Anyone actually use prestige classes?

[Man_Over_Game]

They created a prestige class a while back, a Runekeeper or something that was absolutely terrible due to its lackluster abilities and fiddly requirements.

Have you ever used a prestige in your own games, or seen one be used? I'd like more specific information vs. broad. I'd like to get an idea of what worked if I decide to create some of my own in my campaigns.

[KorvinStarmast]

Have you ever used a prestige in your own games, or seen one be used? One of the best things about this edition is that it does not have prestige classes. (Will it remain uncontaminated? We'll see).

[Boci]

Atchetypes certainly make prestige classes less important. Case in point: Eldritch knight and arcane trickster. Prestige classes in 3.5, archetypes in 5th ed. You can probably find some specific stuff that could would work best as a prestige class for 5th ed, but chances are it will work at least decently as a new archetype to.

As for "uncontaminated", I don't think there's much fear of that. Its unlikely WotC will release official PrC at this point for 5th ed, and even if they did by making them splat and not core they will have already fundamentally changed how they fit into the game ideologically.

[Laserlight]

One of the best things about this edition is that it does not have prestige classes.

Quoted for truth.

[Man_Over_Game]

I agree, with the current subclass system, I don't see too much need for the prestige classes now, was just interested to see how some people might do it.

One concept I've been playing around with is allowing alternate modifiers for classes, but tied into specific leveling restrictions. For example:


Prestige option: Seeker of the True Knowledge
Can choose the Great Old One Warlock Subclass, replacing all instances of Charisma from its class features with Intelligence.
Requirement: You cannot have more Wizard levels than you do Warlock levels.

Prestige Option: Way of the Closed Fist.
Can choose the Monk, replacing all instances of Dexterity from its class features with Strength.
Requirement: You can only choose the Open Hand subclass when choosing a Monk subclass.

Which opens up specific builds (Warlock + Wizard, Monk + Barbarian) that wouldn't be as accessible otherwise. By forcing these kinds of restrictions, you can remove major kinds of issues with balance (Eldritch Knight would be far too strong using Charisma for casting and 1 level of Hexblade).

I think this kind of solution would be similar to bringing what prestige classes were originally for into 5e (which is creating unique mechanics for specialized builds while "maintaining balance" [whatever that meant in 3.5])

[Waazraath]

They created a prestige class a while back, a Runekeeper or something that was absolutely terrible due to its lackluster abilities and fiddly requirements.

Have you ever used a prestige in your own games, or seen one be used? I'd like more specific information vs. broad. I'd like to get an idea of what worked if I decide to create some of my own in my campaigns.

Yes, in 3.5

I agree with the sentiment that they aren't needed in 5e, so nope.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I fully agree that PrCs, as implemented in 3e, are a horrible fit for 5e and are completely replaced by archetypes.

It does remind me that I've been kicking around the idea of creating a framework for Prestige Boons--multi-tier, non-class-based, setting-and-renown-specific boons to serve as rewards and acknowledgement of status with organizations.

Something like
* Multiple tiers (4?), gained by doing things the organization likes/wants. Higher tiers are harder to get and may come with in-fiction strings attached.
* At each tier, you'd get a reward from the organization
** Tier 1: something like access to organization NPCs as contacts/shops (or discounts at shops)/questgivers/hirelings. Still paying full freight, but you have access.
** Tier 2: A skill, tool, or language proficiency. Can call in minor favors.
** Tier 3: A feat or feat equivalent (off-list access to certain organization spells, etc). A home base.
** Tier 4: Operational control of organization equipment and personnel. Can call in major favors and get priority on help. Can speak for the organization as a whole.

[Arzanyos]

I fully agree that PrCs, as implemented in 3e, are a horrible fit for 5e and are completely replaced by archetypes.

It does remind me that I've been kicking around the idea of creating a framework for Prestige Boons--multi-tier, non-class-based, setting-and-renown-specific boons to serve as rewards and acknowledgement of status with organizations.

Something like
* Multiple tiers (4?), gained by doing things the organization likes/wants. Higher tiers are harder to get and may come with in-fiction strings attached.
* At each tier, you'd get a reward from the organization
** Tier 1: something like access to organization NPCs as contacts/shops (or discounts at shops)/questgivers/hirelings. Still paying full freight, but you have access.
** Tier 2: A skill, tool, or language proficiency. Can call in minor favors.
** Tier 3: A feat or feat equivalent (off-list access to certain organization spells, etc). A home base.
** Tier 4: Operational control of organization equipment and personnel. Can call in major favors and get priority on help. Can speak for the organization as a whole.
Have you looked at the Guild Rank and Renown sections of GGTR? That sound similar to what you're describing, so it might serve as a good jumping-off point.

[DeadMech]

I did in 3.5. I enjoyed it because it offered the experience I was looking to play both in characterization and in mechanics. Are the entry requirements often arbitrary and onerous? Absolutely. The prestige class I picked it wasn't so bad. The skill requirements were in things I wanted anyway and maybe other than altering the timing of a few points had little effect on me personally though this was not a universal truth. There was one feat I would have preferred to skip but the others were things I likely would have picked. There were also some spell requirements. Would I have rather played that particular prestige class as a standard 1-20 base class that offered the same things. probably.

Would I want to play prestige classes the same way in 5e? Almost certainly not. In 3.5 I had the freedom to alter the specifics of my character's mechanical build. In 5e I don't. If a prestige class calls for a certain threshold of competence in a particular skill either I have it or I don't and that was settled at level 1. I can't half invest in performance or Arcana or stealth. I can't allocate a few ranks here and there to unlock the possibility to do something and then ignore it to invest further in other things. I pick my skills at character creation and 99% of the time those picks represent the same skill allocation my character will have when I stop playing that character. And feat taxes in 5e? No thanks. You receive even less opportunities to select them now AND they compete with attribute increases. Even the spell requirements would be far more onerous in 5e where the game all but tells DM's to make it near impossible to find spell scrolls.

Of course remove the explicit taxes and move the entry point to level 3... what do you have? Archtypes. Arguably 5e did prestige classes better but I guess that depends how you define it. So I can play the prestige class I wanted to play in 3.5 and have an even better time of it in 5e? Well no... The prestige class, the mechanics I want to play... they don't exist. Not yet. Maybe they never will.

[Naanomi]

I can’t think of what I would want PRCs to do that wouldn’t work the same or better as archetypes, feats, or boons

[Chronos]

Well, there is the Playable Rogue prestige class, which has as a prerequisite 10 levels of the Unreliable Rogue class. But other than that...

Back in 3rd edition, the biggest problem with prestige classes was that so many of them were for giving spellcasters extra bells and whistles. But most spellcasters' only class ability was spellcasting, and nobody would give that up for bells and whistles, so you ended up with prestige classes that advanced spellcasting and also gave extra bells and whistles on top of that. So there was no reason to ever take wizard, cleric, or sorcerer past the few levels needed to qualify for a PrC, and the spellcasters became even more overpowered.

Now, though, every class and subclass has bells and whistles, and so taking a different subclass means trading off one set of bells and whistles for a different set. And assuming that the classes were balanced in the first place, they'd remain balanced (or at least, not get any more unbalanced). It works much better.

[Vogie]

It was called the Rune Scribe, and was basically 5 levels of bad Artificer levels. Basically, It was an artificer that was really limited to a handful of effects for the caster only (no selling or upgrading other party member's stuff) and also gave you an ASI that could be changed on a long rest (but why tho?). It was poorly executed, needlessly complex, and wasn't (as far as I could tell) something anyone wanted.

I don't see any reason to do such a thing - The effects you'd create would be basically akin to a DM just saying "You know what? Sure!", and allowing a monk to Sneak Attack with their feet, or having their warlock use Intelligence instead of Charisma.

[Finback]

I had toyed with some designs for a couple, but honestly feel like there's not that much need for it. They'd really just be sub-sub-classes.

(fwiw, I was working up a drow-druid build (the Arachnomancer), and a swarm druid - but the latter could just as easily be a Circle on its own, making the idea of a prestige class redundant)

[Seclora]

One concept I've been playing around with is allowing alternate modifiers for classes, but tied into specific leveling restrictions. For example:

Prestige option: Seeker of the True Knowledge
Can choose the Great Old One Warlock Subclass, replacing all instances of Charisma from its class features with Intelligence.
Requirement: You cannot have more Wizard levels than you do Warlock levels.

Prestige Option: Way of the Closed Fist.
Can choose the Monk, replacing all instances of Dexterity from its class features with Strength.
Requirement: You can only choose the Open Hand subclass when choosing a Monk subclass.

Which opens up specific builds (Warlock + Wizard, Monk + Barbarian) that wouldn't be as accessible otherwise. By forcing these kinds of restrictions, you can remove major kinds of issues with balance (Eldritch Knight would be far too strong using Charisma for casting and 1 level of Hexblade).

I think this kind of solution would be similar to bringing what prestige classes were originally for into 5e (which is creating unique mechanics for specialized builds while "maintaining balance" [whatever that meant in 3.5])

This seems like a pretty good idea to me, and I may try something like this in my campaigns.


I fully agree that PrCs, as implemented in 3e, are a horrible fit for 5e and are completely replaced by archetypes.

It does remind me that I've been kicking around the idea of creating a framework for Prestige Boons--multi-tier, non-class-based, setting-and-renown-specific boons to serve as rewards and acknowledgement of status with organizations.
I have put together some feats that worked a bit like this, prerequisites in multiple classes that let you blend their abilities a little, the way that Rage Mage Or Sacred Fist used to in 3.5. With the right prerequisites You can keep force the feat to be inaccessible to anyone not willing to seriously multiclass, but you can also make that level of multiclassing a bit less punishing for people.

Overall, the design of 5e is to discourage multiclassing. Given some of the insanity that was possible in 3.5 through multiclassing, Uberchargers and Ur Priest Shenanigans come to mind, I understand the decision. However, players will continue to want to play their weird hybrid characters, so sometimes it's nice to give them an option. Most of the old PrCs are either subclasses or could be done through a little multiclassing. Master Transmogrifist and Master of the Unseen Hand are both missing still. That's a bit of a shame, they were neat ideas. But there's no need for any of the flavors of Grey Paladin when Paladins can just choose Avenger, or Conquest.
Personally, I have a player using a modified version of the Runekeeper PrC. It's changed around a bit for the setting, but I still wonder frequently if he wouldn't be stronger if he had just, not taken it.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I like PrC but 5e don't have the needed freedom in character building to uae them as they where in 3.5e.

I will like to have some PrC only for the ability to combine them.
5e doesn't let me have 3 levels at BM fighter and 3 levels at Champion Fighter at the same time(just the first 2 subclass that jump to my head).

[HappyDaze]

The 5e version of prestige classes seems to be found in specific multiclass and/or feat combinations. I would be interested in prestige classes that could compete with such builds while also being unable to be 'dipped' to make such builds even stronger.

[KorvinStarmast]

I can’t think of what I would want PRCs to do that wouldn’t work the same or better as archetypes, feats, or boons Well said.
The 5e version of prestige classes seems to be found in specific multiclass and/or feat combinations. I would be interested in prestige classes that could compete with such builds while also being unable to be 'dipped' to make such builds even stronger. Also well said.

[Nhorianscum]

They created a prestige class a while back, a Runekeeper or something that was absolutely terrible due to its lackluster abilities and fiddly requirements.

Have you ever used a prestige in your own games, or seen one be used? I'd like more specific information vs. broad. I'd like to get an idea of what worked if I decide to create some of my own in my campaigns.

I've used rune scribe and allow it in my games.

It's pretty much a PRC with 1 level in it but that 1 level is quite good.

[ChildofLuthic]

I agree, with the current subclass system, I don't see too much need for the prestige classes now, was just interested to see how some people might do it.


Prestige option: Seeker of the True Knowledge
Can choose the Great Old One Warlock Subclass, replacing all instances of Charisma from its class features with Intelligence.
Requirement: You cannot have more Wizard levels than you do Warlock levels.

By forcing these kinds of restrictions, you can remove major kinds of issues with balance (Eldritch Knight would be far too strong using Charisma for casting and 1 level of Hexblade).

I think this kind of solution would be similar to bringing what prestige classes were originally for into 5e (which is creating unique mechanics for specialized builds while "maintaining balance" [whatever that meant in 3.5])

So maybe this makes me the kind of player you're hoping not to have in your game ever, but with Seeker of True Knowledge you could still multiclass EK X/Hexblade 1 and use Intelligence as your casting stat and your weapon stat, right?

[MilkmanDanimal]

Prestige classes became the thing I disliked most in 3.5, because so much of getting to the point where you could take those classes was the very specific build you'd have to follow to really get into one. 3.5 became very much about the character optimization metagame, and it just got old. I find subclasses work out to fill in the gaps pretty darn well, so I see no need for prestige classes at all.

[Ignimortis]

Never seen them in use, mostly because there was only one published. Some classes, as it stands right now, can still be ditched at appropriate points (to be honest, I'd quit Ranger right after level 8 if not level 5, and probably same for Warlock and level 5 or 6 at best, if not 2-3) and gain something from Prestige Classes.

That being said, 5e is simply too non-modular for Prestige Classes to actually work like they did in 3.5, because you don't have enough granularity and "build points" to meaningfully distinguish characters after they're created. 80% of your choices are made at levels 1-3 (race, class, skills, subclass), and after that your character is practically set in stone, and mostly improves stats and/or changes gear. That's it.

[Theodoxus]

My "solution" to PrCs was to limit multiclassing to feats, and limiting that to 6 levels of a second class and 3 levels of a 3rd.

[Man_Over_Game]

So maybe this makes me the kind of player you're hoping not to have in your game ever, but with Seeker of True Knowledge you could still multiclass EK X/Hexblade 1 and use Intelligence as your casting stat and your weapon stat, right?

Not quite, you're forced into the Great Old One patron, which has the fewest combat abilities outside of its spell options, and you can't cheese those good spells by going mostly Wizard. You COULD go Eldritch Knight-Great Old One, but they don't really mix all too well.

I also chose the Open Hand monk for Strength because while you get Strength-based AC, and Strength-based Unarmed Strikes, your class features still rely on Wisdom, and you cannot use the main feature of Strength attributes: Heavy weapons and armor.

So in either solution, it doesn't inherently make you better or worse, it just opens things up for character development.

[HappyDaze]

3.5 became very much about the character optimization metagame, and it just got old.

The "character optimization metagame" is still very much alive in 5e. It is no more youthful in this incarnation.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Something like
* Multiple tiers (4?), gained by doing things the organization likes/wants. Higher tiers are harder to get and may come with in-fiction strings attached.
* At each tier, you'd get a reward from the organization
** Tier 1: something like access to organization NPCs as contacts/shops (or discounts at shops)/questgivers/hirelings. Still paying full freight, but you have access.
** Tier 2: A skill, tool, or language proficiency. Can call in minor favors.
** Tier 3: A feat or feat equivalent (off-list access to certain organization spells, etc). A home base.
** Tier 4: Operational control of organization equipment and personnel. Can call in major favors and get priority on help. Can speak for the organization as a whole.


Have you looked at the Guild Rank and Renown sections of GGTR? That sound similar to what you're describing, so it might serve as a good jumping-off point.

There's actually already a framework for this in both the DMG and Dragon Heist. I'm not sure how detailed it is in the DMG as I just glanced over it last night and thought, "Oh I didn't know that was in here." It seemed kind of loose in the DMG and the DH version is pretty specific to that module, but I think a combination of the two could work really well for something like this.

[MilkmanDanimal]

The "character optimization metagame" is still very much alive in 5e. It is no more youthful in this incarnation.

Not vaguely to the same extent, because 5e lacks the endless stream of splatbooks and options, and optimization isn't as critical. In 5e, it's very possible to just change your character concept mid-stream and go for a multiclass, and you can still be effective and useful. Yeah, you've got tour GWM or SS super-builds, but they're fewer and far between, so I find characters grow far more organically than they did in 3.5.

[Yora]

I think the original idea of prestige classes was to make them alternative patha that are opened up by developments in an ongoing campaign. Like becoming allied with secret societies or discovering unique sources of power.

But then it very quickly shifted to prestige classes just being more material for people who work out their complete build before play begins and it all turned into a gigantic pile of bloat. I always got the impression that third edition splatbooks are prestige class books first, and all the other stuff is just padding for page count.

[Willie the Duck]

The "character optimization metagame" is still very much alive in 5e. It is no more youthful in this incarnation.

Anecdotally, regardless of what the rules allow, the gaming culture has changed. Coffeelocks (at least pre-ruling-nerf) and Wish+Simulacrum are/were recognized things, but are treated as interesting confluences to be noted and then we move on. I don't think I've even seen many sorcadins or hexblade-dip paladins or fighters with GWM/PAM/Sentinel (all 3, I've certainly seen 1 of the above) in any or certainly not many IRL gaming situations. People seem more embarrassed by cheese than the reveling in it that happened in mid-late 3e.

[Malifice]

One of the best things about this edition is that it does not have prestige classes. (Will it remain uncontaminated? We'll see).

I like PRC's in principle. What I dont like is PrC dipping (how they work in practice).

One of my favorite HR's in 3.P was the '1 PrC per PC' limit. That cut down on a ton of shennanigans, and made them relevant again in their intended purpose.

It stopped dipping in PrCs, and really made PrCs define your character.

That said, Archetypes pretty much cover everything PrCs gave you in 3.5.

[Vogie]

I also chose the Open Hand monk for Strength because while you get Strength-based AC, and Strength-based Unarmed Strikes, your class features still rely on Wisdom, and you cannot use the main feature of Strength attributes: Heavy weapons and armor.


Actually, the way it's worded, you can use strength for everything... including Evasion and the knock-prone option of Open Hand Technique

[Man_Over_Game]

Actually, the way it's worded, you can use strength for everything... including Evasion and the knock-prone option of Open Hand Technique

I don't actually see a major problem with that. Strength-based Evasion is worse than normal Evasion (because Strength saving throws are rare), and knocking a creature down because they lack the strength to stand up to you isn't all that bad.

Although I'd just change the wording to have you use your Strength modifier in place of your Dexterity Modifier for your Monk features, which means your Evasion would still use your Dexterity modifier and Open Hand would not use Strength to save.

[Willie the Duck]

One of my favorite HR's in 3.P was the '1 PrC per PC' limit. That cut down on a ton of shennanigans, and made them relevant again in their intended purpose.

It stopped dipping in PrCs, and really made PrCs define your character.

I think I would also instigate some kind of rule about devoting x% of your newly gained levels to the PrC until you capped it out, so that one couldn't just dip-in to the PrC up to a certainly point. There were a lot of PrCs that incentivized you dipping in for 1, 2, or 6 levels and then moving on (even if you didn't/couldn't pick up another PrC). Mind you, the better option would be to design the PrCs such that you would want to, but that's water under the bridge for 3e.

I agree overall, PrCs were a nice concept, poorly implemented, and largely fill the same space as archetypes do with 5e.

[Malifice]

I think I would also instigate some kind of rule about devoting x% of your newly gained levels to the PrC until you capped it out, so that one couldn't just dip-in to the PrC up to a certainly point. There were a lot of PrCs that incentivized you dipping in for 1, 2, or 6 levels and then moving on (even if you didn't/couldn't pick up another PrC). Mind you, the better option would be to design the PrCs such that you would want to, but that's water under the bridge for 3e.

I agree overall, PrCs were a nice concept, poorly implemented, and largely fill the same space as archetypes do with 5e.

Id prefer a soft encouragement ('taking X levels in a PrC grants you +2 to an ability score/ feat of your choice, and at 10th level you gain a special boon/ capstone in addition to what the class gives you' type of thing).

Forcing PCs to take levels in a PrC stops them from ever taking a level in them. Encoding extra buffs in those classes makes them more attractive options. I want to encourage them (they provide awesome in game identity and flesh out a PC) while also stopping abuse.

You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar and all that.

[Willie the Duck]

Sure. At this level of abstractness, I'm not sweating the details. We're already discussing "'1 PrC per PC' limit" rules, so we're clearly mixing our honey and vinegar. Regardless, in broad strokes, 3e PrCs were a great idea that had lots of implementation problems, and it'd be interesting to see how they could be pared down to make them more than merely another avenue to optimal-build-bloat, without making them too crippled to be attractive. In a theoretical 3e redux, it would be a fascinating design challenge. In 5e, it just seems like both the mechanical and character-role-based reasons that they existed have already been addressed (whether you like the specific implementation of archetypes is another question, I know).

[Petrocorus]

I have played with the idea of using feats as Prestige Class. To fit some specific archetype or actual elite organisation.

These Prestige Feat should of course be on par with other feat in term of power.

In Eberron for instance, i was thinking about a Knight Phantom feat giving bonus to the use of the Phantom Steed spell and some other advantage to an arcane caster, maybe an additional fighting style.

A Dark Lantern feat which would give proficiencies to a Fighter.

Maybe some feat that would tweak a little the class spell list of some classes. Like replacing Evocation by Illusion or Transmutation for an Eldritch Knight.

We actually have an example with the Revenant Blade feat from WGE.

[djreynolds]

I really don't care either way.

I like the idea of prestige classes.

And, humbly, IMO, some of the classes come off already as prestige classes.... cough... paladin.

To me, a class like paladin, it feels like a class should have take an oath to become a paladin.

Before the oath, what was the paladin... probably a fighter or cleric or barbarian or even a rogue.

Same for ranger, this classes also feels it's without a beginning.

IMO, paladin or ranger, could've been titles or prestige classes that were earned by a rogue or barbarian or fighter.

I think there is an imbalance between the classes, and that's perhaps why some feel the need for prestige classes.

But also what I have found, unless you really POWER GAME any imbalances are barely noticed.

Sometimes playing D&D can feel like a poker game. A fun game with friends and beer. Or a competitive game, full pros and optimizers and rules lawyers

[Pelle]

To me, a class like paladin, it feels like a class should have take an oath to become a paladin.


You mean that the Paladin class should have taken its Sacred Oath at level 1 instead of 3?

[djreynolds]

You mean that the Paladin class should have taken its Sacred Oath at level 1 instead of 3?

Is there a paladin academy out there?

Where level 1 and 2 they're training?

It's like, "I want to be paladin... But I'm not if I should go ancient or conquest "

I feel like player playing a paladin is drawn from their past to become paladin. Something happened to swear an oath of vengeance.

It's why the paladin can feel like prestige classes already

[PhoenixPhyre]

You mean that the Paladin class should have taken its Sacred Oath at level 1 instead of 3?

You do. It's just levels 1 and 2 represent a paladin candidate or novice. You've taken oaths, but not your OATH.

Not any knightly person is a paladin--only those who are on the path to take their final Oath gain those powers and that title.

And yes, your background/backstory should point to an Oath, often much more so than for many other classes.

[Pelle]

Is there a paladin academy out there?

Where level 1 and 2 they're training?

It's like, "I want to be paladin... But I'm not if I should go ancient or conquest "

I feel like player playing a paladin is drawn from their past to become paladin. Something happened to swear an oath of vengeance.

It's why the paladin can feel like prestige classes already

Not sure I understand what you mean, but I think I agree. It would be smoother if the Sacred Oath was a decision at first level, like the Warlock Patron, Sorceror origin, etc. Martial training up until that point is backstory. I get why they chose not to though, to not lock in players too early before they get a feel for the character.

Though in my game, it was quite cool when the timing of the Sacred Oath of Devotion worked out very well with the events of the narrative.


You do. It's just levels 1 and 2 represent a paladin candidate or novice. You've taken oaths, but not your OATH.


Nope, not necessarily. Players don't have to select which Oath they are going to take before level 3. It certainly helps for it to make sense, though.

[Man_Over_Game]

Nope, not necessarily. Players don't have to select which Oath they are going to take before level 3. It certainly helps for it to make sense, though.

There is mention in the PHB that it's customary to have your Oath roughly picked out for the first few levels. I do agree, though, that levels 1-2 represent your "squire" stage, and level 3 actually represents your start as a "hero".

Sure, someone can pick something completely random for their level 3 Oath, but I feel like a surprising choice should be something that's part of the story (trained to be Redemption, but my hatred pulled me into Vengeance).

[djreynolds]

Paladin feels like a prestige class. It's okay.

The ranger does somewhat?

And warlock to some extent.

This is just IMO. And it doesn't ruin the game for me.

I like prestige classes only because it's stops creating all these archetypes.

Arcane archer could be a prestige class, so could samurai or cavalier.

And if barbarian wants to be a samurai you can reflavor class or just take 3 levels of fighter/samurai.

But the paladin already feels like a prestige class

[PhoenixPhyre]

Nope, not necessarily. Players don't have to select which Oath they are going to take before level 3. It certainly helps for it to make sense, though.

Mechanically, sure. But in fiction? There's actually text (I'm AFB but I remember seeing it) that mentions that you've generally taken novitiate oaths by level 1. Remember, a paladin casts spells due to power granted by his conviction as manifest in his oaths. And you get spells at level 2. So by then you've taken at least preliminary oaths. I'd agree that you can't fall (by deliberately abandoning your Oath) until level 3+.

[Kadesh]

Tbh, I'd like to see the game go completely classless, except you get a grid of nodes you can advance to when you level up, similar to Path of Exile or Final Fantasy X.

Where you start from only matters what you can take early game.

[Man_Over_Game]

Tbh, I'd like to see the game go completely classless, except you get a grid of nodes you can advance to when you level up, similar to Path of Exile or Final Fantasy X.

Where you start from only matters what you can take early game.

I was thinking about something like that, using some kind of system that has things like 3 primary nodes that branch off into another 3 separate nodes, like:


Martial

Rage
Finesse
Guardian

Magic
Arcane
Divine
Black

Skulk

Stealth
Manipulation
Invention



And with each level, you pick one Suboption under one of the Superoptions. Your abilities come from either spending points provided by those levels for specific abilities, or just having those levels passively.

Like if you invested heavily into Rage, you'll passively get abilities that allow you to deal more damage while taking more damage. However, you can spend your Rage-based points for actual abilities that can be combined with other sources, like Martial Rage + Black Magic can grant you an ability that fills your body with dark power, fueled by wrath, and makes you emit an aura of negative energy. Alternatively, Rage + Manipulation could grant a way of intimidating enemies or encouraging allies to join into the fight. However, Martial Rage, Black Magic, or Skulk Manipulation all grant you passive abilities that encourage their individual playstyles.

Just a thought I've been playing around with, I guess.

[Cynthaer]

Mechanically, sure. But in fiction? There's actually text (I'm AFB but I remember seeing it) that mentions that you've generally taken novitiate oaths by level 1. Remember, a paladin casts spells due to power granted by his conviction as manifest in his oaths. And you get spells at level 2. So by then you've taken at least preliminary oaths. I'd agree that you can't fall (by deliberately abandoning your Oath) until level 3+.

If we're willing to step out of the fiction for a minute, I think the real answer to why Paladin is built the way it is is this:

1. Making the Paladin subclasses different "Oaths" with distinct tenets is cool and flavorful, and a great way to break players out of the old habit of making all Paladins the "Lawful Good Fun Police".

2. The different Oaths make such a difference for the character that they would most comfortably be a level 1 subclass like the Cleric has.

3. Unlike the Cleric, the Paladin chassis has a ton of iconic class features that are common to all subclasses, which players need as soon as possible.

3a. Seriously, in the first two levels, Paladins get Divine Sense, Lay on Hands, Fighting Style, Spellcasting, and Divine Smite.

4. With no room to fit subclass features into level 1 or 2, it was easiest to shunt the Paladin subclass choice back to level 3 and just handwave the part where you maybe-sort-of-technically don't "take the Oath" that defines your character until then, even though in practice there's no reason that hitting level 3 would really change the character narratively.

Now, I'm not necessarily saying it had to be this way, or even that it should be that way. I'm just saying that's what I think happened during the Paladin design.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That may be true, but the fiction also works just fine as it is. So things work from both angles.

[Knaight]

The "character optimization metagame" is still very much alive in 5e. It is no more youthful in this incarnation.

It's been toned down pretty dramatically. The removal of prerequisite lists from everything helps dramatically here, as does the generally higher optimization floor. It's still around, yes, but if you approach character creation more as a hoop to jump through to get to the actual game than as a fun minigame you get to do first 5e supports you a lot more.

[Crucius]

I like PRC's in principle. What I dont like is PrC dipping (how they work in practice).

I agree, the flavor that comes from prestige classes is probably not worth the dip, and could be created with visual descriptions and acting either way.

What if there was a series of prestige classes that only work for level 20 characters? If players would want to continue past the legendary phase of the game? If I recall correctly, the book already has a paragraph on post-level-cap boons.

[Malifice]

I agree, the flavor that comes from prestige classes is probably not worth the dip, and could be created with visual descriptions and acting either way.

What if there was a series of prestige classes that only work for level 20 characters? If players would want to continue past the legendary phase of the game? If I recall correctly, the book already has a paragraph on post-level-cap boons.

Most people stop at 11th level or way before, so they'd largely be rarely used and thus not worth the effort.

[Pelle]

That may be true, but the fiction also works just fine as it is. So things work from both angles.

I don't know, it feels kind of weak to me. Taking an oath should be a significant event. Having taken a small preliminary one first, and then later the big one is wonky and unsatisfying fictionally. It would be better to start out with the tenets at level 1 for the concept to work. Having the oath/tenets at level 3 is like a class feature that dictates how the narrative should go for it to be satisfying, although it is cool when it does and makes for a great moment in play. Starting with a small oath, and then get the tenets at level 3 can be justified, but is a much weaker option IMO.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't know, it feels kind of weak to me. Taking an oath should be a significant event. Having taken a small preliminary one first, and then later the big one is wonky and unsatisfying fictionally. It would be better to start out with the tenets at level 1 for the concept to work. Having the oath/tenets at level 3 is like a class feature that dictates how the narrative should go for it to be satisfying, although it is cool when it does and makes for a great moment in play. Starting with a small oath, and then get the tenets at level 3 can be justified, but is a much weaker option IMO.

Forum rules prohibit further discussion, but monastics of many religions do exactly that. The novice vows are preliminary and less restrictive.

[Pelle]

Forum rules prohibit further discussion, but monastics of many religions do exactly that. The novice vows are preliminary and less restrictive.

Sure, but that's still unsatisfying for me narratively. I prefer the oath to triggered by a specific event. Like the kid whose family was killed by orcish raiders, swearing to get revenge, or the soldier witnessing a massacre and taking an oath to protect the weak in response, etc.

Sure, you can get that if you just decide on the tenets at level 1, but then that could just as well be the standard. There a few interesting character concepts to me that needs the novice vows first, then more restrictive later, regardless of real world religions.

[Willie the Duck]

If we're willing to step out of the fiction for a minute, I think the real answer to why Paladin is built the way it is is this: <list 1-4, making gamist explanation>

It seems to me that this is an overall good explanation on why many archetypes are chosen at levels 2 and 3 in general. Add to that that it allows people to feel out their characters for a level or two before making such big decisions. Mechanically or thematically, it works better or worse for some classes/subclasses than others (yes, it makes less sense for a paladin than a rogue to choose a character focus at level 3, and if you know you want to be a valor bard, it's annoying having to wait until level 3 and then change weapons and armor).


I like prestige classes only because it's stops creating all these archetypes.

It's not like 5e eschews the concept of having multiple ways of doing something (Eldritch Knights and Multiclassing fighter-wizard, for instance), but this one seems like a 1:1 direct overlap.


Tbh, I'd like to see the game go completely classless, except you get a grid of nodes you can advance to when you level up, similar to Path of Exile or Final Fantasy X.
Where you start from only matters what you can take early game.

You know, it's really hard to defend sacred cows, because obviously we're not still playing from the Little Brown Books and some level of change is happening as the game moves through editions. However, there are like, several hundred tabletop roleplaying games that already do this (a fantasy kitchen sink RPG that is classless). Why specifically do we need D&D to go down that road? My bet is that it would just become a bad copy of one of those games that already have done this (and were built-to-purpose with that goal).

[PhoenixPhyre]

However, there are like, several hundred tabletop roleplaying games that already do this (a fantasy kitchen sink RPG that is classless). Why specifically do we need D&D to go down that road? My bet is that it would just become a bad copy of one of those games that already have done this (and were built-to-purpose with that goal).

Agreed. I happen to prefer class/level systems. Because for me, point-buy causes analysis paralysis, encourages super-specialization, and often can lack thematic structure, while grid-and-node based comes with spending advancement points on minor upgrades to unlock the big ones (which is tons of work for something very very limited or broken).

For example, FFX ended up with Yuna (the classic "white mage/summoner" archetype in fiction) being the absolute best combat person in late game because if you gave her black magic she had the highest magic power stat, plus her relic item (the easiest to get, too), gave her 1-mana casts. I did the whole last few areas using nothing but spamming Ultima for 1 MP. Got boring and trivialized everything.

[Particle_Man]

I used a Knowledge cleric with the hermit (group) background and flavour texted it as a Sapphire Hierarch (which I liked from 3.5) but that is as close as I have gotten.

[djreynolds]

I'm just downloading stuff from my brain. Please be understanding.

5E IMO did a remarkable job with the paladin, it's well written and can literally take the lead in 2 of the 3 pillars.

The paladin archetypes opened up huge ideas. The archetypes are incredible.

I never saw vengeance coming and when I did I saw Batman, not some guy in plate armor. I saw a young kid creeping in the dark with a knife.

When I saw, ancients, it was like this is what druid should be. This is awesome and thematic.

And I have a good feeling an arcana paladin in coming out soon.

The reason some players are looking or thinking of prestige classes, is because the paladin gives this feeling of awesomeness. It is a very complete class. COMPLETE

My point is, if you want to make a prestige class... just grab 3 levels of paladin and your done. Prerequisites.... 13 strength and 13 charisma.

Paladin, ranger, and warlock should've been prestige classes. Honestly they have that feel.

I mean, a paladin/barbarian is a zealot barbarian.

Not all rangers are the same. A stealth ranger could've began as a rogue, a melee might have been a barbarian, the archery specialist was a fighter first.

How many times have you read totem barbarian wolf and said boy this feels like a ranger perk?

My point is, some archetypes and some classes lack completeness, and thus we yearn for prestige classes.

I mean, IMO, hexblade screams huge potential.

I might've toyed with the ideas these 3 classes: warlock, ranger, and paladin... as prestige classes or titles with perks.

[Petrocorus]

One archetype that is a bit lacking is the arcane gish. I mean the 3.5 arcane gish who boost himself before going into melee.

The Eldritch Knight should have been this but his spell list makes him work a bit differently. Or maybe not like i subjectively wanted him to work.

We know have the Hexblade, and it works, but the fluff is different.

What i would have wanted was an Eldritch Knight with access to Transmutation instead of Evocation.

[Kadesh]

One archetype that is a bit lacking is the arcane gish. I mean the 3.5 arcane gish who boost himself before going into melee.

The Eldritch Knight should have been this but his spell list makes him work a bit differently. Or maybe not like i subjectively wanted him to work.

We know have the Hexblade, and it works, but the fluff is different.

What i would have wanted was an Eldritch Knight with access to Transmutation instead of Evocation.

Why does the Paladin not do this for you? Removing the flavour text et voila you have it.

[Theodoric]

I agree that a Swordmage-like arcane halfcaster is the class option the game most needs right now, but I don't see how a prestige class would fill that.

[Man_Over_Game]

Why does the Paladin not do this for you? Removing the flavour text et voila you have it.

A major concern behind what Petrocorus is looking for is the fact that buff spells are severely nerfed compared to prior editions.

Stacking buffs constantly to win a future fight isn't fun. You eat up a lot of time to make an exciting event take a quarter of the time. Once you've just made the combat event completely pointless, you now need a nap. You basically cast a bunch of mechanically boring spells, make the fight boring, just to sleep the rest of the day. It bogged the game down.

So now buff spells are very limited (Magic Weapon), very expensive (Haste) or easy to get rid of (Concentration). And you can't easily stack multiple on the same person (Tenser's Transformation).

So making a buff-based melee combatant just is against the inherent design philosophy of 5e. I *could* see something where a warrior could have a permanent buff (prevents over preparation) that they could modify slightly as needed (so they still have a similar *feel* as a character to generates their own buffs), but there are already similar options with the Bladesinger (who can cast buffs on themselves in melee combat AND keep them).

[HappyDaze]

So making a buff-based melee combatant just is against the inherent design philosophy of 5e. I *could* see something where a warrior could have a permanent buff (prevents over preparation) that they could modify slightly as needed (so they still have a similar *feel*), but there are already similar options with the Bladesinger (who can cast buffs on themselves in melee combat AND keep them).

Permanent buffs in a form like Warlock invocations?

[Petrocorus]

Why does the Paladin not do this for you? Removing the flavour text et voila you have it.

The Paladin in 5E is very good. But playing a divine gish doesn't feel the same as playing an arcane one. And it doesn't fill some archetypes due to the relationship with a divinity. The Warlock as the same thing. I wouldn't call this an issue, this is the core definition of the class. I just think there would be room for an arcane gish archetype that is big on self-boosting and don't rely on a higher power.

Maybe i was just too used to complex Eldritch Knight/ Abjurant Champion / Spellsword / Suel Arcanamach builds.

And to be honest, i do believe that having Evocation for the EK is a bug. Something like a third or more of your spell known will be Evocation and Evocation has almost only blasting. But your spell slot will be too low in level when you get them to do relevant blasting. You will get Fireball at level 13. At this point, you can only be efficient against some of the mooks you encounter and the Wizard or the Sorcerer can do it and it cost less to them relatively. This is situational for you. At this point, you would be much better with Haste, Vampiric Touch, Fly, or even Stinking Cloud.


A major concern .... AND keep them).

All of this is true.

And the Warlock do this correctly. This is why when i want to play an EK, i take as many level in Warlock as in Fighter.

[Man_Over_Game]

Permanent buffs in a form like Warlock invocations?

Warlock Invocations add character building options, but they don't generally add options in-game.

For it to be unique, a Transmutational style of "gish" would have long-term buffs, but specific ones that'd he'd have to choose from rather than just applying all of them. It'd be a *decision* to cast a buff rather than just something he does all the time.

Less Barbarian Rage, more Druid Wildshape.

Almost as if the buffs were a sort of "stance". Things like:

Can enchant weapon to deal Radiant damage, grants you Temporary Hitpoints equal to half of the damage it deals.
Can enchant weapon to deal Fire damage, dealing half damage to enemies adjacent to creatures you hit.
Can enchant weapon to deal Cold damage, reducing a hit target's speed by 15 and causing them to provoke Opportunity Attacks even if they Disengage, until the start of your next turn.
Can enchant weapon to deal Necrotic damage, causing a hit target's next attack to have Disadvantage until the start of your next turn.

Maybe tack on something else where you can enchant your armor in a similar way, make it so you can only change your Enchantment on a Long Rest (later on a Short Rest, and even later in the middle of combat 1/long rest.)

Other than something similar to that, generic buffs on a melee combatant using spells is already possible with the existing archetypes.

I might just make a homebrew archetype based on this, thinking about it.

[Malifice]

Maybe i was just too used to complex Eldritch Knight/ Abjurant Champion / Spellsword / Suel Arcanamach builds.

Personally I find 5E to be the most Gish friendly edition yet.

Between Bladesingers, EK's, Valor and Swords bards, Blade pact warlocks and Hexblades and with how multiclassing works (rolling your slots into one pool) you can make pretty much any kind of Gish you want.

[Chronos]

Yeah, even without splatbooks, 5e has eldritch knights, paladins (of all three types), elemental monks, blade warlocks, valor bards, war clerics, and abjurer wizards, plus multiclasses. Just how many different kinds of gish do you need?

[Willie the Duck]

I will say that, if refluffing the paladin as an arcane class is a mental bridge too far, it is too bad that there was not an arcane 1:2 progression caster class to bridge the gap between EKs and bladesingers (additional issue if DM mandates bladesingers as elf-only).

[djreynolds]

It's about the growth of classes and archetypes.

This is just friendly observation

The paladin really showcases this.

Each paladin archetype really touches on something unique, but the base paladin itself is still awesome, smites, auras, improved divine smite, lay on hands, and spells.

The paladin archetypes are very prestigious.

And then you can layer in feats and ASI.

The paladin is written perfectly.

I think some other classes/archetypes do this.

Totem barbarian, abjuration wizard, bladesinger, tempest cleric, moon druid come to mind...

I like all the classes and archetypes, the above are just easier to put together.

[OverLordOcelot]

The Paladin in 5E is very good. But playing a divine gish doesn't feel the same as playing an arcane one. And it doesn't fill some archetypes due to the relationship with a divinity.

Note: In 5e rules, paladins don't have to follow a god and don't get their powers from a divine being. None of the paladin subclasses require any relationship with a church or deity.


And to be honest, i do believe that having Evocation for the EK is a bug. Something like a third or more of your spell known will be Evocation and Evocation has almost only blasting.

I agree with that. My preferred house rule is that EKs and ATs pick two schools instead of having two set schools.

[Snails]

One of the best things about this edition is that it does not have prestige classes. (Will it remain uncontaminated? We'll see).

Prestige classes sounded great on paper; but in practice the concept overlapped strongly with Feat trees. Because Feat trees and PrCs existed in parallel, these were synergistic tools for heavy duty hyperoptimization. And this was further exacerbated by the designers having no consistent philosophy on how/whether a class should be frontloaded, which was even less consistently enforced for PrCs -- thus every new splatbook was a little lottery that would yield a winner or two for powerful 1 or 2 level dips.

Most 3e PrCs IMHO could have been replaced by a Feat, if only the multiclassed rules sucked a little less.

[Chronos]

And some of the base classes, too. Knight, for instance, should have just been a set of fighter feats.

[Man_Over_Game]

I will say that, if refluffing the paladin as an arcane class is a mental bridge too far, it is too bad that there was not an arcane 1:2 progression caster class to bridge the gap between EKs and bladesingers (additional issue if DM mandates bladesingers as elf-only).

Really, for that, most people just take Eldritch Knight + Wizard levels, which solves the problem pretty well. Grab a level into War Mage or Abjuration Wizard and there won't be anybody who "feels bad" over your lack of choices.

Or Paladin + Sorcerer/Warlock.

The options are there and they're used often enough to almost be cliché.

[Cynthaer]

It seems to me that this is an overall good explanation on why many archetypes are chosen at levels 2 and 3 in general. Add to that that it allows people to feel out their characters for a level or two before making such big decisions. Mechanically or thematically, it works better or worse for some classes/subclasses than others (yes, it makes less sense for a paladin than a rogue to choose a character focus at level 3, and if you know you want to be a valor bard, it's annoying having to wait until level 3 and then change weapons and armor).

I don't have a direct citation because it's from streams and Twitter posts that are hard to search, but I know Mearls (and maybe Crawford?) has explicitly said the "3rd-level-subclass" classes were designed to (A) have most features in the main class, and (B) not change the core playstyle based on the subclass—for instance, you'll never see a Barbarian subclass that lets you use Dex instead of Str.

(We could argue whether something like Swords/Valor Bards break this rule, but that was the design intent.)

I know Mearls has said they don't count Druids as a "level 2 subclass", and it got bumped by a level for design reasons. I believe he said they treat it as a "level 1 subclass", but put it at level 2 because they didn't want to put spellcasting, Wild Shape, and the subclass feature all at level 1, and you can't do Circle of the Moon without Wild Shape.

(It's only tangentially related, but Mearls has also said that the Rogue's very small subclasses—only three features—make it difficult to make new Rogue subclasses. Something to keep in mind for homebrewers, since it's very easy to put too much stuff in and get an OP or bloated design.)

Anyway, the point is, I'm purely speculating that something similar happened with Paladins, but it's rooted in what I know is true about Druids.

[XxBoneSagexX]

They created a prestige class a while back, a Runekeeper or something that was absolutely terrible due to its lackluster abilities and fiddly requirements.

Have you ever used a prestige in your own games, or seen one be used? I'd like more specific information vs. broad. I'd like to get an idea of what worked if I decide to create some of my own in my campaigns.

Well in 3.5e one of my favorite prestige classes was Mystic Theurge simply for the Dual Spellcasting Leveling. You can become pretty strong as a Wizard/Cleric/Mystic.

[Sigreid]

I bought a 3rd party supplement Masters of Death that had things like a Pale Master class in it. I found the classes balanced well enough. A touch under powered really, but not bad enough that you couldn't play them.

[Kadesh]

Well in 3.5e one of my favorite prestige classes was Mystic Theurge simply for the Dual Spellcasting Leveling. You can become pretty strong as a Wizard/Cleric/Mystic.

I mean, not really, as it delayed your spellcasting by 2 Spell Levels and having a multi attribute dependancy. And unless you took Ur Priest for Dual 9ths, having lots of spell slots was worse than having still a lot of spells but with 2 additional spellevels.

MT was a trap.

[Snails]

And some of the base classes, too. Knight, for instance, should have just been a set of fighter feats.

Great example. IMHO it is beyond weird that "knight in shining armor" can turn out to be too "exotic" a concept for Fighter to satisfactorily accomplish with piles of Feats.

(But perhaps the real problem here is the Fighter class itself cannot serve all PCs whose main claim to fame is fighting and not much else.)

Riffing on the general drift of djreynolds: in 5e, every PC eventually takes a mini-PrC that is baked into the base class as their specialty. Thus 5e gets 80% of the positive benefits of PrCs at 10% of the rules cost.

[Snails]

I mean, not really, as it delayed your spellcasting by 2 Spell Levels and having a multi attribute dependancy. And unless you took Ur Priest for Dual 9ths, having lots of spell slots was worse than having still a lot of spells but with 2 additional spellevels.

MT was a trap.

"Trap" is a little strong.

But the upfront costs are really high because a Wiz3/Clr3 is far far behind even a Wiz5 or Clr5. You do not really make up any ground until get your 4th MT level at character level 10. I think Wiz3/Clr3/MT6 and beyond has much to recommend it, for someone who likes to play a generalist. MAD is only a minor issue, because you just do not bother to cast offensive divine spells.

[Chronos]

And in 5th edition, you can more or less make a functional Mystic Theurge without needing the PrC. You'll be upcasting a lot to use your higher-level spell slots, but you'd likely be doing that anyway.