RobinHart's page

Alright, and I've worked on this a bit, put it together in a readable format, and added some fluff and stuff before exporting a copy to PDF and sticking it on a google drive. Consider this version 1.2 of the Shadow Illusionist (name still subject to change when I figure out a better one).

I decided after looking back through the summoning spells that the "summon" trait is already pretty good at balancing those, especially if the focus spell for semi-real creatures is actually copying from existing summon spells, but the changes to the creatures through the spell and ability to have them look like something unrelated to the statblock you pull their abilities from (at risk of making people much more likely to try to disbelieve it if you go too far) was enough to make it unique and separate from normal summon spells.

I've separated out just the Shadow Illusionist stuff for this, aside from one extra cantrip more intended for the Shadowcaster rework I'm also working on to put in the full supplement. So please feel free to give feedback and suggestions, or let me know if something isn't clear to a reader who didn't write this mess themselves.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Edj8MknqmY450Bvxn7jQT071_qwSl5on/view

Right then. Main strength for the Shadow Magic illusionist in particular is meant to be flexibility and trickery at the cost of some power. And yes, some vulnerabilities to disbelieving (though a little less than normal illusions) and/or counteracting with light effects. I don't want any of the shadow illusion options to actually be explicitly stronger at what they do than a spell that's focused on doing that specific thing, especially since the shadow mage would still have the base illusions and other spells on their list.

I think for the summon aspect, part of my concern was the risk of creatures with abilities that are way more powerful than you'd expect for the level, and literally having the entire list of monsters as options is going to slow gameplay... but so would something with building a monster each time unless the traits are kept very simple.

So... either "can copy the traits and abilities of a creature that could be summoned from another existing summoning spell of lower rank than the illusion" to reduce the list size but still give a lot of flexibility, or a more simplified list of bonuses that can be applied that scale on spell rank with a "pick only 3" attached maybe.

Either way, I think having a base chassis that's based on the spell rank and the caster's spell casting does work to make it feel like it's an illusion shaped into whatever it's looking like, rather than actually just casting summoning spells.

But just based on how they were handling shadow blast and such... Maybe going with a simple but flexible set of abilities to pick from to modify it, and then have a later feat to let you change the abilities and appearance of a shadow illusion creature without needing to cast a new spell. Then take a similar course for the other options. Avoiding actually "copying other spells" feels like the best way to avoid stepping on other casters' toes and making it easier to balance.

...I also think I'll have the light weakness for the other shadow users who aren't wrapping the shadow magic in illusions, but with the shadow illusionist having the disbelief option be fairly strong when it does come up.

I am very much aware of the existing legacy Shadowcaster archetype, but unfortunately it really, really leaves a lot to be desired for the particular things I was looking for. The legacy archetype's main uses are adding spells to a primal or divine caster's list, helping a party rogue hide in combat to get off sneak attacks, and generally give some basic support to skills for hiding and distracting enemies.

I won't say the idea of it is bad, and even if I feel like the implementation is underwhelming at times, if we had more and better shadow spells to grant it would instantly feel a lot better. Though I'd still want to tinker some with the shadowspell metamagic and a few of the focus spells it got, maybe give some more flavorful feats to support the shadow magic... but I'm getting off track.

I feel like there's easily room for at least two or three extra archetypes for shadow magic beyond what we had, and the legacy shadowcaster really doesn't actively try to do anything but "make darkness and be sneaky" with its feat selections. Which Shadowdancer honestly was already doing.

One for focusing on the more malleable shadow illusions that blur the lines of illusion and reality, which is the thing I felt the lack of the most clearly when going through everything. One for a martial character to cloak themselves in shadowy armor, weapons, and tools that let them always have the right option for a fight. And then one to focus more on the darkness itself as a weapon, stealing shadows, and using the netherworld's power unfiltered.

Shadow Illusionist, Shadow Smith, and Shadowcaster. And then keep Shadowdancer for the sneaky teleporting through shadows archetype that brings the darkness with them to hide in.

...Shoot, now I'm thinking of just doing an entire supplement for shadow magic in general with several archetypes, extra spells and focus spells, and rituals and equipment.

Don't forget that Shadow Siphon treats its counteract level as 2 higher, so using a 5th level spell slot has it treated as a 7th level counteract. So even on a failure (as long as it's not a critical failure), it will counteract a 6th rank effect, so a level 11-12 creature's ability or lower.

So yeah, that's the big advantage for Shadow Siphon - you're only halving damage, not fully countering things you target with it, but you can use it at a lower level than what you're trying to counteract than you'd normally need to use, and if you use one that's just one rank below what you're countering, you still do it even if you fail, as long as you don't fail by 10 or more.

Even without up-casting, if you're confident you'll roll a normal success, you can counteract an 8th rank (level 15-16) effect with the base 5th level slot for it.

Something I've always loved the flavor of since seeing it back in D&D 3.5 and pathfinder 1.0 was the specific sort of shadow magic that was introduced through things like shadow evocation and shadow conjuration. The spells themselves weren't generally great on their own, but the idea behind them really inspired my imagination for them. All the more with some of the Prestige Classes in 3.5, and the handful of feats and class features tied to the ideas in Pathfinder 1.0.

Illusions made to affect the world through shadows woven into them. Taking the uncertainty of what might or might not exist in the darkness, and using that to trick reality itself into believing your illusions are real. Versatile abilities that combine trickery with actual utility and combat options. Or even just one last surprise out of an illusion that enemies have already "figured out" and think is safe to ignore, even for the members who don't have the will save to properly disbelieve it.

Pathfinder 2nd edition... honestly didn't bring in all that much of that old shadow magic. It brought in a mix of spells and focus abilities that were meant to give a nod to that alongside ones actually focused on darkness... but more than a few felt unfinished, like the "shadow illusion" focus spell. Or just heavily underpowered like with the Shadow Blast spell. And a lot of options just felt like they were missing all together.

The remaster hasn't even touched nearly anything on this except the Shadow Blast spell, which was given an extra d8 base damage and otherwise left alone, so I figured I'd see about making something for it myself.

Of course, there's more than a few ways to handle giving out the abilities through an archetype: It could work primarily through Focus spells alongside some feats to give boosts for low light levels, or it could work mostly through taking spellshape feats to modify existing illusions to do new things. Or it could work through unique actions that could use existing illusions and spells with the shadow trait.

And alongside picking out how to primarily work them in, there's balancing something where I am aware I'll have a bias towards it, and thus be at risk of either over-tuning the options or overcompensating for my bias and under-powering them, or even a mix.

So, I figured I'd see what people on the forums here thought and see if I could get some help fine-tuning and making decisions on things.

---

Option 1 - Focus spells.

Working through focus spells is honestly probably one of the simplest ways to handle this. Each specific feat and focus spell can have another option that isn't covered, it's easy to add onto with more later, it uses an already existing system that has a good few related feats...

Of course, this also ends up having the weaknesses of the focus point system, and it separates the abilities from a lot of other spell casting abilities or features.

I'd probably be thinking between 3-5 focus spells, alongside any other feats. Something for a shadow version of illusory creature / summon spells, something similar to the Ephemeral Hazards focus spell from the premaster, something for partially real structures and walls that could be selectively moved through... and possibly something for tools or equipment pulled out of shadows to suit a situation. Maybe a weaker but more general focus cantrip that could do a weaker, smaller, more limited version of any of the above as well.

---

Option 2 - Spellshape feat(s).

Actively taking existing illusion spells and letting them do new things, changing how they work, and using them to mimic slightly weaker versions of spells that just might not be on the caster's spell list. It's more in line with some of the original inspirations, like the 3.5 Shadowcraft mage, and could have some interesting options.

Most of the spells that would be used with this are gotten from low levels, like illusory disguise, illusory object, and illusory creature. Including extra upcasting bonuses in the spellshape's damage / HP and hardness all being based on the rank of the spell it's used with would stretch those already fairly good spells to having reasons to upcast them at just about nearly any level, in the right circumstances. And it could still work with other illusion spells that met some simple requirement of creating the illusion of a visual effect that isn't fully mental, and could reasonably mimic objects, creatures, or damaging effects.

Of course, that is both an advantage and disadvantage, because that means there's a lot more room for arguing on if a given illusion not explicitly called out works with the given spellshape feat or not, and the risk of unintended interactions with new illusions that haven't been released yet. It shouldn't be too hard to do some future proofing, but it is one extra variable to consider if going this route.

Like... what if phantom crowd is remastered, or a player takes it in a game that's allowing premaster spells still, and argues that it should be able to make an entire swarm of creatures that each have HP and take up space with the same spellshape feat that would normally let you give an illusory creature some HP and remove its 'all nonlethal mental damage' restriction? Should it work? Should the crowd of creatures be unable to attack since the base spell doesn't let them attack? Obviously they shouldn't just all be able to act separately as they want, since otherwise it just becomes a much, much better version of illusory creature when both are affected by the spellshape. But it's something that has to be thought about and included in designing a spellshape option.

And would it make sense to make a single spellshape for weaving shadows into illusions, and then have the rest of the archetype be a mix of supporting abilities like dark vision / greater dark vision, abilities to strengthen the shadow spells when cast in areas of darkness and such? Or include just as many spellshape feats as it would have had focus spell feats if going with option 1?

---

Option 3 - special actions.

Something of an in between option to the previous two, giving the archetype feats to grant actions that can be taken to do things with existing illusions that are already cast.

Shadow strike, to cause someone adjacent to an illusion to have a melee spell attack made on them from say... a brick falling off the illusionary brick wall. Or an extra attack made by the illusion of a creature, even if it's not normally a spell that could make an attack.

Solidify Shadows, to cause an illusion to Briefly gain hardness and HP for either 1 round or 1 minute or something, allowing that illusion of a bridge to work for your party, but not for a pursuing enemy group, for instance. Or turning your concealing illusion wall that you can walk through into hard total cover behind you after you ran through it. Or making it so that an illusory creature won't be instantly dispelled with a single hit.

Shadow Grasp/Grasping shadows, to cause a creature that's in the area of effect of an illusion or adjacent to one to suddenly get grabbed by the illusory creature, or snagged by a nail in the illusory object of a log cabin. Maybe even being able to grab and move someone, but when they break free and attempt to attack or destroy whatever grabbed them, it's all just smoke in the wind.

Shadow Burst, take an action to have an illusion that looks like it should be damaging, like spikes or a sea of fire... to actually deal damage to all creatures in its area of effect.

Probably each of the actions would be 1/round or have the flourish trait for some balance. The advantage for this setup is that, like with the focus spells, it's easy to add new actions, and since what you can do is a lot more spelled out and has an action cost to it, it's less likely for new spells to break the balance on them. Likewise though, you still interact with the spells, so having a bunch of permanent illusory objects around your base to create lava pits, fake spike traps in the walls, false walls you can retreat through and such... suddenly gives you a bunch of extra actions in your fortified lair / base camp. You can prepare a battlefield and such.

But, you don't have to worry about someone leaving behind those same things as actual real constantly harmful effects or something. Making the illusion act like something other than an illusion requires the caster to be actively spending actions and be present.

---

For the spellshape options, there'd probably need to be some balancing addition of bright light making counteract attempts on them, where a torch wouldn't do much but say... the actual sun shining right on them might counteract the shadow magic, and same for a high level light spell. Possibly the same with the focus spell options, or could just have the focus spells need to target an initial area that is dimly lit or dark.

General balancing I'm thinking so far for numbers is mostly thrown together after a bit of looking at existing spells, and aiming for a bit weaker than any specialized fully real options - use the caster's spell attack / save DCs for attack bonuses, skill check bonuses for things like grab/trip/shove, and AC. Then have objects get hardness = spell rank x2 and HP = spell rank x8 per 10 foot long x 10 foot high x 5 foot wide section of structures, or halved for something that only takes up a 5 foot square like a door made with figment. Creatures getting 5+10/rank HP (or 5/rank for cantrip version with figment that has to stay within 30 feet of the caster at all times). And damage numbers based on illusory creature for creatures (1d4+1d4/rank, or just 1d4/rank + spell casting modifier), while area damage effects would be 1d6/rank for a 1/round effect such as a trap or using the special action for a shadow damage burst, or 1d6 per two ranks for hazardous terrain that deals damage for moving through it or starting a turn in it, potentially multiple times in a round. Probably with everything targeting will saves / will defense instead of the "higher of two defenses" that shadow blast has, since already having lower general stats for spell rank than an actual damage spell or summon / wall spell is already a balance, plus I have thoughts for "disbelieving" options and the option of light spells allowing counteracting on focus spells or spellshaped shadow illusions.

So, thoughts? Suggestions? Ideas for something I haven't considered?

TL;DR: Old shadow illusion spells and features were neat. Where they at? Should an archetype use Focus spells, special actions, or metamagic/spellshape feats to do them? What other abilities should a shadow mage archetype that's focused on making semi-real illusions have?

These invocations are honestly pretty terrible all around from what I've seen. Even with the option to apply traditions to runes that don't already have one, composite invocations are 2 action invocations, only can be done once per 10 minutes each, and generally have very minor effects.

Vital composite invocation? At level 6 you can restore 16 or 17 HP to a single ally target once per 10 minutes. So once an encounter at most. To do this, you have to first apply two runes on them which are a minimum of one action each if they're at touch range with you, or two actions each if not. You get this feat at the same level as you could pick tracing trance, so they can't be used together unless you delay taking one of them for level 8. And if you try to cast both runes at range... you don't have enough actions to trigger the invocation due to its 2 action activation requirement. At least 1 of the runes must be applied at touch range. So stride-trace-trace on an ally within 25 feet turn 1. Turn 2, Vital Composite invocation for 2 actions and you have 1 action left. For this you get to activate two invocations of non-damaging effects at once, and heal them by enough to counteract a single enemy strike at this level, approximately.

Clashing Composite Invocation? Level 10, competes with another 2 action invocation feat of all things (chain of words) and overload ammunition... so this is generally a level you take a lower level feat or a dedication feat for. Still once per 10 minutes, takes 2 actions to trigger, but is meant to target enemies. So... again, it can't be triggered the same round you apply the runes. Both of our main damage runes that are applied to an enemy creature instead of carried by an ally are primal, so you can't change them to clash. The best way to do this might be to make a diacritic rune such as Ur- or Sun- into an occult rune and pair with the primal fire / lightning rune. Now, if you didn't bother with the vital composite above, you can tracing trance to apply both at range, but you still need to use two actions on the next round to trigger a single damage burst, either with a +int damage or it reappearing to trigger again. So at best, if you use Sun- (which is also only once per 10 minutes), you can tracing trance to apply damage rune and Sun-. Then next round, if they haven't moved out of range despite the glowing runes on them (as you need invisible ink at level 2 to not be super obvious), you can spend two actions to invoke, and then your last action to invoke again for 2 damage runes. The equivalent of what you'd have gotten for a single invoke if you just traced both fire and lightning on the enemy previous turn at range. Or what you could do in a single turn at melee. In exchange for all that... sickened 1. Sickened 2 on a crit failure, but it's a fortitude save, same as nearly everything else you do so far. And if they succeed but don't critically succeed, sickened 1 but they can remove it with a single action. In the best case scenario, you're losing two actions to do this for no other benefit... so them succeeding their save might as well be them having used their one action to delete two of yours.

Astral Composite is another to target enemies with, inflicting stupefied, but it requires arcane and occult, so it can't pair with either direct damage rune. You're giving up 2 turns worth of damage with your runesmith for a save vs stupefied 1, 2, or 3 depending on save, fail, or crit fail. But hey, it's a will save! ...Which means that most enemies you'd want to actually target with this will make their saves easier than normal, as stupefied disrupts spell casting and is useless on most enemies with low will saves. At level 12, this one asks you to give up Distant Invocation or Expanded Glossary.

And the level 18 one honestly is the most egregious. You need 4 runes on the enemy to trigger it, only one of them can be the normal damage rune. You could use Inth- for divine and stack a bit of persistent damage through it, but you'll still be without particularly good options for the remaining two for occult and arcane runes you'd like to stick on an enemy if you do that. You could use a different diacritic to cover occult or arcane and then use Rovan, Seal of the Dead Vault for Divine, but all in all, it's hard to find 4 runes you want to trigger on one enemy at once currently. In order to put all 4 on, you need to be at melee and use tracing trance both, or split it over two rounds and still be at melee for it, or have triggered Drawn in Red or Define the Canvas prior. The only good thing I can say for Annihilating Composite Invocation is that it has no action cost listed. Not even a free action... meaning it's probably a typo, and we can assume that a DM would at least make you spend 1 action for a normal invoke, possibly two. ---After ALL that... the bonus you get is 10d4 extra damage with an extra fort save against it. An effect that is less than one a single extra whetstone rune would have given you at level 10, if they weren't resistant to slashing damage.

There's no way any of these can be good in the way they're currently designed. They're weak enough that they don't warrant the extra action cost or the 1 per 10 minute restriction on them, they're inconvenient enough to set up with the current rune list (even before remembering that we have a runes known limit) to be extremely hard to trigger even then. And you give up chances to take other, better feats for these, even if the better feats are at lower levels or through dedication feats.

The only remotely good feat that is related to these is Chain of Words, which invokes runes on two different rune-bearers, ally or enemy, and then does a small damage line between them that does scale to half of your normal damage runes. It's AOE, it's flexible, and it explicitly has a base range of 60 to invoke from instead of 30, meaning distant invocation boosts it to 90. You could theoretically make a 180 foot long line of 5d6 force damage with this at level 10 when you get it, or 10d6 at level 20. It's still low enough damage and high enough action and setup cost that it definitely doesn't warrant the 1 per 10 minute use restriction, but I can at least picture situations where I'd use it. But it's also not technically a composite invocation feat, just something that shares most of the attributes of them.

I will say that, for making Runesmith actually function as a martial character rather than a caster, there are a few things that can be allowed to make it feel good. Mostly, they're changes that could be argued as being the intent of the existing rules though.

For melee:

Engraving strike and fortifying knock, assume they ignore the normal requirement of a free hand for tracing a rune, and remove the manipulate action for it. The feats themselves don't include a requirement of a free hand in them, after all, and don't have a manipulate keyword on them, while other feats like transpose etching do have Manipulate called out explicitly on them.

Again, I know that rules as written, an action compression feat should inherit those off of the trace rune action unless explicitly stated otherwise, but if you assume that the intent was to allow a sword and board or two-handed hammer fighter to use these, then it cleans up things pretty nicely. Being in melee with enemies who can take reaction strikes, you can still trace twice by raising your shield and attacking with engraving strike, and have a third action left to invoke if desired, all without taking reaction strikes.

Add in Runic Reprisal, and it comes together very well by level 6.

Even better would be if you made Engraving strike a 1 / turn free action with the activation condition of "you successfully strike a target" to get the trace. That would let you stack it on other melee feats from a dedication feat's extra options, including support for heavier hitting two-handed weapons replacing the shield... But that could be too good, potentially.

For Ranged:

If you assume that being shot by an arrow and having it hit you makes you the "rune bearer" for any runes that were applied to the arrow head, a runic archer build actually opens up. You still don't have anywhere near as many feats that support it as you have with sword and board, but that just means archer dedication is an easy option to add in. It's clear that there's intended to be some reason to go with a bow or crossbow, given that you have a 1st level feat to let you invoke at greater range with an arrow, and the fire and lightning damage runes do fit on objects -or- creatures and target the rune bearer. Plus the whetstone rune can go on piercing weapons, like arrows and bolts.

Melee application of a rune to slap it onto an arrow with only one action, good until the end of your next turn. Tracing Trance could allow you to prepare two and fire them both off, using double or triple shot feats off of archer dedication. Then next turn remote detonation to make them explode from significantly higher than 30 feet away. Short bow with far shot could give 120 feet or something for instance.

Overloaded Ammunition still isn't a great pick since it's only 2/day of a not super well scaling smaller fireball, but it's more proof that a ranged fighter runesmith was intended as an option, despite the lack of an equivalent of engraving strike for ranged weapons. All that is part of why I think the above ruling of an arrow sticking into someone letting you count them as a rune bearer could be rules as intended. Especially with distant invocation not coming with any ways to improve range to trace your runes as part of it. And Henge Gate then just becomes "set up with 2 actions to not need actions to apply runes to your ammo for a while" instead of making an entirely new mechanic for applying runes through ranged weapons at level 14.

Honesty, I hate this ability so much. Just everything about it. Not able to make new runes until level 20, only one, and that one... doesn't fit any other runes.

Because you're copying an existing spell to create the rune, what's the passive effect going to be? Nothing. Nada. The invoke effect will just be the actual spell you're copying. But it's usable at will, since it's a rune, and auto up-cast to 10th level. That example of infinite combat speed heals? Yeah, make that significantly worse: It's an infinite use 10th level heal on a class that can only heal a small amount once per 10 minutes with a feat prior to this. But wait, there's more problems!

How does cast and invoke interact with spells that let you spend more actions on their casting for larger effects? Does it change the invoke speed? Does it count all the actions used to place it already? Does it only use the 1 action cast all the time, or the max 3 action cast effect? 10d8+80 in a 30-foot emanation at will with 2 actions by slapping yourself and invoking sounds a bit too strong for a class that otherwise is very clearly not meant to be a primary healer based on existing runes and feats, even at level 20. And it would be such a huge change to the character's feel if they suddenly are doing that all the time.

Oh, and then there's the actual fluff problems beyond the fact that the spell runes won't act like other runes: We can already have runes learned for crafting purposes without the limits of runes known. Runes shouldn't be "known" in the first place, they should be learned and prepared if they're on an Int based class that Learned them. I'd accept the current runes known limit for someone who got runes etched into their soul by godly forces as they grew in power, or something, but if you are learning stuff, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to switch things out and learn new ones.

And for this feat in particular? It tells us, supported by the counter spell feat, that any spell can be broken down into runes. So if you can do it once... why can't you ever do it again? There's no god of runes you're worshipping who's giving you it, the feat says you manage to translate it. What if you're an Elf and have 500 more years in you, and you did this after 20? How can you never do it again?

It all just makes no sense, lore or mechanics wise, to include this feat the way it is. It's horribly abusable, but not even what you want for the class, and it further cuts off the idea in people's head that you can make new runes by saying "that's a level 20 feat to do that though."

I am curious what appeals to you about the fantasy of the Runesmith. Such information can help shape the Runesmith into a coherent design.

My own interest, aside from an interest in design in general, is that I like crafting in my roleplaying games.

I personally have a similar thing. I love crafting in my games, and I especially like the fantasy of the magic item crafter. The magic smith in particular is an old favorite that I've always loved. Though generally... that's more "Make weapons and enchant them, test the magic in combat, improve them" and less "wiggle fingers to make runes appear on enemies that blow them up." That feels more like runic mage to me than runesmith. Which brings me to the second thought I have below after the next quote...

The Runesmith appears to be a melee martial build with the additional magic of applying temporary runes. Since martials often use equipment runes, this seems like a natural pair up. If the runesmith primarily fights like a martial with Strikes, then it can be balanced like a martial. One-action Trace Runes that damage like Strikes would continue the balance, but they would have an unbalancing immunity to Multiple Attack Penalties. Two-actions Trace Runes at range could replace the runesmith picking up a bow against enemies that keep their distance, and could be balanced like spells, but Tracing Runes at range undermines the melee martial theme.

I don't see how spell traditions fit into this theme. Maybe I missed something.

I very much got a feeling that they basically crammed two different intended separate classes together for this playtest, more so than they normally do for magical martial hybrids. There're too many things that look way too different otherwise, plus the "need a free hand" "Should have shield with weapon" and "Bow is good too" stuff.

Runesmith and Rune mage - the class being separated into those and having more room to focus on a side of runic magic with their playstyle is something I'm thinking more and more would improve things here.

One that focuses on casting runes in combat and weaving them from afar as a mage, and then the other a magic item crafter who can make runes that are longer lived for special effects on equipment they and their party use, be it sword and shield or rune etched arrows.

You know, the more I think about the proficiencies and the way that the class seems to be built, the more I wonder if the designers didn't try to cram two or three different incompatible classes into one. Maybe they wanted to make a whole "runic magic system" with classes to support it, but only got approval for a single class based on runes. It would certainly explain why the class identity feels a bit all over the place.

The entire Tracing setup needing a free hand, with options to W,FF runes out and use blood to spam magic on someone, or use their true name to screw up their saving throws after moving some runes off of one target to a new one... all of that feels like a runic mage. Especially with the multi-discipline rune invocation bonuses. A mage who should be in robes or lighter armor, standing back a bit further, balancing out spreading runes onto enemies and allies before detonating them for massive effects.

But then the shield block, medium armor, martial proficiencies, and "Hit with weapon to apply rune, shoot arrow to set off runes on target" options combined with the base features of getting extra damage through any weapons with rune based enchantments... feels more like the actual smith part of "Rune Smith." A magic item crafter who knows how to use and modify the tools they make, and when need be is more than willing to go out and deal with a problem personally. Probably while testing out the latest runic combinations they've figured out and doing some in the field troubleshooting. Etching as well feels more like it should fall under this part, rather than on the mage, for reasons we've very much seen in the damage calculations.

But neither idea is really fully fleshed out, and they're mashed together, but they're not mashed together really well. Only a few features really seem to blend them in ways that are both healthy and usable, while others bleed together in ways that lead to... well, shenanigans or seemingly unusable features.

You can still build the runesmith to lean into a specific class identity and role, but at least a few people have mentioned that if you're going for some of those, it might be better to archetype something that supports it and only take a small handful of actual Runesmith feats that you'd need.

Rune of conflict - passively prevents creature with the rune on it from being able to benefit from ally-only targeting effects, or provide such to allies. Does not flank, can't use an action to aid and give a bonus to someone else's checks... But gains a +1 to attacks and AC if they have no allies within 15 feet of them.

On invoking, creature makes a single strike against a creature in melee reach to them - if they fail a will save, the runesmith picks the target.

This one would be an interesting mix of buff and debuff that encourages the target to move away from their allies for a buff... but traced on an enemy, the effects end shortly with them out of position. If they stay close to allies to avoid being caught easily out where they could be ganged up on, you can force them to slap an ally. Or if you invoke the same turn you place it, save vs hitting an ally and causing some confusion and possible disruption of teamwork, especially with dumber enemies that can't easily understand that it was forced (beasts, low wisdom humanoids, creatures without any training in any magic tradition...)

The main thing I see as a problem with limiting invokes is that a lot of people will want runes with good emergency invoke effects etched on allies if they aren't trying to just damage burst the enemies turn one and sacrificing all defense to do so. But parties spread out a good bit if you give them room and a few turns with enemies in multiple directions - very few parties are actually good at sticking together and following the plan during combat.

The base invoke range of 30 feet is short enough that outside of small dungeon rooms, it's entirely likely that you might want to get an invoke off on two allies who are far enough away that you can't hit both of them with one invoke until level 12 with the 60 foot invocation range boost.

Maybe you have a homecoming rune on your wizard for if they get caught out of position, and an insulation rune on your fighter who loves charging the big dangerous stuff and the armies of minions alike, and the wizard's gotten themselves in a pickle where they'll be downed next turn after you in initiative, and the fighter's been grappled by an enemy who's decided they can get rid of the painful target by throwing them off a cliff next turn, and the fighter's attempt to escape already failed.

So you need to free your fighter from the grapple with invoking the insulation rune, which will also slap some extra damage on the grappler, and then move and teleport the wizard to behind you. You thus need to invoke, stride, and invoke.

That won't be possible with just the single invoke until level 12 if the two are more than 12 squares on an average map apart. Which, yes, is a fairly good distance, but my group regularly has a mix of more open, large maps with smaller more confined indoors ones, and I've very much seen someone run 100 feet away from the party to try to kill an enemy mage or something.

---

Part of what I'm trying to do is keep in mind the non damage options that the runesmith wants to have, and how they'd be impacted by the attempts to balance out the blasting potential down.

What's the main issue with more than one invoke in a round if you assume the limitation of no duplication runes / rune slots? I'd assume it would be with having two to three allies all having Esvadir etched on their weapons and come in after you traced some runes the previous round, then detonating each Esvadir rune on a different action to stack them all together? Maybe with a body tattooed sun-Atryl with WFF to let you invoke it twice as well despite the limit of 1 rune per slot per creature?

...Okay, 10d6 per rank on round 2 in a small AOE from one person is still pretty concerning if the party had any way to get enemies to cluster or get to the healers/mages of an enemy formation. Even if it takes coordination and bunching up the party to be similarly clustered for AOE retaliations.

But I still feel the solution isn't going to be restricting invoke to once per round. Maybe it actually should be "all copies of the spoken rune (that you created) in invoke range are triggered?" That encourages diversification of what runes you're etching before going into the fight, or waiting for just the right moment and spreading the burst out a lot more to a wider area but lower damage surprise for the enemies.

And it would give remote detonation a very strong niche for setting off runes more selectively in addition to being able to set them off at a greater range when used.

-And- it could possibly be another good reason to use some of the diacritic runes. If "Sun-Zohk" doesn't get set off at the same time as "Zohk" and "Zohk" isn't set off by you invoking "Sun-Zohk," for instance, then though the option to do both at once is still there on the standard invoke option, Diacritic runes could be used to further control activations on etched runes and the like. It would even give "Ur-" a purpose if "Ur-Esvadir" doesn't have to be invoked at the same time as another "Esvadir" rune... but all of that at the cost of extra Etched Rune slots out of your very limited number of those.

How is remote detonation better compression? Both give a strike plus one other contingent action you’d be doing (without a chance of failure) anyway.

I think they're saying that due to not having to move to be in range to invoke the runes, meaning it's, if the enemy moved away, as good as a stride, strike, and invoke all at once.