Classes/Prestige Classes from older editions that you want to see on 5e?

[JAL_1138]

I wouldn't mind an optional ruleset for using monsters as PCs or a compendium of nonstandard races, a'la Complete Book of Humanoids, as long as it was über-clear that it was purely DM-optional and not something players could count on having access to. I miss my bariaur ranger from Planescape back in 2e.

But at the same time, I understand the concerns of not wanting to comb through dozens of races/classes to get a build made, and in some respects think maybe it's fine where it is and that maybe new material should be largely fluff (setting books, etc.) rather than new crunch.

[2D8HP]

Nope!
I think 5e has too many classes already!

... Are you serious? it has only 1 class more than in the 3.5 PHB.

Yes I am absolutely serious. While the free basic rules are great, the PHB is just adds too much, which makes it a chore to DM. All those extra sub-classes or "archetypes", give me options fatigue.

You know what I don't miss about 3.5?

Having to memorize 30 sourcebooks just to feel like I left no stone unturned while optimizing a build.

As for the false 3.5? Except that it seems to be what most people actually play, I would prefer to ignore the false 3.5 entirely. I'd also like to ignore AD&D as well.
For me the editions are:

1e: Little Wars by H.G. Well in 1913


2e: Chainmail by Gygax & Perren in 1971


3e: Dungeons & Dragons by Arneson & Gygax in 1974


3.5: The Greyhawk supplement by Gygax & Kuntz in 1975


4e: The English translation of D&D (AKA "Basic") by Holmes in 1977

And then 5e in 2014

All other (false) editions imperil your soul. Heed my warning!

in some respects think maybe it's fine where it is and that maybe new material should be largely fluff (setting books, etc.) rather than new crunch.

No new "crunch" at all please! Too many rules already!
End the rules deluge!
Stand athwart the editions and yell "Stop"!

[JAL_1138]

Yes I am absolutely serious. While the free basic rules are great, the PHB is just adds too much, which makes it a chore to DM. All those extra sub-classes or "archetypes", give me options fatigue.
As for the false 3.5? Except that it seems to be what most people actually play, I would prefer to ignore the false 3.5 entirely. I'd also like to ignore AD&D as well.
For me the editions are:

1e: Little Wars by H.G. Well in 1913


2e: Chainmail by Gygax & Perren in 1971


3e: Dungeons & Dragons by Arneson & Gygax in 1974


3.5: The Greyhawk supplement by Gygax & Kuntz in 1975


4e: The English translation of D&D (AKA "Basic") by Holmes in 1977

And then 5e in 2014

All other (false) editions imperil your soul. Heed my warning!

No new "crunch" at all please! Too many rules already!
End the rules deluge!
Stand athwart the editions and yell "Stop"!

I'm a 2e guy. It had supplements (usually setting box-sets...man, I miss setting box-sets) out the wazoo. Admittedly, most of the Complete [Whatever]'s Handbooks and virtually all the content in the Player's Option books were crap. But I think to an extent the fundamental assumption was more "Nothing outside the PHB (and for that matter some of the PHB) is allowed unless the DM clears it first; these are additional options which may or may not be used" rather than "Everything is assumed to be allowed unless the DM institutes restrictions." I could be wrong--I gamed in a very small community back then and wasn't active on forums (not that there were a heck of a lot of boards, even in the late 90s, and in the early '00s 3e was the new hotness)--but that was the general impression I had.

In some ways it was a bit like UA stuff in 5e is now--there was sort of an asterisk (for a footnote of "this may not be allowed, don't count on it") next to the supplement material in discussions.

[Vogonjeltz]

What are some classes/prestige classes that the denizens of the forum want to see back?

I want to see the Psion Shaper back so that I can make my Stand and scream: ORA! ORA! ORA! ORA! ORA! ORA! ORA! ORA! ORA! ORA! ORA! ORA! ORA! ORA! ORA! ORA! ORA! ORA! ORA! ORA! ...

I would rather avoid splat book bloat than see the Hexblade show up again.

[DragonSorcererX]

I'm in favor of customization to the maximum possible, that is why I rebuke so much rolling ANYTHING during character creation, level uo and similar situations, it erases your customization to the void. The more classes, races, feats, backgrounds, items, etc... there are, the bigger is the customization! (This problem will be solved when we get D&D 5e BESM)

[Mongobear]

I would like an ACTUAL Anti-Paladin/Blackguard class with its own subclass/archetype options.

Not some half-arsed "Oathbreaker" who has gone against his class's fluff reason for existing, but only loses 3-4 class features instead of having their entire class change. Thats one of my pet peeves with Oathbreaker, you have violated your code so badly and embraced this dark evil power, but you still have every Paladin feature, and swap out Oath stuff for Oathbreaker stuff. You can still call forth Radiant blasts of energy to Smite foes, you can still Lay on Hands to heal people, you still have the exact same spell list, sans Oath spells.

/endrant

Also, Samurai/Sohei/Ninja as has been mention before would be nice. I am a sucker for Oriental Adventure type stuff.

Kensai from 3.5 Complete Warrior was always a favorite of mine, and there isnt a whole lot of ways to really make that unique class work in 5e. Maybe a Monk or Fighter hybrid archetype?

Oh! That would be cool, Archetypes that can be chosen by multiple different classes. Gaining the same/similar benefits whether they were selected on a Rogue, a Bard, or a Fighter. obviously the mechanics would need to be slightly different based on which class you selected, but it would be cool.

[2D8HP]

OK if the clearly false rumors of a "3.5" Edition being published earlier in the 21st Century were true (hypothetically), and a book called "The Complete Adventurer" had a class that combined features of the Ranger and the Rogue in a Class called the "Scout",

that might maybe be completely awesome.


Otherwise, combine and eliminate all but three classes:
1) Arcane Spell-casters (call them "Magic Users"),
2) Divine Miracle Workers (call them "Clerics"),
3) Non Spell-casters (since without Magic it will be a struggle to survive, call them "Fighters").
I think that would work!

[Professor Gnoll]

OK if the clearly false rumors of a "3.5" Edition being published earlier in the 21st Century were true (hypothetically), and a book called "The Complete Adventurer" had a class that combined features of the Ranger and the Rogue in a Class called the "Scout",

that might maybe be completely awesome.


Otherwise, combine and eliminate all but three classes:
1) Arcane Spell-casters (call them "Magic Users"),
2) Divine Miracle Workers (call them "Clerics"),
3) Non Spell-casters (since without Magic it will be a struggle to survive, call them "Fighters").
I think that would work!

Eh. I like having lots of options. I like having the freedom to choose from a wide variety of possibilities to build a wide array of characters. 5e is already pretty streamlined. If you want to reduce it that much, you might as well make a simple fantasy heartbreaker and be done with it.

[Nishant]

I'm in favor of customization to the maximum possible, that is why I rebuke so much rolling ANYTHING during character creation, level uo and similar situations, it erases your customization to the void. The more classes, races, feats, backgrounds, items, etc... there are, the bigger is the customization! (This problem will be solved when we get D&D 5e BESM)

While I love rolling stats, i agree wholeheartedly with this. I just love the idea of being able to play as whatever race I want, even more than new classes.

edit: also, I'd love to see scout return. it would be able to fit well with the rogue kit, it just needs a little fine tuning.

[RickAllison]

Silver hair Knights. Love the concept and would be intrigued to see how it fares in a system with less emphasis on alignment.

[JakOfAllTirades]

OK if the clearly false rumors of a "3.5" Edition being published earlier in the 21st Century were true (hypothetically), and a book called "The Complete Adventurer" had a class that combined features of the Ranger and the Rogue in a Class called the "Scout",

that might maybe be completely awesome.


Otherwise, combine and eliminate all but three classes:
1) Arcane Spell-casters (call them "Magic Users"),
2) Divine Miracle Workers (call them "Clerics"),
3) Non Spell-casters (since without Magic it will be a struggle to survive, call them "Fighters").
I think that would work!

Posts like this make me wonder why you bother with this forum. It's obvious you're not interested in 5E as written.

[Quintessence]

Planar Shepard :^)

[Herobizkit]

Chameleon (be whatever class today)
Master of Masks (add class/race powers; very Majora)
Eldritch Theurge (Warlock/Cleric that let you burn "turn undead" to change your EB to a healbeam; other cool stuff)
Master of Many Forms (let's change into, say, aberrations, shall we?)

Soulknife was knifty, if a little bland
Psychic Warrior was pretty rad (especially when paired with Monk)

There was a 'pet' wizard PrC that let you make clockwork/golem companions that was kinda okay.

Oozemaster. My god, Oozemaster. This begs to be a Druid circle. The plant one they had on the DM Guild was close.

[Asmotherion]

None! Prestige Classes do not belong in 5e. I hope the idea stays in UA, and is never mentioned again.

If I however had to chose, I would say Ultimate Magus, Eldrich Theurge, and in general staff that can make Class A and Class B progress at the same time... That said it can be perfectly managable by creating custom specialisations.

-Hellfire Warlock can be covered in an Invocation chain that is specific to the Fiend-Pact warlock. Or as an alternative Pact Gift "Hellfire", which is meh at first, but if you take a couple of it's invocations becomes interesting... That said, the Warlock is powerfull enough as it is, and doing so would be breaking game balance.

-Ultimate Magus can be worked as a Wizard tradition that gives a limited amout of metamagic (Maybe half level in spell points/only 2 metamagic options)... Still, the wizard is already too powerfull as he is, and access to quicken/twin spell would take away the only awesome thing the Sorcerer gets in reguards to the Wizard. I would say it could also work as a Sorcerous origin, but it can't... Pitty.

-Eldrich Theurge: Remember those, so-called Sorlocks, Bardlocks, maybe even Wizlocks (I am refearing to the 2-3 Warlock dip people take, which, to be honest, I find awesome)? Now you have a fancy name for them all.

In any case, if what you want is the lore of an old Prestige Class, I am sure that, with a good DM, you can work it as a custom backround option. If on the other hand you want synergising and stuff, I am sure you can pull this without a prestige class in 5e. Now, on the rare cases you can't, it's either too game-braking for you to have access to it, or you'll need to work a custom class specialisation with your DM.

For example, the Master Transmogrifist prestige from 3.5 can either be a Sorcerous Origin from a shapeshifter bloodline or a Re-touched Wizard tradition (Transmutation).

[Socratov]

None! Prestige Classes do not belong in 5e. I hope the idea stays in UA, and is never mentioned again.

I simultaneously agree and disagree with you. Yes I don't think prestige classes have any place in 5e, but I also consider the subclasses to have the same role as PrC's in 3.5: they provide different options wihtin a class and different ways to manifest your class. This does mean that theurging won't have a plce in 5e and that is fine with me: a small sacrifice for things I love about 5e (like vicious Mockery). However I think some classes are missing or some cool 3.5 inventions could still have their place in 5e as subclasses or classes on their own

[JAL_1138]

I would say Thief-Acrobat (1e UA. Because old. Get off my lawn. Dagnabbed whippersnappers) but Thief-subclass covers it fine.

[RickAllison]

I simultaneously agree and disagree with you. Yes I don't think prestige classes have any place in 5e, but I also consider the subclasses to have the same role as PrC's in 3.5: they provide different options wihtin a class and different ways to manifest your class. This does mean that theurging won't have a plce in 5e and that is fine with me: a small sacrifice for things I love about 5e (like vicious Mockery). However I think some classes are missing or some cool 3.5 inventions could still have their place in 5e as subclasses or classes on their own

Agreed. I kind of like the the example set with the Totem Barbarian, where the new totems just used the normal base and so it was easy and modular.

Like the Silverhaired Knight could just be a Paladin of Devotion that trades out certain abilities for others. Heck, I've already toyed with making a Gadgeteer and Alchemist who were just the Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight with spells known substituted for gadgets/potions a la the UA Artificer. Quick and Easy!

[2D8HP]

Eh. I like having lots of options. I like having the freedom to choose from a wide variety of possibilities to build a wide array of characters. 5e is already pretty streamlined. If you want to reduce it that much, you might as well make a simple fantasy heartbreaker and be done with it.

Posts like this make me wonder why you bother with this forum. It's obvious you're not interested in 5E as written.

I like playing 5e a lot. I've had super-fun as a player with my level five and below (Champion) Fighter's and Rogues. It's as a DM that I find it too complex.
While with just the Starter set, and the free basic rules DM'ing is still OK, when you add the PHB it's just too much of a chore to DM. Especially at higher levels all those extra different super-powers, while fun for players, just increase the burden on DM's.
I gave the 3.5 "Scout" as an example of a Class I'd like to as a player (the purpose of the thread), but I wanted to give the dissenting view that for DM's they're already too many classes.
While less so than 3.5 compared to oD&D, 5e is very much a players game, and that's the problem. They're too many players and too few DM's.
I'd like there to be more tables playing D&D, and I think that by having a little less complex game more people would be willing to "wear the DM hat".
Player options are fun, but actually playing the game is even more fun!

[Occasional Sage]

I would say Thief-Acrobat (1e UA. Because old. Get off my lawn. Dagnabbed whippersnappers) but Thief-subclass covers it fine.

As long as there isn't a Bard that requires three different classes to be taken prior, sure.

[Socratov]

I like playing 5e a lot. I've had super-fun as a player with my level five and below (Champion) Fighter's and Rogues. It's as a DM that I find it too complex.
While with just the Starter set, and the free basic rules DM'ing is still OK, when you add the PHB it's just too much of a chore to DM. Especially at higher levels all those extra different super-powers, while fun for players, just increase the burden on DM's.
I gave the 3.5 "Scout" as an example of a Class I'd like to as a player (the purpose of the thread), but I wanted to give the dissenting view that for DM's they're already too many classes.
While less so than 3.5 compared to oD&D, 5e is very much a players game, and that's the problem. They're too many players and too few DM's.
I'd like there to be more tables playing D&D, and I think that by having a little less complex game more people would be willing to "wear the DM hat".
Player options are fun, but actually playing the game is even more fun!

I disagree mostly, since the days of 3.5 and 4e the DM has goitten a lotof agency back. Before, the player was guaranteed to have interpertations in the book, this was most commonly explained by the DC's set for skills in terms of guidelines or crystal clear set DC's for a certain task. This has disappeared completely in 5e since it says, that you can make a skillcheck and the DM sets a DC (no more DC X gives you Y success at [task]). And that's not the only example: the rules (both PHB and DMG give the player the warning that everything goes by the grace of the DM. it seems almost everywehre the designers could they said 'ask you DM' and went for a minimum effort on crystal clear rules.

That said I agree that the DM has a lot to do when preparing (one of the reasons that when I decided to start DMing to pick a different system) because he has the added burden of being ajudicator, on top of referee, opposition, and basically the world creator. Fortunately the DM can make use of the DMG and MM, however, as mentioned in another thread, they weren't as dilligent in creating the MM as they could have been. ( I believe the words 'lazy devs' were used at some point). The fact that the DM has to account for a myraid of options, yet at the same time narrow them down for the options the players have chosen (think about all those spelleffects) to create a diverse and challenging, but overcomable set of problems. I agree that it's a daunting task and the choice fatigue can readily creep in. However, the myria dof options does give the DM a way to create an ever diverse set of obstacles. Be they traps, mosnters, enemies (with classlevels) and so on. I think that in this case more options can definitely enrich a game like 5e.

[JellyPooga]

As long as there isn't a Bard that requires three different classes to be taken prior, sure.

It's funny you should say that...

I'd like to see the return of the Fochlucan Lyrist. I realise that it's very doable just with Bard or through multiclassing, but the Lyrist was the spiritual inheritor of the original Bard Class; the first Prestige Class.

[Professor Beard]

I like Initiate of the 7-fold Veil from 3.5. Massive focus on magical defense. Super fun for the PCs, and, as the DM, I had a ball with it.

I really liked 3.5's half-dragon and other become-a-monster prestige classes. Cool development for PCs.

Rainbow Servant from 3.5 was also fantastic. At least I think it was, getting cleric spells as a sorcerer was fantastic. Maybe I am just remembering the picture fondly, too, but the class was fun and had lots of RP potential.

[Zevox]

I simultaneously agree and disagree with you. Yes I don't think prestige classes have any place in 5e, but I also consider the subclasses to have the same role as PrC's in 3.5: they provide different options wihtin a class and different ways to manifest your class. This does mean that theurging won't have a plce in 5e and that is fine with me: a small sacrifice for things I love about 5e (like vicious Mockery). However I think some classes are missing or some cool 3.5 inventions could still have their place in 5e as subclasses or classes on their own

Also agreed. I don't want Prestige Classes in their 3.5 form, as extra classes you could only multiclass into at higher levels, back - but seeing them represented as subclasses of regular classes, the way the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster were from the outset, would be great.

That's the type of thing I want to see with Psionics, incidentally. Not one Psionic class whose subclasses amount to Psion and Psychic Warrior, but a Psion class with things like Psionic Uncarnate or Thrallherd as subclasses; and a Psychic Warrior class with subclasses like War Mind, Soul Knife, and Pyrokineticist; and Psionic Fist as a Monk subclass.

[EvilAnagram]

I like playing 5e a lot. I've had super-fun as a player with my level five and below (Champion) Fighter's and Rogues. It's as a DM that I find it too complex.
While with just the Starter set, and the free basic rules DM'ing is still OK, when you add the PHB it's just too much of a chore to DM. Especially at higher levels all those extra different super-powers, while fun for players, just increase the burden on DM's.
I gave the 3.5 "Scout" as an example of a Class I'd like to as a player (the purpose of the thread), but I wanted to give the dissenting view that for DM's they're already too many classes.
While less so than 3.5 compared to oD&D, 5e is very much a players game, and that's the problem. They're too many players and too few DM's.
I'd like there to be more tables playing D&D, and I think that by having a little less complex game more people would be willing to "wear the DM hat".
Player options are fun, but actually playing the game is even more fun!

As a DM, I have not had any problems at all. Sometimes, maybe once or twice a session, I take ninety seconds to look up a rule, and that's the extent of my trouble with the rules.

[DivisibleByZero]

I think the UA PrC that they released being received so poorly, in combination with the general format of subclasses being 5e's version of prestige, means that subclasses will continue and PrCs will remain unavailable for quite some time.

And as I've said before (maybe I this thread, maybe prior), if you want a certain PrCs from 3.5, then all you have to do is choose a few of the previous PrC's abilities and use those to make a subclass for an appropriate base class.
That's really all you need.

Less is more. Especially in 5e.

[NecroDancer]

Horizon walker, I think it would be a perfect ranger archetype.

Anima Mage, this is a warlock archtype as well.

[JellyPooga]

Horizon walker, I think it would be a perfect ranger archetype.

There's definitely room for a series of "Planeswalker" Archetypes, I think; Horizon Walker for the Ranger, Planar Shepard for the Druid, Gate Crasher for the Rogue, etc.

[NecroDancer]

There's definitely room for a series of "Planeswalker" Archetypes, I think; Horizon Walker for the Ranger, Planar Shepard for the Druid, Gate Crasher for the Rogue, etc.

Maybe it will be released in a planescape book, one can only hope

[DragonSorcererX]

None! Prestige Classes do not belong in 5e. I hope the idea stays in UA, and is never mentioned again.

They are called Archetypes, for now... (Since the Prestige Classes will only come back when WotC starts releasing a new book each month to raise money to move to D&D 6e...)

[2D8HP]

As a DM, I have not had any problems at all. Sometimes, maybe once or twice a session, I take ninety seconds to look up a rule, and that's the extent of my trouble with the rules.

I suspect that you "rolled" a much higher "Intelligence stat', than I did than.