I think it would. Please tell me what y'all think, whether there's more or less to this than I've thought through.
By recurring damage (or Damage Over Time, DOT) I mean changing the direct damage Runes to deal Persistent damage. Or less direct damage, but the Runes remain so that future Invokes cause more damage. The latter might involve some Sustain action w/ Invoke or success w/ a Strike or just longer duration for Trace. (I'd also prefer having a way for victims to remove a Rune too, especially if magically savvy, though that's secondary to this thread.)
The primary issue solved would be how Runes do too much damage, enough that parties should prioritize the Runesmith Tracing (and pre-Etching). As one playtester noted, at high levels the Runesmith was ending hard battles in round two. Doing DOT, the Runes would still earn their place in the action routine, w/o overshadowing all else.
It also gives space for a Runesmith to operate as a martial, both with freed up actions when the Runes are already active, and with possible Rune-based bonuses, i.e. enemies on fire lose Concealment or the Runesmith gains a bonus when attacking enemies bearing an active Rune or a success detonates the Rune again (perhaps when using a specific attack feat). If anything, keeping the current passive bonuses would suffice, and they'd more see play since it's not like an Invoke wouldn't come immediately as it is now. So a Runesmith not using their Runes remains a baseline martial, while becoming competitive once Runes get applied (and unlocking some martial feat possibilities beyond just Trace/Invoke). Feels thematic to me, and could be numerically balanced to mirror the "Cantrip + Strike" routines of the hybrid classes.
Among other things I like about it is that it'd feel more like you're tangibly marking your enemy, actually sticking a Rune on them rather than just kabooming via a Rune-looking effect. And some of the combos mentioned elsewhere (and perhaps variants of some current feats) would be more feasible, like mixing the spell lists or damage types for extra effects. Right now, one has to hold off Invoke a bit long IMO, though I suppose that's part of the budget. Plus Persistent damage/DOT is a less-explored niche in PF2. Runesmith presents a perfect opportunity to flesh that out, and that would distinguish Runesmiths more.
I still need to test the runesmith better to give a more elaborate answer. But from what I've seen so far, both from my own analysis and from analyzing other people's external opinions, for me the biggest problem with the class is not the damage or the damage rune. But rather the fact that you can use Trace up to 3 times in a round!
Almost all the problems with the runesmith that I've seen so far come back to this question:
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I think making Runes do less damage, but recurring would solve the damage issue as the final damage of the initial action(s) would be worthwhile, but you couldn't keep pounding the enemy several times/round. Except maybe if recurring upon a Strike, a feat or feature I'd like (though the numbers might need toying).
Other maybe than the AoE to hit more than two enemies, an awkward tactic to coordinate given the short range/action cost, I don't see spending a slot for a Diacritic.
The caster vs. striker issue needs clarity too, with it being an odd mush right now that too heavily favors one, making the weapon proficiency/Str investment pointless.
I still need to test the runesmith better to give a more elaborate answer. But from what I've seen so far, both from my own analysis and from analyzing other people's external opinions, for me the biggest problem with the class is not the damage or the damage rune. But rather the fact that you can use Trace up to 3 times in a round!
Almost all the problems with the runesmith that I've seen so far come back to this question:
Direct damage too high: First of all, the damage from the runes is too high. They should be at the average of the kineticist's impulses without overflow. In other words, at most 2d4 or 1d8 every 2 levels! And yet being able to apply 2 runes to the target, each with a single action and exploding it is still very powerful. If the number of runes traced per round were limited to 1, this wouldn't happen.
Diacrit runes are not worth it: One of the main reasons why diacrit runes are not worth it is because it is better to simply use Trace on 2 different common runes than to try to change an existing one. Since the cost of actions is the same also you have a limit on the number of runes you know, it ends up being impracticable to learn diacrit runes since they will also compete for space in your repertoire. If the number of runes that can be traced were limited to 1 per round, these runes would already be more naturally interesting. If they worked as if they were a kind of spellshape for runes, and you could Trace them together with another rune using 2-actions, it would be perfect in my opinion.
Engraving Strike is not worth it: Since it is possible to use Trace with a single action, using Engraving Strike to attack ends up not being worth it because it adds a failure effect that does not exist in Trace. If the Trace limit were 1 per combat, it would be fairer to change Engraving Strike to Trace even in case of failure (similar to SpellStrike with saving spells and Live Wire) because it would just become a compression of actions at the cost of a feat and there would be no risk of...
You get to trace at a distance of 30" with a feat you need a perform check.
"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."
They are runes treat them as potency runes, and you ae limited by how many you can activate at a time limit 2 until after 4th level. Once you trace the third runs, if you already have two active one of the others dissipate, unless it was already set off. It was much more satisfying to whistle runes onto the barbarian, and rouges weapon than fighting myself.
So if you follow the preset rules for runes it fixes some of the issues you have. The class is mostly balanced, except for the direct damage runes level 1-4, by level 6 though it is not so terrible. Lowering the damage on some of the damage runes is probably what they will do even though it is very playable as is, 4d6 damage added to a barbarian is fun to watch the big bad evaporate. The party loved the way I was handling the runes. The only issue was the damage out put at 4th. Running them like potency runes works. I king of felt the limit of two active runes felt restraining, but it kept the class from being broken. The number of active runes are interesting, and just look at the level 1 runes as cantrips. bring them in like with some of the most powerful cantrips. Run the runes like potency runes. The ability to craft the normal runes is also nice.