Runepriests

[Trebor62]

I love the Runepriest. The problem is tracking and communicatiing his various Runestate bonuses and effects to your allies so that they dont miss out. The next time I play one I am thinking of making up a set of little flags to post with him to show the bonus or effect of the moment.

 

[Psikus]

Rune feats are bad?

The current selection of rune feats is, overall, weak and narrow. In my opinion, one of the main problems is that you only get 8 of them. Normally, that wouldn't be a bad amount of class feats, but, by nature, the rune feats will take up almost all of your slots, or none at all - and they just fall short for that.

Eloquence and Zeal suffer from being too specific. Even a character wanting to spend feats in utility (non combat) effects may not be interested in these sets of skills. The numbers aren't too bad for these, its just that their effect won't appeal to most players. I guess they would be ok if there were plenty (20+) of rune options to choose from, thus becoming a cool altrnative, rather than an awkward tax.

Hope has a nice benefit, the kind of think many leaders will want... but suffers from terrible scaling, when compared to its equivalents in other classes. Almost every leader has a feat to add a primary or secondary ability in THP or HP to their healing word - that is usually a +3/+4 right off the bat, easily scaling up to +7/+8. Because of this, Rune of Hope needs other rune feats just to match equivalent options from other classes, and when you go all in with runes... it caps at pretty much the same benefit as the alternatives. At (2+rune feats) THP this would be worthwhile by itself, and not really broken with a full rune suite.

Vengeance reads well because its the only non-epic rune feat that does something damage-related, but its numbers are downright hideous. As a rule of thumb, I find that feats granting once per encounter damage boosts need to deal about 5 extra damage per tier to be worth the effort. Rune of Vengeance may come close to that figure if you go all in on runes, spend an action point, hit, and actually meet the requirement (get bloodied, which is not a guaranteed thing for a non-defender). Way too many 'ifs', to my taste. I actually think this could work at twice the bonus, more reliability, and removing action point shenanigans (say, a bonus equal to 2x your rune feats for your next damage roll against that enemy).

Escape is, again, nice but situational. The benefit is an interesting one, but many characters just won't care for it. It would make a decent feat if you didn't need to take it just to make your other runes work. The same applies to Torment - many runepriests won't even have a save ends power, and at most you'll get 3-4! A bunch of save-ends encounter attacks would be great for this one, but even then, we are talking about a feat that only a few builds can use.

Battle is awesome, I'll grant you that. But note that this one is impressive enough without any kind of runic support, and adds some great scaling on top of that - just what I'd like these feats to be like.

Finally, Health is also good, because its scaling is in a different league from other rune feats. Granting a total HP equal to (3+rune feats) * (number of allies) is miles ahead of Rune of Hope, and could even be decent without any other runes.

Unfortunately, even though rune feats in general would work better if there were just more of them, a few can lead to silly scenarios once the character gains access to 10-15 runes. Particularly, the skill-related runes grow to absurd proportions, and Rune of Health would probably end up way too strong. So there's not an easy way out of this.

 

[Kingreaper]

They really need to errata the rune feats to each state a maximum (maybe a maximum of 7, or 10, something which is impossible at present to beat) and then add more rune feats.

But that's really unlikely to happen in that order.

 

[jbear]

I've seen Fighter|Runepriest work pretty well, too. You only lose Heavy Shield relative a fighter's armor. You get a nice damage boost from all the enemies that are either missing or you each turn, and if you spend your Hybrid Talent on Rune Master, you can turn that on once by using a Runepriest power and then keep it up while you focus on Fighter powers to mark things.

My Human Fighter/Runepriest Hybrid is kick arse! I love him!

He can play almost like a full on fighter and step in and defend, and when the case calls for it he lets rip with his rune powers and buffs his allies defensively or offensively as the case may be.

I love how each power is a two-in-one deal. I like my characters versatile above all, and that is definitely what the runepriest has going for himself. I don't mind fiddly so much, but I can see how this may be a feature others would avoid.

Healing-wise, he's subpar I think but as a hybrid and secondary leader, totally awesome. Feat-wise, I'm not attracted by any of the Rune Feats, they fact that they are only half decent when you have three or so of them is what I dislike. Feat slots are pretty tight on most builds, there are so many other things that will make you all round better and more effective, that leaving 3 slots open for them ... it just aint gonna happen. I only ever make characters up to level 11, so maybe eventually at higher levels they begin to see the benefit, but I doubt it.


I'm not seeing that they have 'wonky' at will powers though. I think they have cool at-will powers personally. I'd like to see a wider variety, but when it's all said and done each one is really a 2 in 1 deal... Encounter powers, Flames of Purity, a decent party friendly blast 3 power that buffs allies ... sweet! Daily Power, Rune of the Undeniable Dawn .... awesome! Burst 3 vs Enemies and creates an encounter long area that provides a +2 buff to the entire parties defenses while inside. Again, I'd like to see more variety of powers, like other classes have or see how powers can interact with Domains but they already have some decent powers.

But I will definitely one of those delighted to see this class receive the support it deserves.

 

[tyrlaan]

Like:
- Its depth and complexity. I'd say the Rpriest is tied with the shaman as the most complex class in the game. You effectively have twice as many powers as normal (since each one has two distinct options), and you have to balance these effects with the rune state you want to have each turn, and manage positioning carefully to make the most of your auras. Granted, there are millions of forgettable, tiny bonuses to track, and it's definitely not for the weak of heart, but if you are looking for something tactically challenging, this is the class for you.
- How it deviates from other classes in its role. The leader role is, perhaps, the most homogenous in the game, as all healing words are pretty much the same. Runepriests carve out their niche by getting relatively weak healing (which is a risky proposition!) and no ranged capabilities whatsoever, but compensate with impressive survivability and respectable damage (plus their characteristic lot of small modifiers). On the other hand, I can see players accustomed to traditional leaders dismissing the Rpriest for its poor healing, but overall I think its a solid class capable of performing very well.


Dislike:
- Ability scores. For a class as original as this one, the combination of role, power source, and ability scores can easily lead a player to think of it as a strength cleric ripoff. It's a shame, because it really has a lot to offer. Perhaps Strength wasn't the best of choices.
- Rune feats. Most of them are terrible, and the ones that could be decent suffer from the lack of quality of the rest. Overall, I think the base design is too limiting - they should think about printing rune feats that don't scale with number, or that scale at a different rate (say, +1 for each 2 or 3 runic feats).
- No non-rune feats. Meaning that there are no interesting class feats that you can just take on their own.
- Lack of options. Last time I looked, Runepriest have the dubious honor of being the class with the least powers, feats and paragon paths in the game. You could argue that essentials subclasses are even worse, but at least those were intended to be straightforward and easy to play. For a class aimed at advanced players, having so few build options is a major disincentive.

This. I've got a runepriest in my game and he's all out of bubblegum. The cons and pros above are totally on the money (except maybe the ability scores one - can't say I've seen them as an issue) from what I've seen so far.

For those who dislike the complexity/fiddly bits, the player of said runepriest has little cards he hands out to people to remind them of the assorted bonuses as he doles them out. He also has stand up pieces of paper for his rune states that he places in front of him as needed. I highly recommend this trick to anyone who plays one or knows someone who does.

 

[UnknownAtThisTime]

Let's see what ENWorlders think of the Runepriests. What's their appeal to you? What do you think they lack?

Me, I'm quite fond of the *image* of the runepriest, and I'd play one before playing a cleric. Specially a goliath, dwarven or warforged runepriest.

I missed the question and have not read the responses yet, but my two cents:

I think I agree with you Klaus. I am DMing a player that is running a Dwarven Runepriest, and it is a very fun character. His build is quite effective as well. He is really a leader/defender hybrid in practice. He very much "makes sense" as a Dwarven Runepriest.

Personally, fundamentally, I have the same 'problem' with a runepriest that I have with about 50% of the classes: I think we are better served fluffing a cleric in to a Runepriest. But the game model is what it is, and Runepriests can be powerful, and fun PCs. Just because I'd rather see 6 classes and not 60 doesn't make the runepriest a bad option for the 4E game.

 

[UnknownAtThisTime]

For those who dislike the complexity/fiddly bits, the player of said runepriest has little cards he hands out to people to remind them of the assorted bonuses as he doles them out. He also has stand up pieces of paper for his rune states that he places in front of him as needed. I highly recommend this trick to anyone who plays one or knows someone who does.

Yep. My player's Runepriest also uses a visible indicator he flips in front of him to announce and display his state. I can never remember what bonuses they give, but he and the other players track it well.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Me, I'm quite fond of the *image* of the runepriest, and I'd play one before playing a cleric. Specially a goliath, dwarven or warforged runepriest.

I don't know what the *image* of a runepriest offers that is different than the image of your typical D&D cleric.

Hey, it's a dude in heavy armor adorned with symbols standing in the front lines tossing out buffs and debuffs in addition to bonking things with weapons!

That's a cleric. That's been a cleric since OD&D. The person who wants to play that archetype, plays a cleric.

Runepriests suffer from a dilemma of archetype. There's no convincing model for them, no unique hook to hang your "this is why I'm different" banner from. When someone asks you "What makes you functionally different from a cleric?" your only response is basically, "This thing on my character sheet under 'class' that says 'Runepriest,' and not 'Cleric.'"

There are subtle distinctions. And the mechanics of the rune states approach this. But the distinctions are too fiddly and minor to matter at the broad level of choosing your class.

Runepriests should be a cleric build. There's nothing about them that screams the need for a brand new class. There's no real reason their powers shouldn't be available to any cleric, and there's no real reason normal cleric powers shouldn't be available to them.

It is too small a niche to build a class around.

The Seeker, I think, suffers from similar problems. Should've been a ranger build.

The sorcerer/warlock or slayer/rogue situations avoid this by having very distinct archetypes. "Magic is in my blood" vs. "Magic is a gift from nefarious entities" leads to different kinds of powers. Likewise, "I beat things with a big stick" vs. "I stab things where it counts!" also leads to different abilities and performances.

"I conjure the will of the gods with my holy symbols" vs. "I conjure the will of the gods with my holy runes" is not a very different way to approach the game.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

I dislike runepriests for purely subjective reasons. I simply believe runepriests should be cleric builds. If runepriests were presented as build of cleric like the warpriest, a lot of my misgivings would vanish.

 

[DracoSuave]

I don't know what the *image* of a runepriest offers that is different than the image of your typical D&D cleric.

Hey, it's a dude in heavy armor adorned with symbols standing in the front lines tossing out buffs and debuffs in addition to bonking things with weapons!

That's a cleric. That's been a cleric since OD&D. The person who wants to play that archetype, plays a cleric.

No that's a warlord!

No that's an ardent!

No that's a...

...oh wait, the entire Leader archtype when they aren't at range.

It's kinda hard to make a member of a role with the job 'hit things and toss out buffs and debuffs' without them hitting things and tossing out buffs and debuffs.

Runepriests suffer from a dilemma of archetype. There's no convincing model for them, no unique hook to hang your "this is why I'm different" banner from.

If only they had a unique mechanic that reflected a flavor that no other character had....

Like some sort of emphasis on lasting buffs and the application of those to arms and armor.

When someone asks you "What makes you functionally different from a cleric?" your only response is basically, "This thing on my character sheet under 'class' that says 'Runepriest,' and not 'Cleric.'"

Bullocks. The only thing that suggests 'Cleric' in the Runepriest description is the word 'Divine' there.

If it had 'Martial' you'd say 'This is different Warlord!' If it were arcane, you'd say 'This is just a different bard! Runes even work like songs used to!'

There are subtle distinctions. And the mechanics of the rune states approach this. But the distinctions are too fiddly and minor to matter at the broad level of choosing your class.

Rune Mastery itself is a mechanic that is absolutely unique to the runepriest. Not the 'having runes' bit, but they (at the time) were the only leader that had a permanent aura around them that gave buffs to the party.
The closest mechanic you can find to Rune Mastery is the shaman's spirit boons, and the aura of buffing an Essential's Druid's pet gives off.

No cleric build in the game, including essentials, has a mechanic like Rune Mastery. That kinda makes runepriests very unique. Then you move on... your build doesn't affect this buff. Shamans and Druids get one buff, that's it, you're done, I hope you can use it. Runepriests have two options and they can always choose the buff to fit the situation.

You then have that mechanic mesh with every single thing a Runepriest does... that's frakking decent class design in my books.

Runepriests should be a cleric build. There's nothing about them that screams the need for a brand new class.

Except for the fact they are in no way the same as any class.

There's no real reason their powers shouldn't be available to any cleric, and there's no real reason normal cleric powers shouldn't be available to them.

Except, of course, for the fact that their class mechanic that defines them is something unique to them, and the entire class is built around that mechanic.

It is too small a niche to build a class around.

Buffing is not a niche. It's a role. Healing is a niche.

The Seeker, I think, suffers from similar problems. Should've been a ranger build.

Like the hunter?

The sorcerer/warlock or slayer/rogue situations avoid this by having very distinct archetypes. "Magic is in my blood" vs. "Magic is a gift from nefarious entities" leads to different kinds of powers. Likewise, "I beat things with a big stick" vs. "I stab things where it counts!" also leads to different abilities and performances.

Also, they avoid it by using unique mechanics and by making themselves stand out. Fundamentally, there's no difference between a thief and a slayer, both are physical combatants that never use magic. However, tossing in sneak attack onto the rogue while having flat damage increases on the slayer MAKE them unique.

"I conjure the will of the gods with my holy symbols" vs. "I conjure the will of the gods with my holy runes" is not a very different way to approach the game.

The difference is actually: "I am invested with divine power so that I may bolster my flock and bring them succor" vs. "I am out there to destroy my enemies, and the Words of Creation bolster me and my allies."

The difference between a runepriest and a cleric is as big as the difference between a cleric and an invoker flavor-wise. The runepriest takes it a step further by being mechanically distinct.

Runepriest doesn't even have Channel Divinity; They're more unlike clerics than paladins or avengers or invokers are right there.

The problem isn't that runepriests are samey... the problem is that the Divine power source is samey... looking at the entire power source, you'll notice runepriests are actually the most distinct from clerics, not the least.