PDA

View Full Version : D&D 5e/Next Silver Pyromancer Prestige Class



ezekielraiden
2019-11-24, 09:17 AM
As my first foray into designing 5e homebrew, I decided to make a 5e implementation of the Eberron prestige class, the silver pyromancer. I chose to keep it as a prestige class, rather than reducing it down to a feat (or, God forbid, a feat chain) because 5e feats, while chunky, couldn't quite reach the depth I wanted. I'd seen some other homebrewers' attempts to use just feats and found them...lacking. Similarly, subclasses all work differently depending on which class they apply to, and writing a silver pyromancer for each arcane class felt like far too much work, in addition to feeling off from the "spirit" of the PrC (a universal set of features any arcane caster could build into). Yet there's not really enough material (IMO) to make a fully-fledged silver pyromancer base class either...meaning a prestige class felt like the best solution.

So, submitted for comment and constructive criticism, I give you the silver pyromancer (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/ByBlm3k0EB). (PDF link here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xzp2Uboy_o5OfjrKijxHfXxt0kxpQ77U/view?usp=sharing), if the Homebrewery version renders poorly for you or your browser of choice.)

BerzerkerUnit
2019-11-24, 02:17 PM
I revisit the class later but as counterargument to the inclusion of PrC in 5e:

A single set of subclass features “ala carte” that you trade normal features might work.

Example: Wizard sacrifices a level 6 feature for an appropriate feature from the Silver Pyromancer while a Sorcerer sacrifices whatever they get at lvl 6 for the same. Same for Warlocks, even Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters could get in on it, sacrificing their level 7 and level 9 features respectively.

Make a Paladin Oath and you’re off to the races.

ezekielraiden
2019-11-24, 08:17 PM
I revisit the class later but as counterargument to the inclusion of PrC in 5e:

A single set of subclass features “ala carte” that you trade normal features might work.

Example: Wizard sacrifices a level 6 feature for an appropriate feature from the Silver Pyromancer while a Sorcerer sacrifices whatever they get at lvl 6 for the same. Same for Warlocks, even Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters could get in on it, sacrificing their level 7 and level 9 features respectively.

Make a Paladin Oath and you’re off to the races.

Frankly, this sounds even worse than just writing distinct subclasses. Now you have to balance every option against the combinatoric interactions it has for every qualified subclass. It's not just a set of N features, it's every possible subset of N features (aka the power set, 2^N options, counting "none" as an option). You then have to consider how each subset plays with every valid subclass, e.g. all Wizard schools, all Bard colleges, all Sorcerer bloodlines. Excluding the trivial cases (the empty set, and the "take all substitutions" set), we have (2^N-2)×M, where M is the amount of valid subclasses you can mix with. Even for only 3 opt-in features, that's at least 6×(5 Bard subclasses + 5 Sorc + 10 Wiz + AT + EK) = 6×22 = 132 different combos that all must be considered if you want to avoid useless or overpowered interactions. With four features, it balloons to 14×22 = 308; with five, 30×22 = 660. And the addition of future subclasses threatens to make it unbalanced all over again.

Such stuff is way outside my wheelhouse, and utterly unprecedented in 5e design. That does not at all mean it's impossible, I'm just not up to doing that for my first piece of semi-serious homebrew. We have an example playtest prestige class, and I followed its lead.

(As an aside, this hits exactly on why I didn't bother making subclasses in the first place. It's not *just* that they appear at different levels for different classes. It's that subclass features are not even slightly balanced *across* classes, only *within* them. Even there, many subclasses get stronger early features and weaker late features or vice-versa; compare War Magic or Divination with Conjuration or Illusion. Portent is orders of magnitude stronger than a free control and a small buff to said cantrip.

So...yeah. Thank you for taking the time to reply, but I'm confident that my choice of path here was the best fit for what rules ideas we've seen and the limits of my abilities.

BerzerkerUnit
2019-12-01, 10:06 AM
Pls be advised: I had 3 paragraphs of thoughtful response and then my cat knocked my mouse off the desk and somehow lost it. If I sound terse here it's not intended.

PrC as described in the SKT Runesmith UA wasn't implemented. That's enough evidence for me that my position it's a poor choice is correct. YMMV.

To elaborate on my recommendation: You are under no obligation to balance beyond your intent. You can write a wizard subclass that makes a Fighter Wizard godmode, but as long as you place a note at the beginning stating it isn't intended to be used with Multiclassing rules (themselves an optional subsystem) you're golden.

In my homegame I have several warlock patrons that are pretty boss. The Beast Patron (https://www.dmsguild.com/product/209791/Warlock-Patron-The-Beast?term=Beast+Patron) allows a 1/short rest "rage out" that allows them to make an intimidation check when initiative is rolled. If they hit a DC 15, every creature within 30 feet becomes Surprised, any non friendly creature immediately becomes hostile. That's at level 1. Combine with Rogue/Assassin and Ranger/Gloomwalker and Barbarian improved criticals for broken absurdity. Obviously I don't want that, so I put in a caveat that it's not intended for MC rules and "the Beast Patron is jealous and those that don't assiduously devote themselves to pursuing its power lose the powers it grants."

If you write the Pyromancer with an eye toward Wizard and Sorcerer, leaving the option for EK, Paladins, etc to also jump in, then state "DM's should carefully consider their own concept of balance before allowing nonwizards to take this feature", you've contributed something and done your due diligence.

IMO, explicit instructions to the player "hey, the DM gets to say okay to some of this if they don't like all of this" is enough.

Good luck!