So I see a lot of talk going about with stuff like "Runesmith is unplayable" or "Runesmith damage is OP" or "Why use Engraving Strike". So I would like to porpsal a new idea instead of changing the damage potential just change how it is used. Make a "Caster:" and a "Martial" Sub-class which has more or less proficiencies, to justify some of the nuttiness the community seems to have with a 2A Single-Target Fireball. Which is fair but like if you made it so only 1 type of rune can be invoked at once that should fix it.
Not sure you've presented much in the way of subclasses, but yeah, I'd been wondering how the "one type of Rune per Invoke" would balance issues. It'd overcome the 1st-round-nova issue since the same Rune doesn't stack w/ itself even if there were multiple copies out there. Etching would still be worthwhile for the actions saved. As for in-combat applications, one would be encouraged to Trace on multiple enemies more often to get similar damage output, at the cost of spreading it around. And against single targets, damage would be less, but respectable & consistent. And one wouldn't feel they've sacrificed as much damage when they Raise a Shield or Strike.
Hmm.
I strongly disagree about this premise of "Runesmith is unplayable". This is far from reality. I played with it and it was very interesting and fun.
The only real problem that I noticed about was in the damage runes that the Invoke was so strong that overshadows the Strikes. But this is a power adjustment.
The other problem was the lack of more interesting and versatile runes. Outside of this the class performed perfectly well.
And finally the how the class is fragile vs RS/AoO. It isn't so bad as magus but exists and IMO it isn't a fun mechanic.
I'm not against to add subclasses but I don't see they as a solution to current class problems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree too, YuriP. I'm unsure I've seen any talk much less "a lot of talk" about Runesmiths being unplayable, just that damage needs balancing, which is pure numbers, not the class's structure.
I strongly disagree about this premise of "Runesmith is unplayable". This is far from reality. I played with it and it was very interesting and fun.
I have playtested one runesmith at levels 4 and 5. I found the class awkward to play. That is not as bad as unplayable, but runesmith definitely needs improvement in playability.
The only real problem that I noticed about was in the damage runes that the Invoke was so strong that overshadows the Strikes. But this is a power adjustment.
The math of damage increases is pretty simple and Paizo has already done most of it. Table 2–10: Strike Damage in the Bulding Creatures rules says that high-damage Strikes increase by 2 per level. Moderate-damage Strikes are 5/6th the damage, so that is 1.67 per level, and Low-damage Strikes are 2/3 the damage, so that is 1.33 per level. Some cantrips, such as Telekinetic Projectile increase by 1d6 per spell rank, which averages to 1.75 damage per level. A Stomeborn Druid's Tempest Surge focus spell increases by 1d12 per spell rank, which averages to 3.25 damage per level.
The damage from runesmith's damage runes increase by 2d6 per two levels, which averages to 3.5 damage per level. That is focus-spell intensity of increase. Except that if the runesmith can reliably trace and invoke two damage runes per turn, the damage is doubled and that means the damage increase is doubled.
Because the math is straightforward, the Paizo developers can correct it. I just don't understand how they selected 2d6 per two levels in the first place.
... shield and melee weapon (mostly engraving strike and runesinger, melee fighter with attacking runes traced on hit, makes maximum use of etched runes) ... shield + weapon can't trace as much runes as his empty-handed colleagues.
We have wondered whether Engraving Strike can work with shield and melee weapon. Trace Rune has the requirement, "You have a hand free or are holding an artisan’s toolkit." Tracing a Rune as a subordinate action in Engraving Strike does not remove that requirement. Rune-Singer does remove the requirement, but only once per minute. Thus, the shield-and-weapon runesmith could Trace only one rune per encounter.
Because the math is straightforward, the Paizo developers can correct it. I just don't understand how they selected 2d6 per two levels in the first place.
I know way back with the Kineticist play test there was a mention of under tuning the damage to get people to use the other abilities. Plus, people tend to be happier when things get improved rather than a nerf. That lines up more with the Necromancer, who I don't think anyone has said deal too much damage. The Runesmith is the exact opposite problem. The damage abilities eclipse all the utility runes until the 9th and 17th level runes. Even then, the newer runes seem like something you would etch and not bother tracing mid-combat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the short durations make Tracing a buff somewhat silly. I would like some sort of Sustain action (maybe even tied to Invoke (of other Runes)) that would make Tracing those in combat worthwhile. This would also make Composite Invocations more viable (though maybe still not viable enough).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This may be a bit tangential to the main topic, but I’m starting to feel like part of the problem with the Runesmith’s gameplay in combat is that there’s a difference between tracing and etching runes. Any sort of persistent utility mid-encounter is action-intensive and short-lived, and because Invoking is so much comparatively easier to do, the loop becomes Tracing as much as you can then Invoking before the duration expires. If runes lasted until Invoked, up to a limit, with creatures being able to erase runes they don’t want on them, the Runesmith would have more room to Trace runes and do other things, while Invoking more when the time is right rather than as part of a more rote loop. This could also leave more room for subclasses, as some could lean into Tracing and holding onto runes for longer, while others could lean more into Invoking for either intrinsic benefits or stronger combos.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because the math is straightforward, the Paizo developers can correct it. I just don't understand how they selected 2d6 per two levels in the first place.I know way back with the Kineticist play test there was a mention of under tuning the damage to get people to use the other abilities. Plus, people tend to be happier when things get improved rather than a nerf. That lines up more with the Necromancer, who I don't think anyone has said deal too much damage. The Runesmith is the exact opposite problem. The damage abilities eclipse all the utility runes until the 9th and 17th level runes. Even then, the newer runes seem like something you would etch and not bother tracing mid-combat.
I generally would agree but the presented utility/buff/debuff runes was just already too meh by themselves:
All Diacritic rune just doesn't worth its action cost or Etch limit. I just ignore them.
So in general most runes doesn't need to be overshadow by damage rune they are just weak or too situational alone enough to not worth by themselves.
--
This analysis also gave me an idea of an interesting way to make damage runes more balanced without changing the mechanics too much and at the same time making Diacritic runes much more useful.
First, the Invoke damage of the runes would be reduced to be similar to that of the cantrips. In other words, energy damage runes (Atril and Ranshu) would have their damage reduced to 1d4 every 2 levels and physical damage runes (currently only Evade) to 1d6, which are the average damage used by the cantrips.
And then it would be added to the Diacritic trait so that the runes where they are applied have their Invoke damage doubled! So the player could choose between applying the runes without the Diacritic, only causing half the damage to a single creature ((1d4 fire + 1d4 electricity + 1d6 slash) x lvl/2 rounded up) at the cost of 3-4 actions (depending on whether Evade was already applied) due to the 2-3 Traces + Invoke or, it could Trace them with Diacritic runes at the cost of up to 5-6 actions (Atril + Diacritic, Ranshu + Diacritic, Evade (already Etched) + Diacritic, Invoke) which would still be strong but would cost a huge amount of actions to work, not to mention that the effect could be reduced if the runesmith was forced to spend actions on other uses.
The coolest part of this suggestion is that the effects of the Diacrit runes themselves would make everything even more interesting because they would be:
In short, this would not only help balance the damage but would also give another life to the Diacrit runes, which would go from uselessness to complete essential for those who want to focus on damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any sort of persistent utility mid-encounter is action-intensive and short-lived, and because Invoking is so much comparatively easier to do, the loop becomes Tracing as much as you can then Invoking before the duration expires.
This is definitely the root of the problem. The short duration makes it iffy as to whether you will see any benefit from the passive part of the rune. If you don't know for sure you will invoke the next turn you probably wasted an action to trace the rune
I generally would agree but the presented utility/buff/debuff runes was just already too meh by themselves
Yeah, I agree. I was trying to point out that it would obscure the play test as fewer people would bother with the utility runes and therefor give less feed back for balancing.
While I agree with what you wrote for each of the runes, they could work out differently in actual play. I thought Bone Spear would be a lot better than it was.