If we have something that makes sense to be prepared this thing is the runes of runesmith. The class is int based, the lore is about how to trace a rune while imbue magic in it.
That said I think it makes more sense if it works more like formulas than prepared magic. You just learn a rune, studies it, put it into a book and now you know how to make it. Simple that.
Runesmith already doesn't have any subclasses. I feel like making them prepared is just going to completely wash out the differences between any two Runesmiths.
Runesmith already doesn't have any subclasses. I feel like making them prepared is just going to completely wash out the differences between any two Runesmiths.
Which is why it should have subclasses, not that it shouldn't be prepared.
Subclasses bring meaningful variety. Monks and Fighters are able to work without it because they have mutually exclusive playstyles baked into their feats, which makes their choices have as much of an impact as some subclasses in other Classes have.
I think its very likely that the class is going to have subclasses on release. It just doesn't in the playtest because I think its quite common for playtest classes to not have them. The only class I recall having subclasses on the playtest itself is the kineticist and exemplar, but I'm pretty sure the thaumaturge, psychic, animist, guardian, and commander didn't have them. Only the latter two we don't know if they are going to have them or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think its very likely that the class is going to have subclasses on release. It just doesn't in the playtest because I think its quite common for playtest classes to not have them. The only class I recall having subclasses on the playtest itself is the kineticist and exemplar, but I'm pretty sure the thaumaturge, psychic, animist, guardian, and commander didn't have them. Only the latter two we don't know if they are going to have them or not.
I'm not sure where this is coming from. Playtest thaumaturges had implements, playtests psychics had both conscious and subconscious minds, and animists had both spirit selection and a specialization.
Often times a class comes out of a playtest with more subclasses than were playtested, and a couple times the structures of classes were altered because of playtest feedback, but I've never heard of them just intentionally withholding a whole class feature like that. Like this just hasn't happened.
From a lore perspective, I can definitely agree that runes should be something you learn and keep in a book. Hell, you already learn runes and store them in a book with the ones you craft on magic items. So what makes the ones you can trace and etch different? Being prepared would also free up a lot of easy variety by making weapon and armor / shield runes something you could just prepare as something traceable / etchable for temporary enchantments without giving up the more unique class runes.
Going into a fight where you know you'll want fire damage, for instance, and having one rune prepared slot swapped to "Flaming weapon rune" could instantly provide a huge amount of value. Or, you know, ghost touch. Any rune you'd almost never use in general play but which would be super useful situationally suddenly becomes something you can prepare for the day when you find out you're dealing with something specific.
The more I use the Runesmith, the more I'm convinced they shouldn't have a set Repertoire."
I agree with this, prepared would be the better way to do the runesmith. I also found it more useful to treat them as potency runes, so I was buffing my allies or myself every round. Otherwise it would be a little bland at 4th. The gm thought at 4th level 4d6 with the damaging runes was a but much, but at 6th it balanced out.