and you probably end up mimicing its repulsive cult of RAW, and the loudmouthed munchkins who multiplied in its warm light.

I want no part of that.

[DivisibleByZero]

The real danger of introducing all of these prestige classes into the core game lies not in how it will specifically affect any given gaming table, but in how it will affect the culture of the game, most specifically its online culture. Mimic the mechanical complexity of 3.5, and you probably end up mimicing its repulsive cult of RAW, and the loudmouthed munchkins who multiplied in its warm light.

I want no part of that.

Say it again brother!
Can I get an Amen!

[SharkForce]

Have we gotten a new arcana?

this month is probably going to be the DM's guild highlights or whatever it's called.

[Ralanr]

this month is probably going to be the DM's guild highlights or whatever it's called.

HISS!

In all honesty I don't outright hate being showed homebrew stuff that you could pay money for. I just really prefer seeing ideas they have in works and playing with unearthed arcana actually makes me feel like I'm helping the design team with ideas.

They also haven't shown us more psionic stuff. Was hoping we'd get more to test by now.

[Regitnui]

They also haven't shown us more psionic stuff. Was hoping we'd get more to test by now.

Expletive that. I want some notes on Eberron or a revised artificer class. I might be interested in more psionics if they included a race or two, like the kalashtar or dromites.

[CapnZapp]

They also haven't shown us more psionic stuff. Was hoping we'd get more to test by now.
Perhaps they're done testing.

Perhaps they've even set their choices in stone* by now, assuming psionics will be part of the "big mechanics expansion".

*) or wood, as it were.