In another thread I suggested that all Trace change into 2A at base, and any successful Strike contributes 1A toward a Trace. That would go a long way toward balancing the class, but idk if it would be "enough" on its own.
That would also make it a lot more of just a normal martial and I'm not sure how desirable that is.
That would also make it a lot more of just a normal martial and I'm not sure how desirable that is.
In another thread I suggested that all Trace change into 2A at base, and any successful Strike contributes 1A toward a Trace. That would go a long way toward balancing the class, but idk if it would be "enough" on its own.
Normal Martial? Let us see here, Barbarian, Champion, Fighter, Guardian, Gunslinger, Inventor, Monk, Ranger, Swashbguckler.
With a side order of Alchemist, Investigator, Rogue, Thaumaturge. You can argue Thauamturge is really the only Martial with unique abilities outside of just Strike. Why I added Investigator & Rogue is because they are skill monkeys vs pure martials. Alchemist just throw bombs, which do normal martial damage..
If Runesmith was a normal martial then we'd just have Thaumaturge 2.0. Does anyone want Thaumaturge 2.0? Gunslinger was already noted as being Fighter 2.0 and people disliked that, so much so Paizo decided to Remaster the class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd argue having a more "normal martial" base chassis is not only preferable, but kinda essential for RS to work in the pf2 system.
Think about how tricky Kineticist is in how it plays in pf2.
Runesmith does not have mechanics like overflow, auras, etc, that Kineticts need to think about in combat. Enough engaging and nuanced mechanics needed to be invented and implemented inside the Kin class to make up for the lack of Strike. Kin even still engages with the MAP penalty via their blasts, precisely because there's such a tight limit/blocker of 1A non-MAP damaging abilities. There outright is no direct 1A damage impulse, the closest I know of is Aerial Boomerang, which allows a 1A recall the next turn.
Runesmith would be even more cut off than Kin from Strikes and MAP, while also lacking any real context-shifting mechanics beyond "Rune there? or not there?"
What martial's primary offensive tool doesn't care about MAP? Is there one?
.
This is again, why I think (baseline) 1A Trace is such a "foundational mistake" that really should not make to to the full release. The less a RS player needs to think about and engage with the foundational rules of the system that applies to all martials, the less the player will need to think/problem solve during combat, making for unfun "do your rotation" play. If every damaging rune is a Fort save, then there's that much less choice, less player brain engagement, etc.
And it also means that the context of the battle map can do little to influence and balance the RS; penalties to Strike accuracy mean nothing, etc.
IMO, being cut off and "independent" of Strikes, MAP, 2A chunks, etc, is like a triple-whammy of "yikes."
.
As the levels go up, it's fine to have Runesmith to gain more and more options/tools to leave Strikes & MAP behind, but having such bad math from L1 to never Strike is imo the on-paper definition of "a failure of design" for a new martial class.
I wholeheartedly agree with Trip.H on their assessment of the imbalance of the runesmith's One-Action Trace. However, I prefer a different method of correcting that imbalance.
I performed an analysis of Trace and Invoke in my thread The Pacing of Invocation. That analysis is quite academic, because I wanted to carefully manage the math, so let me summarize. Tracing a damage rune in a single action is a lot like a Strike, but the freedom from the Multiple Attack Penalty means that the second and third Traces in a turn are just as good as the first. This overwhelmingly encourages a runesmith based on damage runes (Atryl, Esvadir, and Ranshu) to trace as much as possible, abandoning all other tactics. Furthermore, if the damage from a damage rune is balanced around a single Trace, then it will be strong on two Traces and grossly overpowered on three Traces. Fortunately, Invoke takes an action, so ordinarily the runesmith can only Trace twice.
Out of the ordinary, the runesmith could etch a single slashing weapon with multiple copies of Esvadir, rune of whetstones. and invoke one Esvadir a turn (or two a turn versus two adjacent enemies) for that grossly overpowered damage. That would require that the party wait between encounters for ten minutes per etching, but they probably will spend ten minutes on Treat Wounds and Refocus anyway. Trip.H pointed this out back at [url="comment #43. This exploit won't be removed by dropping the One-Action Trace.
Rather than eliminating the One-Action Trace, I favor acknowledging the unbalancing unleashing from the Multiple Attack Penalty, carefully limiting damage runes to match the power of Strikes, and discouraging more than two Traces per turn. My method was to permit Invoking a single rune during other tactical actions, such as Stride and Raise a Shield. I playtested it on January 28, chronicled at this link, and it appeared to work. One playtest session, however, is not enough to spot other problems with my solution.
Interesting. Add an attack trait to damage runes could be a simple way to deal with the OP. That said I still think that it doesn't solve the Strike problem but this could be easily solved making the Engraving Strike a 2-actions activity that apply both Strike + Trace without increase the MAP.
Add attack trait to Trace also solve the AoO/RS problem once it allows to remove the Manipulate trait.
Interesting. Add an attack trait to damage runes could be a simple way to deal with the OP. That said I still think that it doesn't solve the Strike problem but this could be easily solved making the Engraving Strike a 2-actions activity that apply both Strike + Trace without increase the MAP.
Add attack trait to Trace also solve the AoO/RS problem once it allows to remove the Manipulate trait.
Do you mean adding an attack roll rather than an attack trait? The Multiple Attack Penalty affects only the character's own rolls, so having an MAP would make no difference to an opponent making a Fortitude save against a damage rune.
Turning Traces into attacks, with an attack roll etc., would make runesmith into a martial that uses weapons called Traced Runes that magically appear during the attack and do more than just damage. But that would be a gigantic change in the class.
"I attack the Skeletal Champion with Atryl. I roll 22 and hit! I am going to delay invoking it until next turn, after my wizard friend casts Fireball."
When I talk about to add MAP was thinking into change Trace runes into enemies to attack rolls instead of an auto-success + manipulate trait. This could even include extended duration depending from the roll (like 1 minute for critical, 2 rounds for hit, until the end of this turn for failure and nothing for critical failures). The idea it to prevent to put too many runes easily into an enemy with just one action each and to allow to Strike keeps its efficiency allows Engraving Strike to do Trace + Strike like SpellStrike does. At same time this also fixes de AoO/RS problem.
If you make Tracing a Rune an Attack roll you then make Engraving Strike the best level 1 feat option unless you are doing a ranged Runesmith. Which might as well be added to the class as a core feature. Look there is no good way to balance Runesmith outside of potentially changing it to be a flat Focus Point caster which would mean you get limited use of your Runes and once you burn them up you are forced to Martial Combat.
If you make Tracing a Rune an Attack roll you then make Engraving Strike the best level 1 feat option unless you are doing a ranged Runesmith. Which might as well be added to the class as a core feature. Look there is no good way to balance Runesmith outside of potentially changing it to be a flat Focus Point caster which would mean you get limited use of your Runes and once you burn them up you are forced to Martial Combat.
I think if tracing a rune takes 2A total, and RS had a chassis passive that allowed all hits to also count for 1A toward a rune Trace, that one change would get Runesmith pretty close to where it needs to be. (feat nonsense like WFF excluded, close from a chassis PoV)
.
That would mean that RS can commit 1A to chance both Strike dmg & a Trace, or the RS can play it safe and commit 1A to Trace with no fail chance.
That core decision would be rather important, and would go a long way toward motivating the RS both to make Strikes, and improve their hit chance. And if they are landing hits, might as well care about getting more reward for each of those hits, etc.
It gets all the motivations and incentives back on track for a martial.
.
A big problem/challenge w/ balancing Runesmith IMO is that there's no good way to nerf / restrain Invoke. Spamming 1A Invoke for single damage runes is crazy powerful, so a rune limit p Invoke does not help. It is just too easy to place runes, and a large number of RS's current feats are all about new ways to cheat the action economy of placing runes.
Making Invoke 2A would be a huge change/nerf that might require a large amount of adjustment elsewhere, but that's about the closest thing to a sensible change that could take pressure off Trace being 1A.
I think I'd massively prefer to play a Runesmith with 1A Invoke and 2A baseline Trace, as that's the core "frustration" that would motivate me to think creatively and use features like meta-runes, feats like Transpose Etching, etc.
Actually, I think a 2A base Trace would allow for meta-runes to be 1A Traces, which could be a huge help for them to be relevant. They are kinda in a really bad place right now, because they generally need to outperform an entire damage/etc rune, which is just not going to be a common "real play" scenario.
If meta-runes like Expansion(AoE) had half the in-combat action cost of damage runes, then Runesmith just got a *lot* more interesting, and I'd genuinely consider them for the limited rune repertoire.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2-slot prepared casting feels pretty bad. If you prepare a spell wrong, that's half your spells of that level that are now useless. I'd much rather be spontaneous at 2 slots, at least then half your spells are signatures.I fully agree. The main impression is that you don't have enough spellslots to nothing beyond Soothe. So in the end you just add Soothe in half of then what makes then useful.I fully agree, especially for the lower levels. My issue with spamming soothe is that it is just a worse heal and you have you just end up using it to remove dying from allies. At that point it does really matter if you are using rank 1 or rank 3, the ally will probably still go down to one hit. Eventually other spells like synesthesia take over at a certain point. That said, it does feel like you are limited to only the greatest hits for each rank. You just don't have enough room to pick a spell that might be situational.
The need for thralls to be in the right location made what I initially liked about the class much harder to do. I like the idea of announcing your intentions in advance. Placing a thrall in the middle or beside a group of enemies tells them whether you are going to use necrotic bomb or boner barrage. Then they should get to act accordingly, either spending actions to avoid the area or destroy the thrall. My problem was that both options are so easy that you end up just being better off...
Its action economy is pretty bad as well. The necromancer had beastmaster to deal with the thrall problems, i.e. the fact that they can't move if they want to create thrall and cast a focus spell. Putting thralls in the "right place" is just not really possible with how much the battlefield moves around at higher levels, and how bad your focus spell ranges are. I often found myself with spare thralls on the battlefield that just did nothing except sit there, and having to summon new ones because the range on my spells was too short.
Thank you Hamitup. This typo really tickled my inner 12 year-old!
There are other answers:
-Damaging Runes apply Persistent Damage. Plus abilities that improve Strikes vs. enemies with active Runes, maybe trigger an instance of damage.
-Or remain after being Invoked to be Invoked again. 1/round maximum of normal Invoke. Plus abilities that improve Strikes vs. enemies with Runes, maybe trigger an instance of damage.
-One type of Rune per Invoke. Which slows them down as people are asking for, and while not my favorite, it makes sense in the current paradigm because Runes are separate "words" after all.