So we have a martial class, who has a small set of *spells* with a equivalent proficiency to a full caster (legendary class DC scaling) and uniquely bad defenses (saves).
Currently, invoking damage runes is just way better than striking. Things like engraving strike and remote detonation are good in the sense that it lets you do a martial thing (strike) with your class thing (runes)
Both of these are optional feats.
What is the martial proficiency doing for this class?
To be clear, I actually love the concept of the class. Specifically the runes and that whole mechanic. To the point where I'd gladly give up martial proficiency for other things.
But, currently your selling it to us as a martial class, who would rather spend it's time not doing martial things
It's tricky, if you nerf invoke damage too much it becomes a trap option and it's a low damage martial with support spell like abilities.
If you don't nerf invoke damage enough, why would I strike with a weapon, why would I invest time and resources into it?
And then, there is the paranoia (for me and I imagine others) of the class coming out of the play test like the magus. With a rote action routine to force us to want to use strikes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why I asked if Engraving Strike is the most OP Trap feat in the game. It's so odd, it's so powerful but the class makes it so weak, it's hard to explain!
Honestly you can't nerf Invoke damaghe because if you make it like Kineticist then you force Engraving Strike as the ONLY option, Strike - Invoke, repeat. You make it unfortunately Magus rotation, thereis no way to solve it honestly. Make Invoke damage too low why ever use damagign runes? It's so hard to balance this concept!
Yeah, it's genuinely weird that the Runesmith is positioned as "a martial class" and then there's really very little incentive to make strikes despite you having the same accuracy as standard martial.
If you lean into your martial abilities you get...not much except a desire to enter into precarious positions, and with low saves to worsen it. Since Runes are so much better, the easy answer is to limit them EXCEPT Runesmith would remain a lesser martial because you still want max Int, and since you want that shield up to survive, you're wielding a smaller weapon. If anything, having martial weapon proficiency feels like a trap. *sigh*
The Magus got around this trap by letting the weapon proficiency determine the success of attack spells, so leaning into weapons paid off, and you could even ignore Int (though with the Remaster, the number of attack Cantrips has dropped a lot!)
I love the concept, but I don't think you could make the character in the drawings and thrive. Not yet.
And then there's the problem that buffs from Runes can go on the weapons of full-fledged martials, so martial Runesmiths kinda need something for themselves damage-wise.
We're getting to the point where martials and magic will be blurred even more then normal. The Thauamaturge and Magus is a close example of when things start to blend and what other sort of martials can we make?
We're getting to the point where martials and magic will be blurred even more then normal. The Thauamaturge and Magus is a close example of when things start to blend and what other sort of martials can we make?
Exemplar is honestly an amazingly designed class that shows how you can just make up whatever the hell you want as your martial's core "thing" and it can still work as the foundation for a Strike-based character class that'll do a lot of other magical actions.
.
Runesmith IMO is kinda looking like a nightmare / disaster of impossible to balance problems that are all entangled with each other.
Fundamentally, I think the issue is that the game system does not seem like it can support 2A focus spell damage being possible as a 1A Trace, and *especially* not as an out of combat Etch.
There's just not enough ways to restrain and limit runes in a way that would leave Runesmeith functional / fun and let them Trace a +2d6 R bomb for 1A like that.
And because we never got to see what Runesmith could look like without that absurd number, it's almost impossible to provide useful information to the devs about balance stuff, because all options are skewed by the Trace comparison.
.
Without the class being balanced enough to study properly, I can at least provide some feedback on non-balance things. As is, Engraving Strike is just fundamentally "bad game design" because there is no trade. It's just "Strike as normal, and if you hit, win bigger." Nothing in the system works like that, because that's "not how this works" from a design PoV. It doesn't even have something like flourish, nor does it interact with a class-specific restriction, like Alchemist's Additive mechanic.
Witch's Sympathetic Strike might be the closest, and that's a +1 to Hexes, while requiring one to use the specific body armament for the hit. (and requires the Witch to Strike as a non-martial.)
I would dare say that it's *because* of Sympathetic Strike being so close to this "invalid design" concept, where "now that you have it, use this 100% of the time you would normally Strike," that is responsible for why the feat's reward / effect was set so horrendously low. +1 only to your specific class cantrip/focus spells is significant, but not remotely worth the cost build investment cost.
The more often a feat's power is able to be used, the weaker its power is supposed to be. Something that is a free passive upgrade to a common action is typically *very* small in power.
Yet, the actual martial Runesmith is proposed to get an outright bonus action compression on Strike, for only the build investment of a single feat? 0 combat cost / trade-off? That kind of 2 for 1 insanity only exists when the feat needs to compete against just raw Trace at melee without the risk of miss. Once the actual "boom" numbers make more sense, all the other balance problems can become easier to see.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing in the system works like that
On the contrary, there are more than a few things that work like that. Gunslinger is full of feats and options that give you an extra thing when you reload. A monk's core mechanic is two strikes for one action and you don't even need to succeed on the first one to get the second. Silencing Strike is literally just a better strike.
Moreover, as pointed out in this thread, Runesmiths don't always even want to Strike in the first place, meaning part of the tradeoff is choosing to take that action in the first place.
Fortifying Knock + Runic Reprisal is a great combo: If they attack you, you explode an extra Rune/round. Imagine if a caster or Kineticist could inflict their main attack if struck (and while blocking). Much like Tracing Trance, it represents an extra action, yet it's part of something you want to do anyway. I'd get TT if operating from range, but the shield feats if planning to melee. Since the range is so modest, I'd need blockers in the party too.
Trouble is that shields disadvantage Strike even more, using a hand and an action w/ Raise a Shield. Which leads me to say, I don't think there's a dilemma between Strike & Trace. None. Trace wins. Trace always wins when you're in melee (unless perhaps it provokes) and most of the martial feats involve melee Strikes and makes Trace/Invoke rely on a successful Strike (too much IMO). I am getting the inkling that ranged Strikes might work fine actually, filling in some opportunities, but still secondary to Trace. Archers don't seem a typical image of Runesmith I wouldn't think.
Nothing in the system works like thatOn the contrary, there are more than a few things that work like that. Gunslinger is full of feats and options that give you an extra thing when you reload. A monk's core mechanic is two strikes for one action and you don't even need to succeed on the first one to get the second. Silencing Strike is literally just a better strike.
Moreover, as pointed out in this thread, Runesmiths don't always even want to Strike in the first place, meaning part of the tradeoff is choosing to take that action in the first place.
Apologies, that was very poorly worded despite being rather central to the point.
Small, incremental passive upgrades to actions are a normal thing.
The notion of making a completely normal, 0 trade Strike, and then getting a 0A free action for your core class thing on hit, is the "nothing in the system works like that" part.
In the Sympathetic Strike example, it's another 0-cost* "once per round" alternative Strike with bonus if it lands the hit.
But where Tracing Strike outright does an action if you hit, Symp-Strike does not let you cast your 1a hex cantrip on the foe for 0A. It only imposes a -1 for a single turn, to just your hexes.
That's the kind of comparison that can help show just how nuts / absurd the option of Tracing Strike is. Don't forget that as a L1 feat, this is going to be prime archetype dipping territory.
IMO, the reason for Tracing Strike to be set so absurdly high is *because* Trace's power is set so absurdly high. The chance to miss the Strike and not get that free Trace is genuinely making Tracing Strike "not worth it." IMO, that kind of "luxury thinking" is the most crimson danger flag possible for balance.
The idea that a martial would rather skip such a crazy Strike-boosting L1 feat is a "pull the fire alarm" situation for playtest feedback, IMO.
This thread got me interested in the mathematics of Engraving Strike. I had passed up the feat on my playtest runesmith, Virgil Tibbs, who chose to use weapons because he often as to deal non-lethal damage, and the runes in the playtest only deal lethal damage.
Let me crunch some numbers. Imagine a 1st-level runesmith Rundy with Str +2, Dex +2, Con +1, Int +4, Wis +0, Cha +0. That is enough Strength to wear medium armor without penalty and enough Dexterity to achieve the armor's Dexterity Cap. Rundy wields a longsword in one hand and keeps the other hand empty for Trace Rune.
If Rundy Strikes with the longsword, then he has a 45% chance to hit. I determined that a 55% chance is typical for most martials in a level-appropriate encounter (65% for fighters), but Rundy has only Str +2 and my calculations for other martials assumed Str +4. The 45% breaks down to 5% chance of a critical hit, 40% chance of a regular hit, and 55% chance of a miss. With the 1d8+2 slashing damage from Rundy's longsword, that averages to 3.25 damage per Strike.
In contrast, if Rundy Traces Atryl, Rune of Fire, and Invokes it, the target would have 5% chance of critical failure, 45% chance of failure, 45% chance of success, and 5% chance of critical success (the numbers are better due to Rundys Int +4). The average damage would be (0.05(2) + 0.45(1) + 0.45(1/2) + 0.05(0))(2d6 fire) = (0.775)(7 fire} = 5.425 fire damage.
Trace a Rune has a clear advantage over Strike, but next we combine them with Engraving Strike. The Strike part is as effective as ever, but the rune is traced only on a successful Strike, 45% chance. So the average damage of Engraving Strike is 3.25 + (0.45)(5.425) = 5.69 damage. It as a slight advantage over Trace a Rune, but it is only 5% more damage. That is not worth a feat.
Str +3 would increase both the chance to hit with a Strike and the Strike's damage. But we would have to decrease another ability score to increase Strength. Runesmith Runard has Str +3, Dex +1, and otherwise the same ability scores as Rundy. With a longsword Runard would Strike with a 50% chance of success to deal 1d8+3 slashing damage, for an average of 4.125 damage per Strike. On an Engraving Strike he would average 4.125+(0.5)(5.425) = 6.837 damage. That is a worthwhile improvement, 26%, over the 5.425 damage from Tracing a Rune.
But Runald's extra damage comes with a less obvious cost than just the feat: his AC drops to 1 below optimal. He would take 10% more damage himeself in combat. This cost still leaves Engraving Strike worthwhile, since 26% is much bigger than 10%.
To avoid sacrificing AC, let's try Dex +3 and a finesse weapon. Runesmith Runette has Str +1, Dex +3, and otherwise the same ability scores as Rundy and Runald. She wears light armor but has optimal AC due to her Dexterity. Runette wields a shortsword for its finesse, giving her a 50% chance to hit and 1d6+1 piercing damage, for an average of 2.475 damage per Strike. On an Engraving Strike she would average 2.475+(0.5)(5.425) = 5.187 damage. That is worse than Tracing a Rune.
The usefulness of Engraving Strike is very dependent on the damage the runesmith deals on a Strike. Less than 2.75 damage per Strike (such as 1d8+1 damage with a 45% chance to hit) makes Engraving Strike worse than Trace a Rune. Increasing the average Strike damage past that increases the Engraving Strike damage by the same amount beyond the Trace a Rune damage. Remember that the average Strike damage is about half the successful Strike damage, so a +2 to weapon dice damage or Strength bonus is necessary for a +1.
Runette reminds me that Dexterity-based martials, such as rogues and swashbucklers, have supplements to their weapon damage to compensate for their low Strength bonus. Runesmiths have their own supplements: runes that go on weapons, Esvadir and Marssyl. To avoid action-economy calculations, I will only consider their passive effect, not their invoked effect. Esvadir, rune of whetstones, adds 2 persistent bleed damage to a successful Strike. As a simplification, let me treat that as simply 2 extra damage. Esvadir on Runette's shortsword would boost the shortsword's damage from 1d6+1 to 1d6+3. Her average Engraving Strike damage would increase from 5.187 damage to 6.287 damage, better than Tracing an Atryl Rune for 5.425 damage. Esvadir on Rundy's longsword would increase his average Engraving Strike damage from 5.69 damage to 6.69 damage. That makes Engraving Strike worthwhile for them. Runald's Esvadir-enhanced average Engraving Strike damage goes up to an overpowered 7.937 damage.
In conclusion, at 1st and 2nd level, the martial runesmith needs a good attribute score for Strike, preferably Strength but Dexterity can make do. That, alas, is Multiple Attribute Dependence between Strength and Intelligence, which leads to less predictable power levels in builds. To fix this, I propose a new rune:
Feinaim, Rune of Deftness Rune 1
Rune, Runesmith
Usage drawn on a melee weapon or melee unarmed strike
This crosshair rune, when drawn on a weapon, makes it lightweight in its wielder's hand but the weapon still strikes with its true weight. The wielder can use +3 instead of their Strength modifier on attack rolls and damage rolls using this melee weapon.
Invocation The bonus increases to +5 on your next attack using this melee weapon this turn.
Level 5th The bonus increases to +4 and the invoked bonus increases to +6.
Level 15th The bonus increases to +5 and the invoked bonus increases to +7.
Beyond the conclusion, at 3rd level the damage from Atryl Rune doubles. The weapon damage would have to also grow for Engraving Strike to keep up with Trace a Rune. But striking weapons are not available until 4th level. Thus, Engraving Strike probably becomes useless at 3rd level and useful again at 4th level. I don't have time to model this today, and I will be on the road tomorrow and Thursday, so I will return to this on Friday or Saturday.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Without the class being balanced enough to study properly, I can at least provide some feedback on non-balance things. As is, Engraving Strike is just fundamentally "bad game design" because there is no trade. It's just "Strike as normal, and if you hit, win bigger." Nothing in the system works like that, because that's "not how this works" from a design PoV. It doesn't even have something like flourish, nor does it interact with a class-specific restriction, like Alchemist's Additive mechanic.
The trade-off is not between Strike and Engraving Strike. Engraving Strike is definitely superior to Strike. The trade-off is between Engraving Strike, which deals more damage, and Trace a Rune, which does not require an attack roll.
Fortifying Knock + Runic Reprisal is a great combo: If they attack you, you explode an extra Rune/round.Not exactly so. You explode only if they attack you AND hit you (which is uncertain due to your AC bonus after shield is raised). And if they miss, in your next turn you can't invoke attacking rune on your shield in this manner, and at the end of next turn it will fade.
So IMHO defenderly built runesmith can gain a lot from FK+RR, but for more offencive style TT is more useful
Correct, but I do expect to get hit, if not by the first foe, then one of their buddies. And if it's the boss or several creatures missing me, then the battle's going in our favor even if I don't get a bonus Rune on my shield the next round. And it'd take a meta-savvy enemy to know they can attack you every other round. Yes, they might (likely should) attack your allies after the first kaboom, but if your ally's a frontliner they should be able to tank better than you (especially if they have a shield that you could add a +1 to) and switching targets spreads the damage, yay. Again, this would be for Runesmiths that already carry a shield and enter melee (which in turn gives an action advantage to Trace).
Hopefully Runesmiths will be able to overwrite their own Runes just in case the enemy succeeds in downing your ally, then turns to you, but you're on an off-round so can't Trace your reactive Rune. That's something to mention in the playtest feedback for sure.