| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm starting with the premise that Runes themselves get balanced to function with the class as is. Hopefully via a DOT mechanic so Rune feel more inscribed/stuck on the target, but however done its impact on these types shouldn't alter the concepts much. The second premise is that there are those that wish to focus on Runes exclusive of martial abilities and those that want a Rune-based/Rune-enhanced martial. The third premise is that players wish to emulate lore & characters from Earth as well as anime (et al).
I'm proposing four main types of Runesmiths: melee caster (for lack of a better term for the non-martials), ranged caster, melee martial, & ranged martial.
Melee Caster/RUNESCRIBE: Pretty much as written, though trading those secondary martial skills for better defense, most likely vs. Reactive Strike/AoOs, but maybe as penalty to enemies w/ Runes.
Ranged Caster/RUNESPEAKER*: Trades ability to Etch & martial skills for ability to Trace at range for one action, with range increasing with level (and perhaps doubling with an extra action). Light armor, no Shield Block.
Melee Martial/RUNE WARRIOR: As displayed in pictures. Armed & armored with rune-covered equipment. Trades ability to Trace free hand for Trace via Engraved Strike w/o requiring a free hand and w/o provoking Reactions. Add ability to Invoke via Strikes (or otherwise gain a bonus vs. targets that have Runes on them). Might also limit to reusable (or queued up?) Etched Runes.
Ranged Martial/name?: Thinking of Miroku (Inuyasha), various ninja (Naruto), & some Full Metal Alchemist characters. Some feats support this okay, but adding Runes on prepared items like Ofuda (paper), stones, and ammunition which would replace their Etched slots. These could be used swiftly like normal ammo or shuriken, and the Runesmith could also Trace on said items before use (but not directly on opponents). Light armor, no Shield Block. And also add ability to Invoke via Strikes (or otherwise gain a bonus vs. targets that have Runes on them), though maybe auto-Invoke (as usually depicted in anime). The out-of-combat Etching time might need to be shorter.
*I'm avoiding Runesinger, as evocative as it is, because it feels a bit too Bardic and tied to Performance & Charisma (and likely deserving a Class Archetype). Runespeaker feels more inclusive & Int-based. Other names that sprang to mind: RUNECASTER, RUNEBLASTER.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, from what I've tested so far, I haven't felt the need for subclasses that many people say it needs. It works well with this fighter/monk chassis focused on feats.
The main problem with the runesmith for me today is that, even though it has a very unique mechanic, it deserves the same dedication that the kineticist had. A class with a good part of a book dedicated to it.
Most likely, the runesmith as it is will face the same problem that the inventor has with gadgets, it will only have a small set of runes that will basically be restricted to its book.
For me, the only thing the runesmith really needs is more runes! Runes for everything, runes for those who want to focus on melee attacks, runes for those who want to focus on ranged attacks, runes for those who want to focus on providing support, runes for those who want utility solutions, and so on! And each player's rune selection would simply result in the build that each player finds most interesting for each character.
In this playtest today, there are not enough runes to provide variety in the runesmith, and even in the final version, it will be very likely that the runesmith will be much more limited than a kineticist, alchemist or caster, being much closer to what happens with the inventor. Giving subclasses will not solve this, what will solve it is the book dedicating space to many runes and the printing of many more runes in later books.
Honestly, from what I've tested so far, I haven't felt the need for subclasses that many people say it needs. It works well with this fighter/monk chassis focused on feats.
Nevertheless, Castilliano's ideas suggest interesting directions for runesmith feats.
For me, the only thing the runesmith really needs is more runes!
One easy way for the runesmith to gain more runes without more pages is to let the runesmith trace temporary copies of the permanent runes, such as +1 Weapon Potency and Resilient Armor, that they learned how to craft. These runes won't be invokeable, but they would add variety. And it could be exciting, "That troll regenerates unless hit by fire or acid. Let me trace a Flaming rune on your sword and on our archer's bow."
I had that thought. The biggest problem is that regular runes are so much weaker than Runemaster runes. The most egregious example being the Shockwave weapon rune versus Marsyll. Most others aren't quite that far out of line, but there's definitely a lot more going on with Runemaster runes.
So, no, you'd need to add a general invoke or you'd need something like Define the Canvas that let you trace the rune on all your allies.
Easiest would likely be to set an invoke ability keyed to traditions, maybe as few as 1 of each. It would need to be required that you assigned a tradition to each rune as you created it, of course. Slightly less easy would be tying 4 invokes to an essence each, and so able to be applied to 2 possible traditions.
That would also solve the problem you brought up in another thread regarding how thin the choices for traditions are that would activate the combination invocation feats.
Generalist classes always suffer from having options that take into account too much synergies at once that might have unintended power levels, they also need to be quite generic to fit all playstyles and will inevitable lack distinctive flavor.
Unlike the completely devoid of ideas entry that was The Guardian, The Runesmith has a TON of character archetypes and fantasies that can be explored through the framework of written Runes. From strong warriors using runes on weapons, armor or their own bodies, to nimble shinobi-type characters throwing projectiles with special effects or using scrolls.
A generalist Runesmith as it's implemented right now might work, but I feel like the problems that showed themselves during the playtest are far more related to core chassis structure than just merely adding more options (which is something we can comfortably take for granted).
Smooth action economy, effective actions and options that mechanically express flavor have always been the fulcrum of good classes. All the best received ones were playtested with solid basic chassis and reliable (Animist, Exemplar, Thaumaturge and Kineticist), while the most rejected or that underwent through overhauls were often unreliable and with playstyles that required jumping through too many hoops to achieve the baseline performance of other classes (Warpriests, Swashbuckler, Inventor, Investigator, Alchemists, etc).
A good avenue to solve these main problems is with subclasses. Nobody complains about Warpriests anymore because they have a better buy-in for what they want and tailor-made options that enhance their specific playstyle.
I'm always in favor of Subclasses because when done right, they offer all the buy in necessary to have a functional specific playstyle and a good foundation for mechanically interesting feats that can be stronger/bolder because they don't have to consider every potential option at once.