| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's strange that a class as ready to be pulled in different flavor directions as the Runesmith doesn't have any subclasses.
There's the obvious divisions based on combat style, even supported by the 1st- and 2nd-level feat options: mauler (Engraving Strike), archer (Remote Detonation), and shield (Fortifying Knock). These might seem too close to the Magus' hybrid studies, which I could see as a reason they weren't divided this way.
But still, it seems like there should be some kind of subclass division here, especially to discourage simple poaching of class identity via multiclassing.
Thoughts? Do you feel such subdivision is missing or unnecessary? Is there some good line to draw them along?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rune-Singer feels much more like a subclass than a feat, IMO.
I agree Rune-Singer feels like a sub-class...
Definitely. Not sure if it should key off Charisma instead, but it's definitely a feat that changes the whole feel of the class, and deserves more exploration.
Not sure what other subclasses would look like. If you go off the Rune-singer and interpret subclasses as different ways of calling runes into being, I'm just thinking of how other media depict different styles of magic. I've come up with:
- A prayer-focused subclass (potentially Wisdom-based). Invoke the name of the gods and inscribe holy symbols on things/creatures.
- An occult-focused subclass? Tapping into eldritch signs and unspeakable horrors. Maybe more mind-affecting than other subclasses, like putting Sanctuary-like effects into place, or drawing aggro in some way.
|
I would agree that It feels more like a subclass, but I think the focus of the subclass shouldn't be a magical tradition, but the two different mechanics that the Runes give you: Etched Vs. Traced. the Engraver subclass could focus more on engraving runes, and even have an extra Rune preparation each day that could ONLY be used to Etch.
Whereas the Skald could Trace at a range for a single action (maybe limited or something) Or able to Trace and Invoke with the same two action activity.
I would agree that It feels more like a subclass, but I think the focus of the subclass shouldn't be a magical tradition, but the two different mechanics that the Runes give you: Etched Vs. Traced. the Engraver subclass could focus more on engraving runes, and even have an extra Rune preparation each day that could ONLY be used to Etch.
Whereas the Skald could Trace at a range for a single action (maybe limited or something) Or able to Trace and Invoke with the same two action activity.
I really like your ideas here! You pretty much said what I have been thinking but have not been able to put to words.
Sub-class Idewas?
Rune-Singer
You may choose Charisma as your KAS
you get some benefit
Rune-Striker
Unarmed Style of Runesmith
You deal 1d6 unarmed damage like a monk
Can use Engraving Strike wiht your fist attack
Normal Runesmith
And I'd like a tanky Sub-class that keys off Constitution and shields maybe?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel so split because on one hand I don't think we need to subclassify every god damn thing in the game, Fighter and Monk do just fine with only having feat selection as their build differentiators, but on the other hand a lot of these suggestions are really good. That said keeping the KAS as a solid Int is probably a good call if the subclass idea does go through
I feel so split because on one hand I don't think we need to subclassify every god damn thing in the game, Fighter and Monk do just fine with only having feat selection as their build differentiators, but on the other hand a lot of these suggestions are really good. That said keeping the KAS as a solid Int is probably a good call if the subclass idea does go through
This was sort of why I started the topic. I think monk does really well without subclasses thanks to stances and qi spells, and fighter does okay with certain feat chains and picking your specialty weapon group. And so the urge to not just say “everything needs subclasses” is a good one, but it also feels like the Runesmith would actually benefit from some flavorful playstyle differentiation at the outset.
I do agree that the KAS should stay Int. They are a Crafting-focused class after all. I definitely see the argument for Cha-based rune-singer as a performative thing, but I don’t think it merits opening up the can of worms that is a variable KAS class. Especially since, flavor-wise, you still need to know and understand the runes you’re singing, which is the intellectual/practiced/precision-skill side of performances anyway.
I think I'd most like to see the rune-singer become a class archetype, myself. Something that can have the space required to change the runesmith, but also won't detract from its initial implementation.
Given how PF has moved away from feat chains (and that a lot of the other subclasses can be conceived with a few bread-n'-butter feats), an Archetype seems the way to go. Heck, I might even open it up to other singers, a.k.a. Bards and other craftsfolk (if a hybrid Inventor's feasible conceptually in Golarion).