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