| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The runes created by Runesmiths have a magical tradition as a trait or have the Magical trait and can be given a tradition.
Runic Magic
Runes are magical effects. Some runes have a specific tradition trait; for instance, the elemental ranshu, rune of thunder is a primal rune. Any rune that doesn’t have a specific tradition trait can be written in the style of one of the four magical traditions to give it that trait if you are trained in that tradition’s skill (for instance, you could create an arcane pluuna, rune of illumination if you were trained in Arcana). Any runes that require a saving throw use your runesmith class DC.
No class features of the Runesmith are affected by the tradition of a rune, but five feats are. Ghostly Resonance requires a divine or occult rune. Vital Composite Invocation requires two runes, one divine and one primal. Clashing Composite Invocation requires two runes of opposite traditions. Astral Composite Invocation requires two runes, one arcane and one occult. Annihilating Composite Invocation requires runes of all four traditions.
The 6th-level feat Vital Composite Invocation is poorly set up in the playtest. It will heal a creature by invoking two runes drawn on the creature, one divine and one primal. For use at 6th level, we would have to use 1st-level runes rather than 9th-level or 17th-level runes. The 1st-level runes that can be put on a creature are Atryl, primal rune of fire; Pluuuna, magical rune of illumination; and Zohk, arcane rune of homecoming. Zohk is out because it is arcane. Atryl is out because deals fire damage to the creature when invoked. Thus, the only sensible way to apply Vital Composite Invocation at 6th to 8th levels in the playtest is to draw two Pluuna runes on the creature, one divine and one primal. Using an Atryl rune in place of the primal Pluuna would deal 6d6 fire damage, average 21 damage, to the creature while healing it for 16 hit points. The tradition requirement on Vital Composite Invocation is a terrible inconvenience. I presume it will be less awkward in the published version when more 1st-level runes are available, but I suspect it will still be inconvenient.
Using the traditions inconveniently in five feats makes no sense. I guess that either the traditions are added to the Runesmith's runes for extra flavor or they are part of a bigger mechanic that was not included in the playtest. Let me talk about the flavor.
The Paizo Blog Welcome to the Impossible Playtest! describes the Runesmith as,
Equal parts artist, scholar, and warrior, the runesmith devotes themself to the study of mystical symbols. These support-focused martial combatants diligently etch runes of every magical tradition onto their (and their allies’) gear, or even directly onto their foes. These runes can be applied even in the heat of combat: use feats like Engraving Strike to stamp ranshu, rune of thunder onto an enemy before Invoking it to call down lightning, or Trace zohk, rune of homecoming in light onto an ally’s boots to ensure their path back to you is always a little shorter.
The Impossible Playtest document says, "Runes: A runesmith doesn’t cast spells, but they can apply various magical effects through runes. Runes can be applied via etching or tracing," and "Though runes aren’t spells, some things that affect spells also affect runes. Abilities that restrict you from casting spells (such as being polymorphed into a battle form) or protect against spells (such as a spell that protects against other spells or a creature’s bonus to saves against spells) also apply to tracing or invoking runes, though you can continue to benefit from a rune’s effects."
Thus, runes are not spells. So why do they have spell traditions? The most familiar runes are the magic items called runes that are affixed to weapons, armor, and other objects. They are not associated with spellcasting traditions. The glowing mystic symbols that appear while casting a spell are also called runes, but the Magic chapter in the Lost Omens Travel Guide calls the visible spellcasting array a Spellcasting Signature. The signatures are circles of obscure letters, and the letters are called runes in the dictionary sense of letters from an old alphabet. The two pages on spellcasting signatures claim that researchers think that the runes relate to the spellcasters themselves not the tradition of the spells. Page 78 said, "Mages who draw their powers from external sources, like summoners or witches, have signatures that reflect both themselves and their source, even when casting from multiple traditions." Thus, the signature runes are also not associated with a particular spellcasting tradition.
An association that I would like to see with Runesmith runes would be to the magic-item runes. The Runesmith learns Magical Crafting feat, so they can make those runes, but I would like a stronger connection. I imagine the following:
Non-Invocation Runes
Runesmiths can also etch and trace the runes that can be permanently attached to weapons, armor, and other objects, such as a +1 weapon potency rune. These are called non-invocation runes because their more permanent nature prevents invoking them. When etched and traced they follow the usual duration for etched and traced runes. However, a property rune etched onto an item that lacks the potency rune bonus to support it will last only one hour past the completion of its etching.
A runesmith can add a non-invocation rune to their Runic Repertoire in place of an invocation rune. To learn a rune the runesmith's level must be greater than or equal to the level of the rune. If a rune is part of a progressing series of runes, such as the resilient rune 8, greater resilient rune 14, and major resilient rune 20, then the higher-level version automatically replaces the lower-level version in the Runic Repertoire when the runesmith reaches that level. Knowing the formula for crafting a permanent non-invocation rune does not add the rune to the Runic Repertoire, but adding the rune to the Runic Repertoire does teach the runesmith the formula for crafting it and its lower-level versions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is weird to me how the actual flaming rune doesn't have a tradition (it's just "Magical") whereas Atryl, Rune of Fire is Primal. My understanding of Runesmith magic is "there exists extremely durable magic that can be used by anybody, as is illustrated by weapon and armor runes, the Runesmith is the person who works with this kind of magic and would be the person who discovers new property runes to put on items, in case they came up with a particularly good idea."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Had similar thoughts, and did not like the conclusions I came to.
As I see it, there's 3 ways the rune mechanic can go.
1. What we have: bespoke magical mechanics that are carved out from the rest of the system so as to not interact weirdly with it, but also is unlikely to get much support going forward. Also have to use a lot of page space to once again give basic options like "additional fire damage on a strike". Edit: points though to the designers for creativity with doing this by lowering the target's fire resistance. If it made the target vulnerable once their fire resistance was 0, that'd be even cooler.
2. Spells in a can: runes become a class specific way to generate spell casts, sort of like temporary scrolls.
Personally unsatisfying to me, but the benefit would be the designers could let the specific effects of runes be someone else's headache, and concentrate their efforts on making the application, creation, and usage of runes in combat and exploration modes interesting.
3. Runic Alchemy: The runesmith class mechanic becomes the ability to use runes (the magic item) better than any other class. Specifically they'd be able to quickly generate and apply those runes for free on the battlefield as a consumable, and add an activation effect to the passive rune. Probably want a third creation option "Engrave" to differentiate between runes that are meant to be applied permanently as normal (engraved) and those meant to be invoked (etched and traced).
I personally favor this approach right now, as it presents runesmiths as masters of those specific class of magic items, but what is interesting to me might not be the best for the game.
All 3 have pretty obvious problems and potential headaches. I'm not fond of option 1, but I also dislike the options they have presented, so that may be coloring my judgement. Genuinely not sure which way I even want them to take this class.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
option 1 seems like clearly the correct choice, bespoke class features are almost always better than trying to contort generic features to fit a new mold. Tying them directly to spells would force you to either significantly reduce their usability or put them permanently behind the curve, and I'm not sure how you could even attempt to preserve the class' interesting mechanics by tying them to property runes.
2. Spells in a can: runes become a class specific way to generate spell casts, sort of like temporary scrolls.
Personally unsatisfying to me, but the benefit would be the designers could let the specific effects of runes be someone else's headache, and concentrate their efforts on making the application, creation, and usage of runes in combat and exploration modes interesting.
I have played with spell-building mechanics in the Elder Scrolls series of computer/console games. The first Elder Scrolls game, The Elder Scrolls: Arena had a spell-bulding system in which I could string components together. For example, I took the Heal spell and the Shield spell and combined them into one spell that both healed my character and put a damage-absorbing shield around him, better against an ongoing attack than healing and shielding separately, but with the combined magicka cost of both spells. Bethesda Game Studios dropped the system in later Elder Scrolls games.
However, the latest chapter, Gold Road, of Elder Scrolls Online re-introduced a spell-building system under the name Scribing. I found it handy for filling in gaps between the skill lines of character classes. But this would be redundant in Pathfinder because Pathfinder can fill in gaps by character customization.
However, theorycrafting about Golarion magic can be amusing.
It is weird to me how the actual flaming rune doesn't have a tradition (it's just "Magical") whereas Atryl, Rune of Fire is Primal.
Fire falls under Matter essence. Both Arcane magic and Primal magic call upon Matter essence, which is why Fireball on the arcane and primal spell lists but not on the divine or occult spell lists. I suppose that the Flaming weapon property rune is the true rune of fire. But something is added to the rune of fire to create the Greater Flaming weapon property rune, so give it more persistent fire damage and the ability to bypass fire resistance. Atryl has bypassing fire resistance built in, so I theorize that the Greater Flaming rune adds Atryl to the regular Flaming rune. I guess Atryl is not the rune of fire; instead, it is the rune of burning.
Despite the amusement of theorycrafting, Squiggit is right to say,
bespoke class features are almost always better than trying to contort generic features to fit a new mold.
The developers can carefully balance a character class and its magic by bespoke design. Design by a fixed spell-building system would have broken aspects that could be too powerful or too weak. And a spell-building system would be boringly repetitive rather appealingly creative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. What we have: bespoke magical mechanics that are carved out from the rest of the system so as to not interact weirdly with it, but also is unlikely to get much support going forward. Also have to use a lot of page space to once again give basic options like "additional fire damage on a strike". Edit: points though to the designers for creativity with doing this by lowering the target's fire resistance. If it made the target vulnerable once their fire resistance was 0, that'd be even cooler.
A dead-end mechanic with no future development would provide a playable class, but it would lack the fun of seeing the class bloom into greater variety later.
3. Runic Alchemy: The runesmith class mechanic becomes the ability to use runes (the magic item) better than any other class. Specifically they'd be able to quickly generate and apply those runes for free on the battlefield as a consumable, and add an activation effect to the passive rune. Probably want a third creation option "Engrave" to differentiate between runes that are meant to be applied permanently as normal (engraved) and those meant to be invoked (etched and traced).
I personally favor this approach right now, as it presents runesmiths as masters of those specific class of magic items, but what is interesting to me might not be the best for the game.
I had hoped for an aspect of this in suggesting the Non-Invocation Runes feature. That plays off of the class-independent rune equipment.
AnimatedPaper's comment about "engraving" for the permanent runes points out a flaw in the Runesmith terminology. The rules for permanent runes say they are etched or engraved onto weapons, armor, or other objects. So calling one of the Runesmith's ways of applying temporary runes "etching" creates an ambiguity.
Applying Runes
All runes can be applied in one of two ways: a rune can be etched on or merely traced. An etched rune is carved, inked, or branded in, though this application does not damage the creature or item. Etching runes requires an artisan’s toolkit. Your magic can sustain up to 2 etched runes at a time, and you can etch any number of runes up to this maximum during your daily preparations and when you spend 10 minutes in exploration mode. As you increase in level, the maximum amount of etched runes you can have at a given time increases. Your etched runes remain indefinitely until they’re expended or removed, or until you etch more runes than your maximum, which causes your oldest rune to fade. A traced rune is drawn lightly in dust, light, or a similar fleeting medium. You can trace runes with the below action.
I propose that the ten-minute exploration activity of applying an indefinitely-enduring rune supported by the Runesmith's magic be called "sketching" rather than "etching."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Had similar thoughts, and did not like the conclusions I came to.
As I see it, there's 3 ways the rune mechanic can go.
1. What we have: bespoke magical mechanics that are carved out from the rest of the system so as to not interact weirdly with it, but also is unlikely to get much support going forward. Also have to use a lot of page space to once again give basic options like "additional fire damage on a strike". Edit: points though to the designers for creativity with doing this by lowering the target's fire resistance. If it made the target vulnerable once their fire resistance was 0, that'd be even cooler.
2. Spells in a can: runes become a class specific way to generate spell casts, sort of like temporary scrolls.
Personally unsatisfying to me, but the benefit would be the designers could let the specific effects of runes be someone else's headache, and concentrate their efforts on making the application, creation, and usage of runes in combat and exploration modes interesting.3. Runic Alchemy: The runesmith class mechanic becomes the ability to use runes (the magic item) better than any other class. Specifically they'd be able to quickly generate and apply those runes for free on the battlefield as a consumable, and add an activation effect to the passive rune. Probably want a third creation option "Engrave" to differentiate between runes that are meant to be applied permanently as normal (engraved) and those meant to be invoked (etched and traced).
I personally favor this approach right now, as it presents runesmiths as masters of those specific class of magic items, but what is interesting to me might not be the best for the game.All 3 have pretty obvious problems and potential headaches. I'm not fond of option 1, but I also dislike the options they have presented, so that may be coloring my judgement. Genuinely not sure which way I even want them to take this class.
#1 is what the playtest is testing, and it doesn't currently balance well currently, not to mention it narratively locks the magic of runes into a weird class restricted space. The biggest unfortunate aspect of this to me is that the design of the runes is a very dynamic use of the action economy that could be used to make a lot more interesting spells.
If runes were spells that defaulted to around a 30ft range and took two actions to cast, but runesmiths had a unique class feature to cast them at touch range for 1 less action, and the only one who could cast diacritic runes, the class would still be unique and cool, and there would be a ton of new space created for action-dynamic new spells.
I'm not sure how you could even attempt to preserve the class' interesting mechanics by tying them to property runes.
I don't really disagree, but unfortunately for me personally, this very attempt to preserve interesting mechanics has resulted in a class that kills my enthusiasm entirely every time I look at the list of runes. Which means that I am letting my dislike of the current slate get in the way of how I see the class. I guess I just have to hope there's enough space in the real book to have options I find interesting.
I want to like this class. The fantasy is one that has long appealed to me, and there's a few combinations I like. So despite my current distaste I really do hope it does well.
But to get back to Mathmuse's point, something could be done to better integrate runes into the class, though you're right putting it in the middle won't work. I was pretty satisfied with the alchemy crafting feat on the gunslinger, it brought some semi-disparate part of the design together for me without getting in the way of the real abilities. A few more feats like Elemental Revision would go a long way for me I think.
I want to like this class. The fantasy is one that has long appealed to me, and there's a few combinations I like.
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. My players played mundane crafters learning technological crafting in the Iron Gods adventure path and had great fun with the theme. I did aid them with some houserules: Going Wild with Technology. But Pathfinder 2nd Edition unintentionally nerfed crafting, partly with the four-day preliminary period for the Craft activity (the Remaster reduced it to 2 days) and partly by slowing the rate for magical crafting down to the rate of mundane crafting. Thus, the only way to play with crafting in a timely manner is with classes or archetypes that possess crafting shortcuts, such as alchemists making 3+INT versatile vials for free every day.
#1 is what the playtest is testing, and it doesn't currently balance well currently, not to mention it narratively locks the magic of runes into a weird class restricted space. The biggest unfortunate aspect of this to me is that the design of the runes is a very dynamic use of the action economy that could be used to make a lot more interesting spells.
If runes were spells that defaulted to around a 30ft range and took two actions to cast, but runesmiths had a unique class feature to cast them at touch range for 1 less action, and the only one who could cast diacritic runes, the class would still be unique and cool, and there would be a ton of new space created for action-dynamic new spells.
Pathfinder 2nd Edition has two common frameworks for a balanced class: a martial that hits with a weapon or unarmed strike and a spellcaster that casts from spell slots of ranks from 1 to half the caster's level rounded up. The damage from the martial is fast due to one-action Strikes but subject to Multiple Attack Penalties. The damage and battlefield control from the spellcasters typically requires 2 actions, limiting them to one spell per turn.
Combining both frameworks is tricky. A 5th-level character who can stab a 4th-level Morlock Cultist with expert weapon proficiency and then cast a Fireball at the rest of the morlocks is functioning with the best of both worlds. The Magus can do that, but Wave Casting means they cannot keep their spellcasting active for long. A simpler method of making a magical martial is to give a few fantastic combat-aiding abilities to the basic martial chassis. A barbarian is a martial with rage and nearly-magical instincts. A champion is a martial with protective reactions and focus spells. A monk can be a martial with focus spells. The runesmith appears to be designed as a martial with a few magical abilities like the barbarian and champion, rather than a mixture of martial and spellcaster like the cleric and magus.
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I want to like this class. The fantasy is one that has long appealed to me, and there's a few combinations I like.I am curious what appeals to you about the fantasy of the Runesmith. Such information can help shape the Runesmith into a coherent design.
I come at this from a couple angles:
1. Narrative: I like playing with the idea of someone that is able to imbue objects with magic, and work power through symbols. Several series I've read do variations of those two themes.
A specific character that this class unlocks for me is Charlie Gale, a Bard in a magic system that is run off runes ("charms" in universe). She has a semi unique ability to sing her charms onto something, where everyone else has to trace them (mechanically closer to etch in effect but the action of tracing is identical).
2. Gaming: I have fond memories playing multiple runesmith/runeblade/artificer classes, and am eager to see a good PF spin on it. The inventor saw to some parts of the 3.5 artificer; this will give us the other half of that class I think.
3. Design: I like seeing item classes, especially ones that generate items for free. Runesmith Runes aren't quite a new set of magic items, but close enough for me. I still wish one of them was on the caster chassis instead of martial or support, but this only makes sense as a martial given its emphasis on strikes.
For me, the important aspects of this design are the passive rune benefits, and the ability to apply them all over the place at need and at will. Probably why I favored using existing runes in the first place (again, I am acknowledging I was wrong with that; surprisingly its because existing runes are all too weak to compete with Runesmith Runes, even before the invocation effect is factored in), my greedy imagination saw hundreds of options instead of the 20 we got. Invocations I'm less enthusiastic about, though for the purposes of keeping this as a mental stat martial I feel they are needed, as they let you to prefer one big strike per round instead of MAP strikes.
Crafting is also of secondary concern for me. It works, but it's been done a lot and I would like to see a different take. Perhaps a linguistic/Society check would have been an interestingly different take. I don't insist on that, crafting does work, just my personal thought.
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..
I often feel the same about alchemists. A "caster" version that acts as a vending machine and lobs bombs (which is the weapon group that acts the most like a spell cast, right down to damaging on a miss but not critical miss) and a martial version that either gets more benefits or ignores the penalties of alchemical items they craft and use on themselves might have worked better than trying to split the difference like they did.
I'd love a rune mage.
Thus, the only sensible way to apply Vital Composite Invocation at 6th to 8th levels in the playtest is to draw two Pluuna runes on the creature, one divine and one primal.
I personally would allow diacritic runes to count towards this, even if they technically aren't applied to the creature (though of course are through their base rune). That would allow you to use Sun- for it as well.
I'm a little torn on if runes applied to unarmed strikes should also count as being on the creature for the purposes of feats like this. Makes logical sense, but might get weird. If it was allowed, that would open up Esvadir and Marsyll. Same logic and question for ancestries that allow you to apply armor runes directly onto your skin, and if armor runes applied that way count as on the creature.
Been meaning to chime in on this discussion myself, but haven't had much to add besides directionless feelings about how cool the concept of a warrior who draws runes on things is. This idea here is pretty cool to me, though:
It is weird to me how the actual flaming rune doesn't have a tradition (it's just "Magical") whereas Atryl, Rune of Fire is Primal. My understanding of Runesmith magic is "there exists extremely durable magic that can be used by anybody, as is illustrated by weapon and armor runes, the Runesmith is the person who works with this kind of magic and would be the person who discovers new property runes to put on items, in case they came up with a particularly good idea."Not something I expect them to implement, but this started me thinking that it'd be cool if, instead of traditions, each of the runes was tied to an essence. Atryl would be a Material rune, for example, instead of a Primal rune.
When I first heard the concept that runesmiths might combine runes to do special things, I was excited for what that might mean. I didn't except it would basically amount to five feats that let you mix runes from different buckets (not counting diacritics)
The runesmith as it is is absolutely selling most of the class fantasy I wanted, admittedly. I don't really have a problem with their runes belonging to different traditions--after all, most magic, spell or not, belongs to a tradition, and it makes sense to me that the most common (non-invocation) runes would be the ones that belong to all four traditions.
On the other hand, the runes having traditions at all doesn't really seem to be doing much for it, mechanically or narratively. In the latter category, I do like the idea that there are runes for all traditions, but I could also leave it if the class were to double down on the idea that pretty much all rune-based things have been Arcane up until now, for lack of any other Arcane themes. Only thing I'd miss is that presumably the Smith uses all traditions so it doesn't have to stick to just one themed set of powers (regardless how broad those themes are in reality)
Mechanically, I suppose my pipe dream idea would be allowing runes to be combined into composite runes, but when you consider how much page space is needed just for 6x6 kineticiat elements to have composite blasts, such a class would have to have a very small number of runes, unless each rune was given a specific "composite effect" that it always add when applied on top of a different rune. Given how runes are fimurther divided into what targets they can be placed on I don't see this working very well, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is weird to me how the actual flaming rune doesn't have a tradition (it's just "Magical") whereas Atryl, Rune of Fire is Primal. My understanding of Runesmith magic is "there exists extremely durable magic that can be used by anybody, as is illustrated by weapon and armor runes, the Runesmith is the person who works with this kind of magic and would be the person who discovers new property runes to put on items, in case they came up with a particularly good idea."
I think it kinda works in the opposite way. Runemisth probably uses a more ancient or "primordial" version of the runes most people use nowadays, who likely were made to be simpler than runesmith's runes but in contrast can be used or inscribed by anyone (or at least inscribed by anyone with Crafting).
However, I do agree with OP that having traditions for runes is not that meaningful honestly.
I think it kinda works in the opposite way. Runemisth probably uses a more ancient or "primordial" version of the runes most people use nowadays, who likely were made to be simpler than runesmith's runes but in contrast can be used or inscribed by anyone (or at least inscribed by anyone with Crafting).
However, I do agree with OP that having traditions for runes is not that meaningful honestly.
I would love words of power being used for lessons learned and an inspiration for runes.
I have been thinking about the Rune-Smith and Rune-Mage described by RobinHart. They provide prototypical playstyles for the Runesmith. I think the Rune-Singer feat adds a third playstyle to the class, so we have a full triangle of options. The thread We have so much freedom for diversification but where's the love for specialization? had me speculating whether Rune-Smith, Rune-Mage, and Rune-Singer should be subclasses of the Runesmith, but the playstyles blend into each other, so the Runesmith might work best as a class without subclasses like the Fighter and Monk.
The Rune-Mage has the most obvious playstyle. The character traces runes on allies and enemies as frequently as possible with their empty hand. Their weapon stays sheathed except in unusual circumstances. To the Rune-Mage, combat is about slapping an Atryl rune of fire on an opponent and invoking it.
My concept of the Rune-Smith is the character who wants to use their weapon frequently. The character probably forged it themself. They are a rune-enhanced melee martial. I have not figured out the action economy for this character, because their turn ought to look like Trace, Strike, Invoke, and Raise Shield. The Rune-Smith probably invokes their runes through the Remote Detonation free action. Their semi-permanant runes are already etched on their weapon and shield. And they need some ability that lets them trace runes while both hands are occupied by weapon and shield.
Runes for allies enable a playstyle as a support class, and I dub that Rune-Singer because singing reminds me of the bard. Just like the bard spends a action every turn to boost the party (my current campaign has two 4th-level bards: one sings Courageous Anthem and the other sings Triple Time), the Rune-Singer hopes to have a spare action to Trace a Rune on an ally. Though I named this playstyle after the Rune-Singer feat, the feat's once-per-minute limit makes it unable to sustain a regular playstyle.
RUNE-SINGER FEAT 1
RUNESMITH
You practice the lost art of using music to guide the act of carving your runes, singing them into existence as much as crafting them. You can use Performance instead of Crafting when attempting Crafting checks related to runes. Once per minute, you can Trace a Rune with song alone, removing the need to have a free hand, removing the manipulate trait from Trace Rune, and allowing you to use the 2-action version of
Trace Rune as a single action. You don’t need to be able to move your hands when Tracing a Rune using song, but you do need to be able to sing in a clear voice.
I don't see the benefit of using Performance instead of Crafting in a class with Intelligence as key ability score and that probably maximizes Crafting proficiency rank, but maybe that is just for flavor. Otherwise, Rune-Singer feat removes three of the four costs and disadvantages of Tracing a Rune (the fourth cost is buying and wearing artisan's tools), which is probably more than necessary. Unless the Rune-Singing runesmith wants to trace a rune only once per minute, they keep a hand free regardless, so this feat is mostly about a one-action trace at a distance.
Thus, let me suggest an alternative feat more practical for a support Runesmith.
Rune Harmony Feat 1
Runesmith
You sing the name of a rune as you apply it, bringing your allies in harmony with it. If you Etch or Trace a Rune on an ally's body or gear, then the ally can perform an Invocation action to invoke that rune.
The PF1 alchemist has the ability to make a limited number of extracts per day for free. Extracts are potions that only the alchemist can drink. However, the Infusion alchemist discovery lets the alchemist make extracts that other characters can drink, too. This discovery gave my alchemist a new support role that greatly enhanced the party, yet did not diminish his combat ability as a bomber. Before combat he would hand the other party members infusions to drink when they needed it. I suspect that both the runesmith and their allies would prefer that the allies spend the actions to invoke their own runes.
I have drifted from the topic of labeling runes with spell traditions, so let me ask, do any of these playstyles embrace runes with traditions? The Rune-Mage could be a studious scholar who pontificates on the merits of different runes from different traditions, but I don't see such a scholar want to carefully match tradition restrictions on their feats in the middle of combat. The Rune-Smith exemplifies the crafting of runes. and the Rune-Singer demonstrates the underlying words and music in the runes, and spell traditions would distract from their themes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my comment above, I said that the weapon-focused Rune-Smith needs some ability that lets them trace runes while both hands are occupied by weapon and shield. I have a silly idea how to accomplish that. Imagine an iconic image of a runesmith, much like Lem is the iconic bard and Merisiel is the iconic rogue. A typical image of Lem is that he is holding or playing a musical instrument. A typical image of Merisiel is that her leather armor is studded with knives. The iconic runesmith would be similarly decked out with the tools of their class: armor and shield marked with runes and the artisan's tools clearly visible. The runesmith could even have a inkbrush in their hand to emphasize that they actively draw runes.
Pathfinder 1st Edition has an inkbrush weapon, the Iron Brush. Its description says, "This is an iron-handled version of a scholar’s brush with a sharpened handle. Though it does little damage, it is easily concealed ..."
How about giving the runesmith a set of weapons that can also scribe runes? It would be both iconic and amusing.
ENEMY LOOKOUT 1: That's clearly an adventuring party approaching. But I don't see any plate armor, holy symbols, or spellbooks. What are they?
ENEMY LOOKOUT 2: The angry-looking woman in front is a barbarian. The fellow with water floating around him is a kineticist. The lady with the magnifying glass is an investigator. And the guy with the giant paintbrush is a runesmith.
Take a martial weapon, reduced its weapon die by one step, add the runescribing trait and reskin it.
Runescribing weapon trait: A runesmith can etch or trace runes with a held runescribing weapon rather than a free hand. The runescribing weapon counts as artisan's tools for this purpose. Tracing a Rune with a runescribing weapon can reach only as far as the weapon, but tracing this way loses the manipulate trait.
GIANT PAINTBRUSH
Disarm, Runescribing, Sweep, Trip
Based on Flail
Price 8 sp; Damage 1d4 B; Bulk 1
Hands 1
Type Melee; Category Martial; Group Flail
This weapon consists of a hefty wooden haft adorned with paint-laden brush bristles on one end.
IRON INKBRUSH
Concealable, Runescribing, Thrown 10 feet
Based on PF1 Iron Brush and Stiletto Pen
Price 5 sp; Damage 1d3 P; Bulk L
Hands 1
Type Melee; Category Martial; Group Dart
This scholar’s inkbrush has a sharpened iron handle. Though it does little damage, it is easily concealed and can be thrown short distances.
WOODWORKING KNIFE
Agile, Finesse, Runescribing, Versatile P
Based on Flyssa
Price 1 gp; Damage 1d4 S; Bulk L
Hands 1
Type Melee; Category Martial; Group Knife
This single-edged blade, decorated with mystic etchings, can is reinforced for wood carving.
HAMMER AND CHISEL
Runescribing, Shove, Versatile P
Based on Maul
Price 3 gp; Damage 1d10 B; Bulk 2
Hands 2
Type Melee; Category Martial; Group Hammer
This pair of tools (treat as one object) can apply blows precisely to engrave letters on stone.
PALETTE SHIELD Item 1
Based on Wooden Shield
Price 2 gp; AC Bonus +2; Speed Penalty —
Bulk 1; Hardness 3; HP (BT) 10 (5)
This wooden shield holds an array of paint blots along its circumference, allowing a runesmith to Trace a Rune in their space or an adjacent space with the hand holding the palette shield. This tracing still has the manipulate trait.
PAINTBALLS
Based on Sling Bullets
Price 2 sp (price for 10); Bulk L
Type Ranged; Category Ammunition; Group Sling
These are paint-filled hollow balls, designed to be used as ammunition in slings, but they deal one dice size smaller weapon damage than the sling's usual weapon damage dice. If a runesmith Strikes with a paintball, then they may Trace a Rune on the target or the target's gear as a free action instead of dealing damage.
Nimble Shield Hand Class Feat 2
Runesmith
Source Player Core 2 pg. 187
Archetype Bastion (feat 6)
You are so used to wielding a shield that you can do so even while using the hand that’s holding it for other tasks that require the dexterity of a hand. The hand you use to wield a shield counts as a free hand for the purposes of the Interact action. You can also hold another object in this hand (but you still can’t use it to wield a weapon). This benefit doesn’t apply to tower shields, which are still too cumbersome.
Note Tracing a Rune is not an Interact action, but loading a paintball into a sling is an Interact action.
The Pen is Mightier Feat 1
Runesmith
When you are wielding a runescribing weapon, increase the damage die size of that weapon by one step. Paintballs do not reduce the damage die size of your sling.
First, love that weapon trait. I can definitely see that being a thing.
A special buckler might work as well.
Runes for allies enable a playstyle as a support class, and I dub that Rune-Singer because singing reminds me of the bard. Just like the bard spends a action every turn to boost the party (my current campaign has two 4th-level bards: one sings Courageous Anthem and the other sings Triple Time), the Rune-Singer hopes to have a spare action to Trace a Rune on an ally. Though I named this playstyle after the Rune-Singer feat, the feat's once-per-minute limit makes it unable to sustain a regular playstyle.
I had a different vision for that 3rd play style. Runemages would function just fine at the support play style that you're ascribing to Runesingers. What Runesingers would be better at is offensive options. They can stack 2-3 runes onto an enemy at range over the course of 2 rounds, and use their crossbow and remote detonation to blow them to bits. So, Atryl, Ranshu, and either Sun or Ur. Tracing Trance would allow this to be an every round playstyle, with Runesinger allowing you to use your initial round to position yourself correctly. Distant Invocation would free you up a little more.
I started to describe that kind of character upthread, but mentally I was imagining a siren-type or talisman-mage character that applies curse on top of curse, or ephemeral ofuda, onto an enemy.
I really do like the runescribing weapons trait option as a way to make the martial runesmith a bit more iconic looking in addition to having their playstyle work with the current chassis. Though it's not quite the idea I had for what a rune smith should feel like (much less focused on the tracing runes on creatures in battle, much more on activating runic effects pre-prepared and using enhanced equipment for self and allies), it makes for a fairly good compromise without splitting the class and changing it more than the Devs might be looking to do so.
Though I still feel like the "blacksmithing weapons" pairing that they suggest are important for a runesmith with that one feat might also work as well for things.
Another way to play a runesmith type archetype might be taking inspiration from the snare crafting system already in place. Leaving rune stones on the battlefield that can then be activated for single target closest creature effects, or small or larger AOE effects, or even runes that could be invoked multiple times but have to be set up in a physical location and can't be moved after...
Though again, none of these really work with traditions on runes. The only real examples I can think of for runes having a tie to anything like spell traditions in media are generally "divine runes" being an angelic language... but when that happens those are generally the only runes. Or Draconic ones being the language of magic for a setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the traditions aren’t anything more than a convenient vehicle for what they’re really after, the ability to combine runes to create synergistic and discordant effects. Someone mentioned words of power…probably in this thread. Might as well have been. But anyways, one aspect of Rune magic that frequently comes up is that in combination, some runes have greater reactions when use at the same time. I think traditions are a way to deliver that playstyle without having to get bogged down with paring specific runes with each other and deciding how they’d go. Instead, you can just have broad categories, and a pool of runes that can be applied to any one category, and anything in those categories counts.
It’s no different than if the runes had been assigned elements, or sanctification, or “Land, Sea, or Sky” groupings, all of which I’ve seen used to divvy up runes in a writer’s magic system. The divisions are arbitrary, the important part is that they’re divided at all. Since in pathfinder we’re already used to the idea that magic effects are tied to certain essences via specific traditions, traditions are as good as anything else for this purpose. Arguably tying the runes to essences would be better, as you’re really getting into the idea that runes are a kind of raw, pimoridial magic if you go that route, but traditions also give runesmiths a reason to pick up different skills, and essences would lack that.
Runescribing weapon trait: A runesmith can etch or trace runes with a held runescribing weapon rather than a free hand. The runescribing weapon counts as artisan's tools for this purpose. Tracing a Rune with a runescribing weapon can reach only as far as the weapon, but tracing this way loses the manipulate trait.
GIANT PAINTBRUSH
Disarm, Runescribing, Sweep, Trip
Based on Flail
Price 8 sp; Damage 1d4 B; Bulk 1
Hands 1
Type Melee; Category Martial; Group Flail
This weapon consists of a hefty wooden haft adorned with paint-laden brush bristles on one end.IRON INKBRUSH
Concealable, Runescribing, Thrown 10 feet
Based on PF1 Iron Brush and Stiletto Pen
Price 5 sp; Damage 1d3 P; Bulk L
Hands 1
Type Melee; Category Martial; Group Dart
This scholar’s inkbrush has a sharpened iron handle. Though it does little damage, it is easily concealed and can be thrown short distances.WOODWORKING KNIFE
Agile, Finesse, Runescribing, Versatile P
Based on Flyssa
Price 1 gp; Damage 1d4 S; Bulk L
Hands 1
Type Melee; Category Martial; Group Knife
This single-edged blade, decorated with mystic etchings, can is reinforced for wood carving.HAMMER AND CHISEL
Runescribing, Shove, Versatile P
Based on Maul
Price 3 gp; Damage 1d10 B; Bulk 2
Hands 2
Type Melee; Category Martial; Group Hammer
This pair of tools (treat as one object) can apply blows precisely to engrave letters on stone.PALETTE SHIELD Item 1
Based on Wooden Shield
Price 2 gp; AC Bonus +2; Speed Penalty —
Bulk 1; Hardness 3; HP (BT) 10 (5)
This wooden shield holds an array of paint blots along its circumference, allowing a runesmith to Trace a Rune in their space or an adjacent space with the hand holding the palette shield. This tracing still has the manipulate trait.PAINTBALLS
Based on Sling Bullets
Price 2 sp (price for 10); Bulk L
Type Ranged; Category Ammunition; Group Sling
These are paint-filled hollow balls, designed to be used as ammunition in slings, but they deal one dice size smaller weapon damage than the sling's usual weapon damage dice. If a runesmith Strikes with a paintball, then they may Trace a Rune on the target or the target's gear as a free action instead of dealing damage.
Yep, the Runesmith 3rd party base class for PF1 by Interjection Games took a similar approach…
Methodology (Ex): At 1st level, choose one of the following methodologies, which represent the way the runesmith tends to prepare his runes. He gains the corresponding weapon proficiencies.
Calligraphy The runesmith is proficient with the switchblade knife and the whip.
Chiseling The runesmith is proficient with the light hammer, the warhammer, the lucerne hammer, and the maul.
Fingerpainting The runesmith gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat.
Gouging The runesmith is proficient with light picks, heavy picks, and the pickaxe.
Painting The runesmith is proficient with the starknife and the syringe spear.
AnimatedPaper's speculation that traditions on runes are for flavorful categories for rune synthesis seems highly plausible to me. And I also agree that essences would make more sense as building blocks than traditions.
I had mentioned that tradition have the advantage over essences in that each tradition has a skill associated with it. But merely "Magical" runes that can be shifted to a tradition by skill knowledge undermine the concept of runes as fundamental building blocks for multi-rune magical effects. Fundamental is seldom that flexible. Every single invokable rune should be Spirit, Life, Matter, or Mind (or Arcane, Primal, Divine, or Occult).
Furthermore, imagine that a player had put a magical Pluuna rune on an ally for illumination, and later wanted to use that Pluuna rune as a divine rune for Vital Composition Invocation.
RUNESMITH: My Pluuna is divine.
GM: No, you did not declare it divine when you traced it.
RUNESMITH: Didn't I say last month that all my Pluunas would be divine unless I said otherwise? GM: I don't recall that.
Leaving off multiple-category runes seems best.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It occurred to me last night that if you really wanted, you COULD assign a skill to each essence for this class, using the next tier of knowledge skills:
Matter - Crafting
Mind - Society
Life - Survival (or Medicine)
Spirit - Performance
If this was the skill by which you drew or created your runes, and each gave you a bonus rune of that essence type, and maybe each had a level 1 feat associated with each skill that as part of it allowed you to use the alternate skill 1/minute, you'd have pretty clear class paths built into this.
But maybe not. The primary benefit for rune singing is the 1 action saving 1/minute, I wouldn't want to just give that to all runesmiths.
Don't have time at the moment to truly get into the weeds, but I can probably make a more complete pitch for this idea when I get home this afternoon. Likely you'd want to have a basic Lore Rune skill that is your default skill check (and automatically levels with your class DC) and the level 1 feats let you use alternate skills instead.
This is all just off the top of my head, so don't take it for anything serious. I just wanted to bring up the idea of skills matching essences.
Right, so. Essences.
Biggest problem is actually (once again) the Runes available. Far too many want to be matter, with few options that could go the other 3 essences.
But assuming that is somehow rectified.
(may as well use Mathmuse's terms)
New default: Runemages (what I'll call this class for this post) gain a new Lore: Rune skill. Any crafting check the Runemage's class abilities or feats would use this skill instead. Like the other special lore skills, it can't be picked up using standard skill points, but your proficiency automatically increases with level.
Matter - Runesmith. Can use crafting checks in place of Lore: Runes if higher.
"Engraving Strike" is renamed "Runesmithing". Functions the same, but the flavor text now describes you using your weapons as if they were your crafting tools, your mace and swords strikes as artful as your smithing hammer and engraving tool and you;'re able to use your strike to draw the rune, rather than drawing it backwards and stamping your enemy.
Mind - Runelord. Can use society. "Backup Runic Enhancement" becomes "Seal of the Runelord", with identical mechanics.
Life - Runesworn. Can use Survival. I'm of 2 minds here. Remote Detonation works, especially since it is an action saver, but I also like the idea of them gaining an ability to place a rune on the ground, and being able to invoke it there, with the creature occupying that space taking the effects of the invocation as it they had the runes applied to them.
Spirit - Rune-singer. I'm sure this one is obvious.
.
These were kind of just thrown out here, but Runesworn aside I actually feel like the flavor of Runesmithing and Seal of the Runelord is stronger than the current feats. Engraving Strike seems kind of slapstick, and Backup Rune kind of bland. And I'm reimagining the two teleportation runes as if the Runelord was commanding your presence to be where she wants you to be.
Far too complex for this class though, so I don't see it happening. It's fun to imagine the class reworked through those 4 approaches though.