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.
| 2 people 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.
I feel like the way to make striking and tracing interact well on a martial chassis would be to give runes a weaker invoked effect and a stronger invoked when struck effect. So you could trace and invoke runes and get a decent baseline, but tracing and striking to activate the effects would give a greater reward. It never goes so far as to force a rotation, but it does strongly suggest that trace/trace/strike or trace/strike/move would be good ideas.
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?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
| 5 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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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.
In general, Strike-alternative options have some apples to oranges trade that make them not clear replacements for Strike. Double Slice is 2A, needs a weapon in each hand, etc. There are times a Fighter w/ the feat will *want* to Strike over Double Slice.
I'm saying that a PC with the Tracing Strike feat has no reason to ever swing their sword for a 1A Strike. With no flourish or other restrictions, the context where one might choose to Strike over Trc Strk really does approach 0. That's unusual, and does not match pf2 design.
Passive upgrade feats typically improve another existing action. Like Calculated Splash upping splash dmg for bomb Strikes, etc.
.
Any RuneS PC who ever plans to maybe Strike every now and again may consider Trc Strk a "feat tax" because of how much of a bonkers upgrade it is over Strike.
It is completely correct to say that the RS PC will comparing the dps of a raw Trace, that was beside my point.
.
And it is just completely bonkers to me that a martial class can honestly consider a +2 to their attack stat, because Strike is so worthless to them. Just another rather large red flag, imo.
I think the math gets tipped towards "it makes no sense to strike, just trace then invoke" once you get tracing trance, where it becomes a two-round cycle:
-Round 1 tracing trance, use four actions trace every damaging rune you can.
-Round 2 use two actions to trace damaging runes and then invoke all of these at once.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And it is just completely bonkers to me that a martial class can honestly consider a +2 to their attack stat, because Strike is so worthless to them. Just another rather large red flag, imo.
Is it? I feel like having a strong alternative action that's actually worth the investment cost to use would largely be considered a good thing. We have plenty of ways to play a character who just strikes most of the time if you want.
The Runesmith needs some balancing, particularly with their ability to load up burst with out of combat engravings, but Trance being a good and viable part of your action routine is not one of those problems.
Ironically, pivoting away from Trance would make Engraving Strike more problematic, but at that point it's something of a self fulfilling prophecy.
And it is just completely bonkers to me that a martial class can honestly consider a +2 to their attack stat, because Strike is so worthless to them. Just another rather large red flag, imo.Is it? I feel like having a strong alternative action that's actually worth the investment cost to use would largely be considered a good thing. We have plenty of ways to play a character who just strikes most of the time if you want.
The Runesmith needs some balancing, particularly with their ability to load up burst with out of combat engravings, but Trance being a good and viable part of your action routine is not one of those problems.
Ironically, pivoting away from Trance would make Engraving Strike more problematic, but at that point it's something of a self fulfilling prophecy.
There are some descriptors in there, strong & worth the investment, that I believe are the crux of the disagreement. Sure, if it's both of those, it's good. But if it's neither? And I think that's the point: if it's only worth a +2 attack stat, that's a red flag to Trip that Strikes are neither strong, so not worth that investment (or more investment? Not sure where he's drawing the line).
I don't think it's worth the gold, nor the hand given I want a +3 shield, nor the action if I'm adjacent and can Trace. But I'd like to see a playtest run showing a Runesmith can lean into Strikes and flourish, that'd be refreshing.Edit for quote block error
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I know, every single martial is built to strike. The MAP is core to their play, and every martial's MAP 0 Strike is one of, if not their most appealing action every turn.
Even the Inventor and Investigator.
Runesmith would be the first to completely toss Strike to the wayside because Trace is that much more powerful.
To still ignore Strike when they can spend their MAP 0 on Engraving Strike is imo where things become "clearly absurd," and a "red flag."
As far as I know, every single martial is built to strike. The MAP is core to their play, and every martial's MAP 0 Strike is one of, if not their most appealing action every turn.
Even the Inventor and Investigator.
Runesmith would be the first to completely toss Strike to the wayside because Trace is that much more powerful.
To still ignore Strike when they can spend their MAP 0 on Engraving Strike is imo where things become "clearly absurd," and a "red flag."
By that definition Runesmith is not a martial class. It is an adjacent-range magical combatant.
The Impossible Playtest web page says, "The runesmith is equal parts scholar, artist, and warrior, supporting themself and their allies with runes of every magical tradition. Runesmiths can apply these mystical symbols to their weapons or their allies’ gear for support—or directly onto enemies with brush or hammer alike—and then call their runes’ names to invoke their power!"
That says "warrior" rather than "martial," and implies that the runesmith is only one-third warrior.
The preamble on page 13 of the Impossible Playtest document says, "At the heart of all communication is the word, and at the heart of all magic is the rune. Equal parts scholar and artist, you devote yourself to the study of these mystic symbols, learning to carve, etch, brand, and paint the building blocks of magic to channel powers greater than yourself."
That lost tbe word "warrior."
Only the Paizo Blog Welcome to the Impossible Playtest! says "martial:" "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."
And the runesmith has proficiency in martial weapons and medium armor, which used to be characteristic signs of a martial character. But a caster of magic who stands next to their foes is going to need good armor.
I want the runesmith to allow builds that make Strikes, because the flavor would be great. But the runesmith is most easily played with a shield in one hand and a paintbrush in the other hand (technically, an empty hand with access to artisan's tools).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After sleeping on this a bit, I know this possible change is going to get a lot of flak, but it solves a huge number of problems.
(*! hear me out)
.
It is a million times safer to leave the power of runes at focus spell levels when the action cost is baseline 2A + Invoke, before shenanigans and action discounts. Trace requiring 2A total that can be done in 1A chunks enables changes elsewhere.
Engraving Strike would also be changed to:
As a master of runes, your weapons flow with runic script, ready to impart with each blow. When you hit with a Strike, you may partially Trace a rune upon the target. Each hit contributes 1 Action toward Trace completion, and an incomplete rune will fade at the end of your next turn as normal.
That specific wording goes out of its way to be more powerful, as you can wait to see if you hit and get the action discount before deciding to Trace or not. It also does not have flourish, so the very same decision of risking the Strike hit to get the free action vs just doing a raw Trace is still there!
It's still a bonkers good ability to chop off 1A on hit, but that's ~"more normal" for martial chassis / core actions.
Which leads into the other detail, that as a martial, this will become Runesmith's missing motivation to Strike, so this version should have Engraving Strike built into the class itself, not as a separate Feat.
.
As a martial, Runesmith needs a reason to *want* to Strike. If they don't get it baseline, it'll be the Magus problem all over again, where they would rather Recharge the S-Strike over slapping someone with a blade raw.
Making Trace have a higher action cost, with the ability to lower it via landing hits, would imo go a really long way to aligning the play incentives of Runesmith in a way that works with pf2's existing systems instead of completely ignoring them.
I don't think that alone would completely balance the potential monster, but paired with some other Invoke safeties, that honestly might do it, even without significant nerfs to rune damage.
And the other "neat" part about that proposed change is that this Runesmith's performance at "stand in the back and 2A Trace at range" play is still completely untouched.
That said, this change would also give such backline Runesmiths the new option to Engraving Strike with a bow, but would carry the same "miss worry" versus Tracing raw.
And the runesmith has proficiency in martial weapons and medium armor, which used to be characteristic signs of a martial character. But a caster of magic who stands next to their foes is going to need good armor.
I want the runesmith to allow builds that make Strikes, because the flavor would be great. But the runesmith is most easily played with a shield in one hand and a paintbrush in the other hand (technically, an empty hand with access to artisan's tools).
I strongly disagree with it being a good idea for RS to "be a martial" yet be built where Striking is a mathematically bad idea, in a way that is even more of a trap than for casters to Strike.
.
Either RS needs to have the label of martial and weapon accuracy of that removed, or it needs to work some form of MAP using pseduo-Strike into it's core identity.
If your excuse was valid, then you are essentially saying that RS is a martial for flavor purposes, while Alchemist constantly chafes from being denied martial accuracy.
FFS, they playtested Guardian as not having martial accuracy.
If Runesmith is genuinely intended to not have Strikes as an appealing, every turn action, then that chassis power needs to be deleted. This isn't even a "fairness" argument, it's a player psychology / misleading design issue.
I've heard horror stories of quit Toxicologists & Mutagenists who gave up because they were using the "trap" actions in combat. They trusted the system would not present traps like that, and didn't "run the numbers" to figure out that poisoning weapons in combat / etc is a completely horrible idea.
Seeing that Runesmith has martial weapons and scaling "tricks" people into playing the class like a normal martial Striker.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(*! hear me out)
.
It is a million times safer to leave the power of runes at focus spell levels when the action cost is baseline 2A + Invoke, before shenanigans and action discounts.
My own preference is to keep adjacent Trace a Rune at one action, but cut its damage in half. I would need days to mathematically compare 2-action Trace to 1-action half-damage Trace, so this is just a style preference. I want the runesmith to be able to toss out multiple runes per turn, some for damage and some for support. And I like adjacent Trace a Rune having an action-economy advantage over ranged Trace a Rune.
Time for travel. I might have Internet access at the hotel tonight.
(*! hear me out)
.
It is a million times safer to leave the power of runes at focus spell levels when the action cost is baseline 2A + Invoke, before shenanigans and action discounts.
My own preference is to keep adjacent Trace a Rune at one action, but cut its damage in half. I would need days to mathematically compare 2-action Trace to 1-action half-damage Trace, so this is just a style preference. I want the runesmith to be able to toss out multiple runes per turn, some for damage and some for support. And I like adjacent Trace a Rune having an action-economy advantage over ranged Trace a Rune.
Time for travel. I might have Internet access at the hotel tonight.
I do think that 1/2 dmg would be "safer" in some ways, but I don't think we "can" add that kind of complexity were the table would need to track the application method of each rune for the sake of its effect.
Basically, "no complexity creep via variable rune-Invoke outcomes"
Oof, yeah, thinking a bit more, that might require a lot of runes to be re-written to explain their "half" effect, as a lot of them, especially their passives, do not have numbers that cut in half like that. Like, all the non-damage runes become rather yikes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another option is to make Engraving Strike a class feature rather than a feat and remove the checkless melee trace option.
It is kind of weird that you are able to trace potentially complex magical runes on the person who is actively trying to stab you with no possibility of error.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I know, every single martial is built to strike. The MAP is core to their play, and every martial's MAP 0 Strike is one of, if not their most appealing action every turn.
Even the Inventor and Investigator.
Runesmith would be the first to completely toss Strike to the wayside because Trace is that much more powerful.
To still ignore Strike when they can spend their MAP 0 on Engraving Strike is imo where things become "clearly absurd," and a "red flag."
... So the red flag is that it's...not more generic and homogenized with other martial characters?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No no. The red flag that Trip.H is talking about is that it's currently super efficient in terms of DPR when compared to other limitless resources characters like martials and kineticists.
But IMO it isn't a problem. I doubt that the designers won't notice it. They probably don't care too much about it their focus probably is on how the mechanics will work and accepted by playtest players not in the numbers. When they will prepare the class for its final version they will adjust these obvious balance questions.
For them points about the class versatility, what abilities are interesting or not, if play the runes in this way works well or not, if it's fun or not is probably more important to them than if this is balanced or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they went with something like trips suggestion I'd very much want a caster archetype of runesmith that's gives up martial accuracy for other benefits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t really think the Runesmith is built on a martial chassis. Its defenses (especially without a shield) are worse than some casters and that is a pretty big problem for a class pushed so hard into melee. At least casters get some defensive spell options that can mitigate risk, but the rune smith’s defensive options are either shield-based or best used on allies.
I think this is relevant to the damage of runes vs weapons because it is an extra risk to playing into the engraving strike runesmith. Are you forgoing a shield? Or using a weapon that barely adds enough damage to be worth it, especially at higher levels.
I feel like the end result is a weird “super glass cannon” white room damage smasher, but it will be almost impossible to play in practice unless the rest of the party builds to protect and position the rune smith (and their damaging runes) for the big damage bursts. That feels like a counterintuitive design goal for a class billed primarily as a support martial.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t really think the Runesmith is built on a martial chassis.[...]
This is not an open question.
If the term martial is to have any meaning, it needs to mean something.
Runesmith chassis has martial weapons training, accuracy/proficiency progression, and weapon specialization. This is what "martial chassis" means.
Again, Paizo playtested the Guardian as a new "lesser martial" that had martial weapons, but also had the same lagging progression of Alchemist.
It is clear that the Runesmith chassis *is* a "full martial," and that Paizo intended for Runesmith to be more Strike-based than the Guardian.
.
While proposed maximizations of RS's damage would doubtless be impractical in real combat, we have seen that, in large part thanks to Etching, it is incredibly simple to do rather silly damage so long as one party member is melee.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The current runesmith falls more in hybrid chassis like alchemist, kineticist and magus. They can Strike (let us temporary consider Elemental Blasts as Strikes for terms of simplicity) but the Pure Strike is not their main option but their auxiliary tool to improve their main ability.
So their chassis is martial but their powers are way more versatile than a martial making then more closer to casters in terms of versatility yet they aren't casters so compare with casters makes no sense here. So if we want to make a more fair comparison is with these hybrid classes that have a martial chassis but have way more flexibility almost like casters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t really think the Runesmith is built on a martial chassis.[...]This is not an open question.
If the term martial is to have any meaning, it needs to mean something.
Runesmith chassis has martial weapons training, accuracy/proficiency progression, and weapon specialization. This is what "martial chassis" means.
Again, Paizo playtested the Guardian as a new "lesser martial" that had martial weapons, but also had the same lagging progression of Alchemist.
It is clear that the Runesmith chassis *is* a "full martial," and that Paizo intended for Runesmith to be more Strike-based than the Guardian.
.
While proposed maximizations of RS's damage would doubtless be impractical in real combat, we have seen that, in large part thanks to Etching, it is incredibly simple to do rather silly damage so long as one party member is melee.
New classes in PF2 have to break rules otherwise they might as well be just an archetype for an existing class. A martial class that divests itself of defences to get a better offence and a strike that it can use if needed is an interesting design space. The balance of the Runesmith needs some work to achieve this balance, but the idea itself is a fine one for the developers to have.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way that I would *like* to play a Runesmith is by primarily Engraving for buffs (self and others) and Striking during battle, with very little Tracing. Invoking would be for kill shots, rather than opening salvos.
The buffs would have to be a little buffier for that to be viable, and the invoking would probably have to be a little weaker for that to be reasonable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My own preference is to keep adjacent Trace a Rune at one action, but cut its damage in half. I would need days to mathematically compare 2-action Trace to 1-action half-damage Trace, so this is just a style preference. I want the runesmith to be able to toss out multiple runes per turn, some for damage and some for support. And I like adjacent Trace a Rune having an action-economy advantage over ranged Trace a Rune.I do think that 1/2 dmg would be "safer" in some ways, but I don't think we "can" add that kind of complexity were the table would need to track the application method of each rune for the sake of its effect.
Basically, "no complexity creep via variable rune-Invoke outcomes"
My sentence was not clear. I meant that all damage runes would deal about half the damage they do now. The 30-foot-range Trace a Rune would take 2 actions, but it would trace the same runes as the 5-foot-range one-action Trace a Rune.
No no. The red flag that Trip.H is talking about is that it's currently super efficient in terms of DPR when compared to other limitless resources characters like martials and kineticists.
I agree. Strike is inefficient for a runesmith because invoking a damage rune is overly effective. My preliminary calculations suggest that a damage rune, such as Atryl, should deal 2d4 damage rather than 2d6 damage, 29% less damage, to be balanced with Strike. And the damage should increase by 1d4 per two levels rather than 2d6 per two levels. (Why 2d6 for every 2 more levels instead of 1d6 for each additional level?)
I don’t really think the Runesmith is built on a martial chassis.[...]This is not an open question.
If the term martial is to have any meaning, it needs to mean something.
Runesmith chassis has martial weapons training, accuracy/proficiency progression, and weapon specialization. This is what "martial chassis" means.
The Magus has those things too, and it is a hybrid class. The Summoner as well. The Runesmith gets the equivalent of those things plus legendary spell saving throw DCs. The commander may also get that, but doesn't use their DC to do a whole lot of damage to enemies, and will strain to even use it every round of every encounter, whereas the Runesmith will probably be using that more than striking.
This is what is pushing their defenses to be so terrible, and that really feels counter to playing the class as a support-based martial, especially with the need to be adjacent to be action-efficient with your runes (whether using them to support allies or attack enemies). It is a class that can do way to much, and is hypothetically balancing that by being made out of paper and expecting to stand right next to the fire.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Runesmith is most similar to the hybrid classes (& Kineticist), except the other hybrids can ignore their magic stat (Int & Cha) and maintain their martial strength. The Magus can deliver non-save spells via Spellstrike and the Eidelon's Strikes are unaffected. Options shrink, but Strike damage remains viable. A Runesmith's Strike abilities (mostly) rely on the Rune doing damage, so one can't ignore Int, or your options & damage would shrink too far. And if you have to keep Int competitive, as we all seem to agree, then it's better to apply effects directly w/ no miss chance from trying to tag on a Strike w/ it.
And that's what it is, vs. say a Magus who uses their martial side to improve the odds of a Cantrip adding damage, the Runesmith is lowering the odds of their Rune in order to add the Strike's damage. That's in feel bad territory to me, though I suppose gamblers may appreciate it.
I don’t really think the Runesmith is built on a martial chassis.[...]This is not an open question.
If the term martial is to have any meaning, it needs to mean something.
Runesmith chassis has martial weapons training, accuracy/proficiency progression, and weapon specialization. This is what "martial chassis" means.
The Magus has those things too, and it is a hybrid class. The Summoner as well. The Runesmith gets the equivalent of those things plus legendary spell saving throw DCs. The commander may also get that, but doesn't use their DC to do a whole lot of damage to enemies, and will strain to even use it every round of every encounter, whereas the Runesmith will probably be using that more than striking.
This is what is pushing their defenses to be so terrible, and that really feels counter to playing the class as a support-based martial, especially with the need to be adjacent to be action-efficient with your runes (whether using them to support allies or attack enemies). It is a class that can do way to much, and is hypothetically balancing that by being made out of paper and expecting to stand right next to the fire.
Unicore I'm sorry but I don't know from where you are seeing the rune smith with lower defenses. Their defenses proficiency progression are the same of most main martials of the game like alchemists, barbarians, gunslingers, inventors, investigators, kineticists, rangers, rogues, eidolons, swashbucklers and thaumaturges that get expert at level 11 and mastery at level 19, only fighters and magus that get mastery 2 levels earlier and monks and champions that are more defensive focused.
So the runesmith have the same defensive chassis of most martials. Fight at melee is the normal to most of them. I simply didn't understand your point.
Runesmith is most similar to the hybrid classes (& Kineticist), except the other hybrids can ignore their magic stat (Int & Cha) and maintain their martial strength. The Magus can deliver non-save spells via Spellstrike and the Eidelon's Strikes are unaffected. Options shrink, but Strike damage remains viable. A Runesmith's Strike abilities (mostly) rely on the Rune doing damage, so one can't ignore Int, or your options & damage would shrink too far. And if you have to keep Int competitive, as we all seem to agree, then it's better to apply effects directly w/ no miss chance from trying to tag on a Strike w/ it.
And that's what it is, vs. say a Magus who uses their martial side to improve the odds of a Cantrip adding damage, the Runesmith is lowering the odds of their Rune in order to add the Strike's damage. That's in feel bad territory to me, though I suppose gamblers may appreciate it.
Yes strikes runesmith have a real MAD problem. They not only need to deal with the questionable efficiency of when fail a Strike they also fail to imprint a rune that also is more difficult to do than a Magus making a SpellStrike with a Spell vs AC.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Runesmiths start out with martial looking saves, but end up with 1 master save and 2 expert saves. Worse, they only get the one saving throw tier booster, so they never get any critical failure resistance or failure boosting. They are going to get shredded by AoE attacks and be very vulnerable to mind control without any spell caster defensive spells.
Their AC does go up to Master, but it is slow, and they are so bad at reflex saves that going and getting heavy armor and not boosting dex is going to hurt. So they pretty much have to use a shield, and have to keep a hand free, so that martial weapon proficiency boosting they get is incredibly limited. They would be much better off getting saving throw boosts and quicker armor progression and being limited to expert weapon proficiency than having standard martial weapon progressing and the terrible defenses, at least with the current playtest chassis. If attacking with a weapon is a second tier action choice (as in you will often not use it at all in a round and almost never 2 times, it is a lot of dead weight on the class.
|
|
I generally agree here - the current buff runes are pretty minor and not really up to the level of martial damage boosts. I guess there's probably some balancing going on with being able to give them to allies too, but the less selfish you are with them the more you start to ask "why not just give all my permanent buffs to allies and focus on casting runes myself"?The way that I would *like* to play a Runesmith is by primarily Engraving for buffs (self and others) and Striking during battle, with very little Tracing. Invoking would be for kill shots, rather than opening salvos.
The buffs would have to be a little buffier for that to be viable, and the invoking would probably have to be a little weaker for that to be reasonable.
I agree, and I think it would be reasonable to set up the Runes so that the buffs are bigger if you place them on yourself. (+1 or +1 die) I don't know how that fits in with general 2e design philosophy, though -- off the top of my head I can't think of other buffs in 2e that work that way.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Runesmiths start out with martial looking saves, but end up with 1 master save and 2 expert saves. Worse, they only get the one saving throw tier booster, so they never get any critical failure resistance or failure boosting. They are going to get shredded by AoE attacks and be very vulnerable to mind control without any spell caster defensive spells.
Their AC does go up to Master, but it is slow, and they are so bad at reflex saves that going and getting heavy armor and not boosting dex is going to hurt. So they pretty much have to use a shield, and have to keep a hand free, so that martial weapon proficiency boosting they get is incredibly limited. They would be much better off getting saving throw boosts and quicker armor progression and being limited to expert weapon proficiency than having standard martial weapon progressing and the terrible defenses, at least with the current playtest chassis. If attacking with a weapon is a second tier action choice (as in you will often not use it at all in a round and almost never 2 times, it is a lot of dead weight on the class.
The thing is that that chassis makes perfect sense to me, with the assumption that there would be a high level Rune available to shore up those poor saves. (Not all of them, but one at a time.) Kind of a more tactically flexible version of the Monk's ability to have any two good saves they want.
So I kind of expect to see something like that come out in the final version, but it is a big problem for the version we have in front of us.
I also can't put the save in same ground of AC. Most monsters and NPCs does way more vs AC than saves and most saves are most AoE focused and have some resource limit or recharge. Also Saves are more easier to be reinforced with feats and items than AC. IMO it isn´t a big downside to justify too much things.
I have the opposite desires of pH I think.
I desire the trace and invoke interactions over martial prowess and striking.
I'd probably still use remote detonation if they capped at expert proficiency in martial weapons on exchange for better save scaling.
And I'd be pretty happy.
But I do understand the desire to hit things with a weapon being good.
I just think I'm tired of extremely low damage martials. They have their place and they are not bad. But I'd like it if base runesmith could do better than champion/Monk Base damage. Instead of making their buffs really good and making them a kinda fire and forget class. As opposed to the current very interesting trace and invoke options that are very flexible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also can't put the save in same ground of AC. Most monsters and NPCs does way more vs AC than saves and most saves are most AoE focused and have some resource limit or recharge. Also Saves are more easier to be reinforced with feats and items than AC. IMO it isn´t a big downside to justify too much things.
I can't speak to other players experiences, but at high levels, it is the saving throw stuff that wrecks characters far worse than direct AC targeting damage. Like, yes, critical hits can really hurt, but it is when players don't have the kinds of massive mitigators like greater evasion/juggernaut/resolve, where failure and even sometimes regular success really hurt characters, get them trapped at the bottom of earthquakes, dominated, or other save or lose kind of effects.
Even fighters, who have not great saves on account of their legendary proficiency going to weapon proficiency, still have 2 master saves (with success=critical success) and a very useful mitigator on their third save. Most others have legendary and a master save, both with strong tier changing mitigators. Canny Acumen can help a little, but only very late and, for reflex saves in particular but also for will saves with all the frightened x even on a success, not nearly as good as getting the master boost in class. Casters that try to hang in melee range at late levels greatly feel this already, and the runesmith is going to as well, especially as the weapon usage on the class is actually pretty difficult to do well with the play test class.
Edit: Like it seems like the Gaurdian should have had better weapon proficiency than the Runesmith to begin with. It is just weird for a class that leans so far away from using a weapon having so much chassis space given over to it.
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.I'm saying that a PC with the Tracing Strike feat has no reason to ever swing their sword for a 1A Strike. With no flourish or other restrictions, the context where one might choose to Strike over Trc Strk really does approach 0. That's unusual, and does not match pf2 design.
Passive upgrade feats typically improve another existing action. Like Calculated Splash upping splash dmg for bomb Strikes, etc.
Kind of too late to really affect this discussion, but Engraving Strike is 1/round. Based on your other posts, it seems like you (at the time of this posting at least) thought you could do it with every strike.
Though FWIW I do like your action reduction suggestion. Not sure it solves as much as you say, but it's interesting design at least.