Prestige classes?

[TheManicMonocle]

So I was wondering, why doesn't 5e have prestige classes?

[Naanomi]

Subclasses are largely meant to replace the 'specialization' idea... and there was a conscious effort to avoid the complicated 'character construction mini-game' that made optimization floors and ceilings (even more) challenging to balance.

That said, they have played with the idea in UA, albeit only once

[MrStabby]

Mainly because they are built into the main classes as archetypes.

Personally I would like them back. I get that a lot of people don't like them though. I think 5th edition is robust enough and restrained enough to cope with them better than 3rd edition. Furthermore multiclassing is generally weaker than earlier editions so some options specifically designed to shore that up (or at least the low power options) would work for me.

It isn't needed though - just nice to have.

[Millstone85]

I wouldn't mind something between that and paragon paths / epic destinies.

Like, if you have 16 levels of Cleric (Death Domain), Warlock (The Undying), Wizard (School of Necromancy) or a combo, you can take a special level where you start working on your phylactery.

[DivisibleByZero]

Arcane Trickster, Assassin, Eldritch Knight, Beast Master, etc.
These were prestige classes in 3.5.
They're subclasses now.
As stated before, the specializations are baked right into the core classes now, so the need for prestige classes isn't there. It's a much more elegant system, easier to balance, and easier to design specialties for.
If they actually added prestige classes to 5e, it would be an huge step backward for the system.
PrCs worked for 3e. Subclasses work even better for 5e.

[Honest Tiefling]

I think because the prestige class system got wonky. The first problem being that characters that SHOULD lore-wise qualify for the class couldn't. Are you a very pious and devoted wizard to your god? That sounds like an Arcane Devotee! Oh wait, you don't have Englarge Spell. You can't qualify. Why is that needed? For the mechanics, but not the actual lore of the class. You could be an Arcane Devotee of Eldath, pacifist goddess of peace, and you STILL need it.

They also were horrible from an RP standpoint. They implied that every member of an organization had very regimented training and the only way to break that mold (which is logical, even the logistics of trying to train everyone across a nation, let alone a continent in the same manner before modern technology is absurd) is to...Not use the class at all. Most are so absolutely niche that it didn't make RP sense at all and often weren't very fun to play because of that over specialization.

Overall, I don't miss them one bit.

[MrStabby]

I wouldn't mind something between that and paragon paths / epic destinies.

Like, if you have 16 levels of Cleric (Death Domain), Warlock (The Undying), Wizard (School of Necromancy) or a combo, you can take a special level where you start working on your phylactery.

It kind of sounds good, but not sure I like how that would work. I want to see more and different characters at my tables. Opening up more possibilities through prestige classes is good, but if it would lead to identical multiclass combinations rather than mechanically identical single class characters then I couldn't get that excited by it. On the other hand it does sound kind of cool. Maybe a middle ground could do both.

[Arkhios]

In the waning heat of UA hype, after the Feats for Races and Feats for Skills articles, I had an idea about Feats made specifically for Classes. This idea evolved in my head to the point that I began to wonder what if some, a bit more focused prestige class concepts could be realized via feats. Generally a feat that doesn't give an increase to an ability score has three or four small effects. What if you used that to model a "prestige class"?

[djreynolds]

In the waning heat of UA hype, after the Feats for Races and Feats for Skills articles, I had an idea about Feats made specifically for Classes. This idea evolved in my head to the point that I began to wonder what if some, a bit more focused prestige class concepts could be realized via feats. Generally a feat that doesn't give an increase to an ability score has three or four small effects. What if you used that to model a "prestige class"?

That is an excellent idea

[MrStabby]

In the waning heat of UA hype, after the Feats for Races and Feats for Skills articles, I had an idea about Feats made specifically for Classes. This idea evolved in my head to the point that I began to wonder what if some, a bit more focused prestige class concepts could be realized via feats. Generally a feat that doesn't give an increase to an ability score has three or four small effects. What if you used that to model a "prestige class"?

That does kind of work for me although it is maybe a bit of a smaller impact than I would like - over the course of 10 levels that is probably just one or two feats/ASIs worth of character development. A prestige class, even if just taken for 5 levels, would offer 5 levels worth of new abilities. This doesn't let you drive your character in such a new direction.

[DivisibleByZero]

In the waning heat of UA hype, after the Feats for Races and Feats for Skills articles, I had an idea about Feats made specifically for Classes. This idea evolved in my head to the point that I began to wonder what if some, a bit more focused prestige class concepts could be realized via feats. Generally a feat that doesn't give an increase to an ability score has three or four small effects. What if you used that to model a "prestige class"?

There are some feats modeled like that on DM's Guild. Chains create the entire PrC. Prestige Feats, I think the content was called.
I actually really liked the implementation, if not the actual specific feats.

[Arkhios]

There are some feats modeled like that on DM's Guild. Chains create the entire PrC. Prestige Feats, I think the content was called.
I actually really liked the implementation, if not the actual specific feats.

Actually, I just realized that in 3.5, Complete Adventurer book had a prestige class called Dungeon Delver - which is now a feat in the PHB!

[TheManicMonocle]

I get what you guys are saying, but I still miss prestige classes, it's like.. they're special I guess?

[Honest Tiefling]

I get what you guys are saying, but I still miss prestige classes, it's like.. they're special I guess?

Which ones are you talking about? The ones that meant you had special training so you could be a semi-competant fighter? That ones that combined two classes? Or the ones that were a particular organization?

The former sucked for anyone who wasn't a CoDzilla or God Wizard, and the second were just annoying hoops. Just let me play my Arcane Trickster, dammit! I've wrapped my entire backstory and character around it!

The third option? I'd say make a campaign out of it. As the group advances through the ranks, they either get a RP or combat power from a short list. No need for a silly prestige Class like Harper Scout, which makes you wonder how these people function against other organizations.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Which ones are you talking about? The ones that meant you had special training so you could be a semi-competant fighter? That ones that combined two classes? Or the ones that were a particular organization?

The former sucked for anyone who wasn't a CoDzilla or God Wizard, and the second were just annoying hoops. Just let me play my Arcane Trickster, dammit! I've wrapped my entire backstory and character around it!

The third option? I'd say make a campaign out of it. As the group advances through the ranks, they either get a RP or combat power from a short list. No need for a silly prestige Class like Harper Scout, which makes you wonder how these people function against other organizations.

I'd have to throw my hat into the 'unnecessary' ring. The only character concepts I've had trouble creating in 5e were psions (now in playtesting), artificers (also in playtesting), swordmages (specifically based on 4e), arcane archers (pre-UA), and a dabbling adventurer (extraordinarily niche). Three of those I accomplished through homebrewing entire classes, one of which was managed via subclass in UA, and two of which were new classes created in UA. This sounds like a lot, but I've managed a ton of games and built dozens upon dozens of characters.

The only time someone asks for something that can't be covered, I find that it shouldn't be. Like when a player really wanted to be a dragon knight and showed off some god awful thing from DandDwiki. I told him, you want dragon powers? Play a dragonborn. You want to be a knight? Play fighter or paladin. You want a leveling dragon companion while you're at it? Go find another DM, that's obscenely powerful.

Said player did in fact pick dragonborn and then used my swordmage-esque class to get what he wanted. Offering a prestige class to get something similar much later in his career would have been innately less fun to play, as he'd have to play multiple levels worth of a class he didn't really want to get where he wanted to go in the first place.

[NecroDancer]

I like the idea of "prestige feats" or some sort of mechanic that for example

1. Let you make a phylactery at a high level if you met the requirements

2. Let you become a mummy at a high level if you met the requirement

3. Let you become a celestial at a high level if you met the requirement

Basically something akin to 4e's epic destiny but as a feat

[SharkForce]

i've toyed around with the idea of rebuilding sorcerer to revolve around something other than metamagic, and then making metamagic into a prestige class more or less. not as an organization. just as a class that you get access to by having any spellcasting, which gives metamagic. because it makes absolutely no sense to me that nobody else in existence can possibly have metamagic.

[furby076]

Arcane Trickster, Assassin, Eldritch Knight, Beast Master, etc.
These were prestige classes in 3.5.
They're subclasses now.
As stated before, the specializations are baked right into the core classes now, so the need for prestige classes isn't there. It's a much more elegant system, easier to balance, and easier to design specialties for.
If they actually added prestige classes to 5e, it would be an huge step backward for the system.
PrCs worked for 3e. Subclasses work even better for 5e.

I hate that phrase "elegant system". Simpler, sure...but also its rail roaded.

The nice things about prcs is you could enter them from different classes. In 5e, to get that AT, you must be a rogue. Some people dont want to be a full rogue. Given that 5e changed it to subs, and thats fine to. It goes with the simple/stupid mentality, which makes it easier for folks to figure out. Instead of planning 20 levels on day one, you just "kinda" grab n go

[DivisibleByZero]

I hate that phrase "elegant system". Simpler, sure...but also its rail roaded.

The nice things about prcs is you could enter them from different classes. In 5e, to get that AT, you must be a rogue. Some people dont want to be a full rogue. Given that 5e changed it to subs, and thats fine to. It goes with the simple/stupid mentality, which makes it easier for folks to figure out. Instead of planning 20 levels on day one, you just "kinda" grab n go

I'm on the other end of the spectrum.
One of the reasons that I hated 3e was because people would plan their character's entire career before they ever played a single session, and would never deviate from that plan during play even if it made sense for them to do so in game because "that's not my plan" or some garbage.
Your experiences shape who you become, no matter what your original plan was.

If you want to primarily be a wizard, and still play an arcane trickster type, go ahead and create an homebrew wizard tradition for it. Since you're primarily going to be a wizard, call it Unseen Seer (*wink*) or Spellthief (*wink*) or something instead. It's ridiculously easy to do, because (as I said in the post that you quoted) subclasses are a much more elegant system, easier to balance, and easier to design specialties for.
Designing a balanced homebrewed subclass to fit your vision is way, WAY, WAY, WAY easier to do than designing a balanced PrC. It's easier to balance specifically because you're tied to your main class, and only need to add a couple/few features at certain levels.
The fact that you personally hate the term "elegant" in this situation doesn't make it any less elegant.

[Saiga]

But also extremely limited.

I love subclasses, and I was actually surprised to learn that previous editions did not have them because they seem like such an obvious solution to customization. However, there are still some concepts that they do not cover - ones that do not fit a single class, and would not be a class by themselves. I think the Rune Scribe PrC was a bad first example to use, but I think Prestige Classes would be great for things like Lycanthropes, Vampires, and other such changes that can be tied into the story. Because the current rules for those things are garbage.

If only subclasses had been consistent across classes - IE they followed a 3, 6, 10, 14 progression - then you could create subclasses that are open to any class and would fix this problem (Clerics, Sorcerors and Warlocks could still have level 1 subclass features that don't change even if they pick a 'general' subclass - hell, other classes could have any sort of subclass features as long as they stuck to this structure) but each class having its own subclass structure is much easier for balance and overall class design. A pity, it'd be like the specializations from the Next playtest.

In lieu of those, I think Prestige Classes do have a place. Just because they have been a problem in previous editions does not mean they will ruin 5E.

Hell, people already plan their characters with just feat selection, ASI use, multiclassing etc. That's about the type of player, not the options available.

[DivisibleByZero]

I love subclasses, and I was actually surprised to learn that previous editions did not have them because they seem like such an obvious solution to customization.
5e's subclasses are very similar to 2e's Kits.
Kits took the base class, and made very minor alterations, to create something similar to what subclasses do in 5e.
5e's subclasses are kind of a combination of Kits and PrCs mixed together.


If only subclasses had been consistent across classes - IE they followed a 3, 6, 10, 14 progression - then you could create subclasses that are open to any class
I completely agree with this. They should have dome them at set/equal levels. But I'd have started right at 1 for everyone, like the Cleric/Warlock instead of 3 like most others.

[Âmesang]

I've been bouncing around the idea of bringing back mystic theurge as a 5-10 level prestige class to once again combine arcane and divine spellcasting—likely with no other class features except ASI at 4th and 8th level and having a d6 Hit Die—mainly inspired by the ancient Baklunish mage-priests from WORLD OF GREYHAWK®.

I would also like to bring back archmage in some way, although "mastery of elements" could at least be replicated as a custom sorcerer Metamagic ("Elemental Spell"), there are other Metamagic choices that can replicate "mastery of shaping" and "arcane reach," and "arcane fire" could be the capstone ability for some custom sorcerous origin (being so attuned to magic one can channel it in its rawest form).

I did have fun multiclassing antipaladin and assassin to recreate the AD&D antipaladin/3e blackguard.

[DivisibleByZero]

I've been bouncing around the idea of bringing back mystic theurge as a 5-10 level prestige class to once again combine arcane and divine spellcasting—
You can already do this in 5e.
Sorcerer has Favored Soul.
Wizard has Theurge.
Cleric has Arcane Domain.


I did have fun multiclassing antipaladin and assassin to recreate the AD&D antipaladin/3e blackguard.
You can already do this in 5e.
Multiclass any Rogue you want (AT preferred for the casting levels) with any Paladin you want (excluding Devotion or Redemption).

[Saiga]

5e's subclasses are very similar to 2e's Kits.
Kits took the base class, and made very minor alterations, to create something similar to what subclasses do in 5e.
5e's subclasses are kind of a combination of Kits and PrCs mixed together.

I'm not familiar with 2E's kits, though I have heard of them since I know some of the UA subclasses were based on old kits. Weren't the previous edition versions of subclasses more like add-ons/modifications of the base class?



I completely agree with this. They should have dome them at set/equal levels. But I'd have started right at 1 for everyone, like the Cleric/Warlock instead of 3 like most others.

Do you think the design/balance would be feasible though? Most classes give completely different types of bonuses at their given subclass levels to other classes, so it seems like it would require classes to be designed very specifically from the start.

[DivisibleByZero]

I'm not familiar with 2E's kits, though I have heard of them since I know some of the UA subclasses were based on old kits. Weren't the previous edition versions of subclasses more like add-ons/modifications of the base class?
What do you think 5e's subclasses are?
They're add-ons/modifications to the base class.
The only real difference is that with the 2e Kits, all of your modifications were made at level 1, whereas in 5e they're split at different levels, which is why subclasses are kind of a cross between Kits and PrCs.


Do you think the design/balance would be feasible though? Most classes give completely different types of bonuses at their given subclass levels to other classes, so it seems like it would require classes to be designed very specifically from the start.
It absolutely would have been feasible. The fact that they split them up into different levels for different classes is one of the few things about 5e that I don't like.

[Saiga]

Well, I mean that 5e's classes were designed with subclasses in mind. I thought kits were something added later to modify the existing classes, and so weren't as integrated.

edit: Oh, and the reason I was keeping Cleric/Sorceror/Warlock different with a level 1 subclass feature is so that they could still have a source of their power at level 1 but not have that dictate their subclass if 'general' subclasses existing (ie you're a Wild Mage Sorceror but have the Archmage subclass, or a Fiend patron Warlock with the Vampire subclass).

[DivisibleByZero]

Well, I mean that 5e's classes were designed with subclasses in mind. I thought kits were something added later to modify the existing classes, and so weren't as integrated.


No, Kits were something taken at creation that modified the class.
Sometimes proficiencies were altered. Sometimes you gained new abilities and lost others, etc.
Kits were to 2e kind of like what 3.5 and Pathfinder did with class variants.

Kits (or later, class variants) were modifications to the base class.
PrCs were specialties and extra abilities for said specialization.
Combine the two, to modify the base class and add extra abilities for specialization, and you get subclasses for 5e.

[Naanomi]

Some kits modified a lot about the base class, removed features and the like, in the way subclasses don't. Bard kits especially if I recall

[DivisibleByZero]

Some kits modified a lot about the base class, removed features and the like, in the way subclasses don't. Bard kits especially if I recall

That's nitpicking.
If the base classes weren't designed from the ground up to accommodate subclasses, then they'd have abilities in those levels.
You can think of the iconic version of each class (thief, champion, etc) as the base version.
You would then trade that ability for the one that the subclass offered.
But since it was designed from the ground up with subclasses in mind, instead of trading you're filling in a blank. It's six of one and half a dozen of the other.

[pwykersotz]

I am one of the Prestige Class haters, and I think they have no place in 5e, at least as implemented in 3.5.

As has already been pointed out, Prestige Classes often had byzantine requirements, abusable or worthless powers, and they overcomplicated character creation. They were terrible design as implemented in just about every way, and they would necessarily make 5e worse.

That said, I'm not against specialtiy design, I just think it should be applied differently. Feats as Prestige Classes is a decent solution, although for most of the organizational ones, I think Backgrounds would serve nicely. Those background powers are very good at being both useful and balanced. I also think boons could be used for this purpose. Do a quest for the Deepwoods Snipers, join their ranks, and get a special power.

I like special powers and players having a special role, even a customizable one, but I think that Prestige Classes are the enemy of the very concepts they purport to enable.

[Naanomi]

Also, backgrounds did a lot to supplant the need for many kits as well. A huge number of kits were things like 'noble fighter' and 'gypsy bard', probably more than half if I recall correctly

[Potato_Priest]

I completely agree with this. They should have dome them at set/equal levels. But I'd have started right at 1 for everyone, like the Cleric/Warlock instead of 3 like most others.

You guys are so right. I hate it when my eldrich knight's backstory hinges on a little magical training, but I can't actually demonstrate that until level 3.

[JAL_1138]

Well, I mean that 5e's classes were designed with subclasses in mind. I thought kits were something added later to modify the existing classes, and so weren't as integrated.

edit: Oh, and the reason I was keeping Cleric/Sorceror/Warlock different with a level 1 subclass feature is so that they could still have a source of their power at level 1 but not have that dictate their subclass if 'general' subclasses existing (ie you're a Wild Mage Sorceror but have the Archmage subclass, or a Fiend patron Warlock with the Vampire subclass).


No, Kits were something taken at creation that modified the class.
Sometimes proficiencies were altered. Sometimes you gained new abilities and lost others, etc.
Kits were to 2e kind of like what 3.5 and Pathfinder did with class variants.

Kits (or later, class variants) were modifications to the base class.
PrCs were specialties and extra abilities for said specialization.
Combine the two, to modify the base class and add extra abilities for specialization, and you get subclasses for 5e.

Depending on what you mean by "added on later," you're both right. Kits were taken at level 1, but were added to the system later, appearing in the Complete [Class'] Handbook series rather than being baked into the system in the core rulebook.

[Saiga]

Depending on what you mean by "added on later," you're both right. Kits were taken at level 1, but were added to the system later, appearing in the Complete [Class'] Handbook series rather than being baked into the system in the core rulebook.

That's what I meant, thank you. I don't know how it worked in practice but I would assume subclasses being part of the system from the start has been a benefit to the design.

[Vogonjeltz]

But also extremely limited.

I love subclasses, and I was actually surprised to learn that previous editions did not have them because they seem like such an obvious solution to customization. However, there are still some concepts that they do not cover - ones that do not fit a single class, and would not be a class by themselves. I think the Rune Scribe PrC was a bad first example to use, but I think Prestige Classes would be great for things like Lycanthropes, Vampires, and other such changes that can be tied into the story. Because the current rules for those things are garbage.

If only subclasses had been consistent across classes - IE they followed a 3, 6, 10, 14 progression - then you could create subclasses that are open to any class and would fix this problem (Clerics, Sorcerors and Warlocks could still have level 1 subclass features that don't change even if they pick a 'general' subclass - hell, other classes could have any sort of subclass features as long as they stuck to this structure) but each class having its own subclass structure is much easier for balance and overall class design. A pity, it'd be like the specializations from the Next playtest.

In lieu of those, I think Prestige Classes do have a place. Just because they have been a problem in previous editions does not mean they will ruin 5E.

Hell, people already plan their characters with just feat selection, ASI use, multiclassing etc. That's about the type of player, not the options available.

Given that class levels end at 20 it doesn't fit to introduce any form of prestige class, especially for something that totally un-related to ones professional training.

As in, being a Vampire or a Lycanthrope isn't a job, so it should never be a class within the 5e rubric.

There are already rules for what it means to have ones nature changed fundamentally as a Vampire, Lycanthrope (or similar curses), Lich, etcetera and they all fundamentally end up in a drastic (and ongoing) personality change that makes a PC into an NPC.

For those who are pro-prestige class, what concrete concept proposals did you have in mind that would not be better served as a sub-class? So far the thread seems to leave the concept at: "I have fond memories of the glut of prestige classes that existed in 3.5 D&D".

[Kane0]

As a design mechanic they aren't really necessary, we have subclasses now.
In theory they could find a great use as beyond-level-20 play though, in a manner similar to 4e.

[Sigreid]

I would prefer they don't reintroduce the mini game where you find one misplaced skill point makes you ineligible for the next level you want to take.

[MeeposFire]

I really do not want to see prestige classes back. They were fun for the game of creating characters but in actual play they end up annoying the heck out of me. For one a major part of what defines D&D is the focus on a class system. Oddly prestige classes really dilute the focus on classes. They make the character creation process a giant puzzle game which while fun creating characters is a pain when trying to actively play a game since you need to plan from the start to be sure you can qualify. Even if you remove the prerequisites I am not a fan of how it takes away from classes and really perpetuates having a smorgasbord of classes in one character. I like that right now you can get a lot from a single class and get a lot of concepts that in 3e would require multiclassing or prcs.

I also do not see much of a point anymore. Most prcs were broadly designed for a couple concepts

1. organizations

2. boosting a class's niche

3. essentially giving a class niche that anybody could get with multiclassing but the PRC does better because that sort of multiclassing was really bad in 3e.

4. Boosting two casting classes at once since multiclassing rules made doing that by standard multiclassing a very bad idea.

5. A very specific concept that would never work as a class but they try to make work as a prc (many of these by the way do not work well at all in 3e or were taken as a one level dip to gain a specific ability).

These are not really needed in 5e anymore what with the changes in multiclassing and with other aspects of the game.

1. This one never really was needed just join the organization and if that organization has something special then give it to every character that joins and have other organizations with special cool things too. You do not need a 10 level prc to give characters iconic abilities and if you feel you really need to do something like that making it an archetype works fine for most things.

2. This is pretty easy to see in 5e already with things like champion or the thief.

3. You get this in things like arcane trickster or EK. MOre could be created if desired.

4. Multiclassing and other archetypes can do this as well.

5. These should have been avoided much of the time in 3e and the few times that you have something you could probably turn that into an archetype so I do not see the point.

[SharkForce]

i think there are a handful of things that should probably be abilities available to broad groups of people rather than being limited to just specific classes or subclasses. some of those things have kind of been given away already, but for example...

i think metamagic should be available to any caster that chooses to specialize in it, but i don't think it should require giving up an archetype. a prestige class that gives metamagic would also mean that sorcerers don't have metamagic eating up their entire power budget, though obviously it would require a complete revision of the sorcerer class. (probable requirement, able to cast level 1 spells)

i also think that maneuvers (what the battlemaster gets) should be available to a broad selection of martial characters without needing to multiclass fighter (and no, that lame feat does not cover that since you're certainly not becoming an expert from it). again, this would likely mean battlemaster would disappear as a fighter archetype, but would be available for any martial character to pick up those abilities. (probable requirement, have a fighting style). this one is probably not a huge deal at the moment (fighter is deliberately given very little flavour, in contrast to sorcerer which wants to have flavour but can't afford to give that flavour any mechanical impact because metamagic takes over the class), but i do think that what flavour there is in being a fighter should not be a requirement to be able to do neat tricks in combat. certainly, i can't think of why they would need to be inaccessible to champions and eldritch knights and other fighter archetypes.

[Sigreid]

i think there are a handful of things that should probably be abilities available to broad groups of people rather than being limited to just specific classes or subclasses. some of those things have kind of been given away already, but for example...

i think metamagic should be available to any caster that chooses to specialize in it, but i don't think it should require giving up an archetype. a prestige class that gives metamagic would also mean that sorcerers don't have metamagic eating up their entire power budget, though obviously it would require a complete revision of the sorcerer class. (probable requirement, able to cast level 1 spells)

i also think that maneuvers (what the battlemaster gets) should be available to a broad selection of martial characters without needing to multiclass fighter (and no, that lame feat does not cover that since you're certainly not becoming an expert from it). again, this would likely mean battlemaster would disappear as a fighter archetype, but would be available for any martial character to pick up those abilities. (probable requirement, have a fighting style). this one is probably not a huge deal at the moment (fighter is deliberately given very little flavour, in contrast to sorcerer which wants to have flavour but can't afford to give that flavour any mechanical impact because metamagic takes over the class), but i do think that what flavour there is in being a fighter should not be a requirement to be able to do neat tricks in combat. certainly, i can't think of why they would need to be inaccessible to champions and eldritch knights and other fighter archetypes.

This would be better handled with boons than prestige classes IMO. Being taught a super secret trick is an excellent quest reward and fully compliant with RAW.