Runepriests
- Thread starter Klaus
- Start date
Kingreaper
Adventurer
My biggest gripe is that, conceptually, they need to have ritual caster IMO.
But they don't.
If given some feats that played to that theme, and a few more powers, I would love them.
I do like my goliath runepriest|barbarian/battlemind though.
But they don't.
If given some feats that played to that theme, and a few more powers, I would love them.
I do like my goliath runepriest|barbarian/battlemind though.
Zaran
Adventurer
I'd like to know what their point is? A divine leader class? Shouldn't they be a cleric build? WotC apparently doesn't know or we would have gotten a class acts worth reading. I always associated runes with arcane magic.
I have a friend who thinks they were supposed to be what a cleric was meant to be but I don't think a cleric is broken. Besides having half the choices in powers because of the dual stat issues that is.
To me the rune priest was put in the phb 3 to fill space. If there was another reason I would have thought that we would have seen something more than 4 rare variety rune magic items for them in almost a year.
I have a friend who thinks they were supposed to be what a cleric was meant to be but I don't think a cleric is broken. Besides having half the choices in powers because of the dual stat issues that is.
To me the rune priest was put in the phb 3 to fill space. If there was another reason I would have thought that we would have seen something more than 4 rare variety rune magic items for them in almost a year.
ppaladin123
Adventurer
I love the flavor and I love the idea of switching between rune state auras when using abilities.
Problems:
1. The auras and powers provide many small, fiddly modifiers that quickly add up and are hard to keep track of effectively. They are also not of standard size; there are burst 5 modifiers for rune of mending and burst one auras for many daily powers, and then others that have no range limit. It is torture to try to calculate the attack and damage bonuses an ally has accumulated unless he is standing next to you. Honestly, this will take a bunch of errata to correct.
2. The runepriest only gets rune feats. These are generally awful unless you take every one. This means you are either locked in to a set feat progression with no room for much else (and your feats will be boring and ineffective until somewhere in mid-paragon level) or you are stuck trying to use generic feats to be effective. This can be easily fixed with a good selection of non-rune class feats.
3. The class has few ways to grant saving throws and is not particularly good at healing. As a secondary leader this is fine but as the primary leader you'll struggle to keep your team up and running. This can be fixed, again, with feats and with some more defensively oriented attack and utility powers.
4. The runepriest's at-wills do not scale at 21st level like with every other class. This is most probably a mistake but has mysteriously not been errated.
5. At least some people read the flavor and expected an intelligence-based class. There are few of those and a ton of strength-based classes. It would have been a nice way to further distinguish the runepriest from a strength-based cleric.
I still think the class can be fun and effective; it just needs support. If it is currently the least popular class, I doubt it is because people hate the flavor or the idea. They are just not willing to struggle with the fiddly modifiers, especially when the class has effectively been abandoned by WotC. I can be twice as effective as a leader by playing a warlord and with much less mental math.
Problems:
1. The auras and powers provide many small, fiddly modifiers that quickly add up and are hard to keep track of effectively. They are also not of standard size; there are burst 5 modifiers for rune of mending and burst one auras for many daily powers, and then others that have no range limit. It is torture to try to calculate the attack and damage bonuses an ally has accumulated unless he is standing next to you. Honestly, this will take a bunch of errata to correct.
2. The runepriest only gets rune feats. These are generally awful unless you take every one. This means you are either locked in to a set feat progression with no room for much else (and your feats will be boring and ineffective until somewhere in mid-paragon level) or you are stuck trying to use generic feats to be effective. This can be easily fixed with a good selection of non-rune class feats.
3. The class has few ways to grant saving throws and is not particularly good at healing. As a secondary leader this is fine but as the primary leader you'll struggle to keep your team up and running. This can be fixed, again, with feats and with some more defensively oriented attack and utility powers.
4. The runepriest's at-wills do not scale at 21st level like with every other class. This is most probably a mistake but has mysteriously not been errated.
5. At least some people read the flavor and expected an intelligence-based class. There are few of those and a ton of strength-based classes. It would have been a nice way to further distinguish the runepriest from a strength-based cleric.
I still think the class can be fun and effective; it just needs support. If it is currently the least popular class, I doubt it is because people hate the flavor or the idea. They are just not willing to struggle with the fiddly modifiers, especially when the class has effectively been abandoned by WotC. I can be twice as effective as a leader by playing a warlord and with much less mental math.
Klaus
First Post
Well, runes were the province of Odin, to be honest. I associate "runepriests" with the runecasters of Norse lore.
Nemesis Destiny
Adventurer
This is precisely why I like them, too. I am a huge fan of Viking lore and am on the cusp of starting a campaign with that very theme.
I like the concept of Rune state, and the flavour is gold, though I have not played or been in a group where one was played, so I can't comment on the fiddly nature of their powers.
I do think though, that they should have been a Cleric build, and in order to improve their appeal in my upcoming game, I may experiment with allowing them to access other divine stuff, and just treating them as a cleric build. I like the idea that they (runepriests) view runes as a gift from Odin (or Kord, or Ioun, or Vecna, or whomever) and use them as such.
I feel that the arcane aspect of runes is better and adequately covered by Artificers. In fact, I hated the artificer as presented until I wrapped my brain around fluffing them as runecasters that take an arcane approach to runes. Then they started to mesh very well with the fluff and ideas from my old, 2e Viking Campaign Sourcebook (the green floppyback series).
I would like to maybe see some material tying these two concepts together. That would be fantastic, since Artificers could also use a bit of love.
If you're fishing for ideas to pitch Klaus, I think I could write half of it for you!
DracoSuave
First Post
They are no more a cleric than a sorcerer is a warlock. The classes, while sharing similiar roles and power sources, are in completely different directions.
In fact, the comparison is apt; sorcerers are different than most strikers in that instead of doing massive damage to a pinpoint, they're better off doing massive damage to multiple targets. Runepriests are far more focused on melee than even the most strength based cleric.
The cleric's big advantage is healing power. They have nice buffs, but their buffs are by their nature situational. Their real strength is in the ability of every cleric to heal above and beyond baseline for most leader classes.
Where the runepriest shines is versatility. For a cleric, having something for offense and something for defense requires taking two different powers. This requires the cleric to make difficult decisions: does he focus on offense, focus on defense, or does he go half-way and hope for the best.
The runepriest suffers no need to make that decision. Every power has an offensive and defensive mode that allows him to change his strategy on the fly, without changing the powers he brings to the table. For players who prefer versatility, every runepriest might as well have the class feature 'Has 2 extra at-will powers' and the Spellbook feature of the wizard that lets you swap on the fly. This is extremely powerful. Their Word power shows it all... it's 1d6 less healing (and lacks healing word), but it has the capacity to buff your entire group with more damage or more defense. Other words will only buff their targets, if anyone is buffed at all.
On top of this, the runepriest is also encouraged to get up close and personal, and is rewarded for it. He wants people attacking him because that way he can hit them back... and hard. And, he always has an AoE around him buffing his team, so the front line is a doubleplusgood for him.
The cleric, on the other hand, is not as positional. He only cares if he can get in range for his powers. He doesn't actually desire a lot of combat attention. He's not built for it, but a runepriest is.
Mithreinmaethor
First Post
I like Runepriests.
But I think they would have made a great Essentials style class:
Aura 1 - Rune state
Stances - Effects dependent upon which Rune state your in
Melee Basics for attacks
I dont see them needing the Ritual caster feat for free.
But I think they would have made a great Essentials style class:
Aura 1 - Rune state
Stances - Effects dependent upon which Rune state your in
Melee Basics for attacks
I dont see them needing the Ritual caster feat for free.
DonAdam
Explorer
I don't like 'em.
The central thrust is represented by both the Str-cleric and the E-Warpriest, so they feel redundant.
The unique thing about them flavor-wise, the runes, is too specific for a core class. Why isn't it a paragon path of cleric?
Fiddly conditional bonuses on top of everything else is just too much.
Like almost everything in PHB 3, it's design is too complicated to be easy to use and yet too conservative to be interesting. I only really like skill powers, monks, and the hybrid rules from that book.
The central thrust is represented by both the Str-cleric and the E-Warpriest, so they feel redundant.
The unique thing about them flavor-wise, the runes, is too specific for a core class. Why isn't it a paragon path of cleric?
Fiddly conditional bonuses on top of everything else is just too much.
Like almost everything in PHB 3, it's design is too complicated to be easy to use and yet too conservative to be interesting. I only really like skill powers, monks, and the hybrid rules from that book.
Mapache
Explorer
I have one in LFR who's fun to play. They could make do with more power selections, but the ones they have are pretty decent. The Rune feats are pretty much a trap, though, in that most of them suck. Fortunately, there's enough high-quality generic feats these days that you can do just fine without them.
As far as actual play, I find the class to be quite effective. They're a serious force multiplier for the party, handing out attack and damage bonuses left and right. Tracking all these ever-changing bonuses for all your party members can be fiddly and you have to make sure they remember them, but I don't mind, as I thrive on complexity. Rune of Protection might as well not exist, though, as the bonus from and nearly all the riders from Rune of Destruction are so much better. They have less healing than some other leaders like Clerics, but they still have enough, and you can supplement it with your picks of powers. For reference, I played an LFR module last week with my Runepriest as the only Leader in a party of five, and didn't even need to spend a single healing power of any sort (which was kinda sad, as they buff our damage even more).
Flavor-wise, they're rather different from Clerics, focusing on secret knowledge of the workings of the world over divine revelation, and definitely so mechanics-wise. It's pretty clear they were designed as a Sohei class and reassigned after WotC rightly decided that "Power Source: Asia" was dumb. Under the new Essentials idea of variant builds, though, I think they could have worked as a type of Cleric with a completely different set of class features from PHB1 Clerics, but access to the common powers and feats, which would allow them to be fully "supported" without any further from WotC. Simplifying them into a melee basic + riders class, though, would kill what currently makes them interesting (which, admittedly, may broaden their appeal, but not to me).
As far as actual play, I find the class to be quite effective. They're a serious force multiplier for the party, handing out attack and damage bonuses left and right. Tracking all these ever-changing bonuses for all your party members can be fiddly and you have to make sure they remember them, but I don't mind, as I thrive on complexity. Rune of Protection might as well not exist, though, as the bonus from and nearly all the riders from Rune of Destruction are so much better. They have less healing than some other leaders like Clerics, but they still have enough, and you can supplement it with your picks of powers. For reference, I played an LFR module last week with my Runepriest as the only Leader in a party of five, and didn't even need to spend a single healing power of any sort (which was kinda sad, as they buff our damage even more).
Flavor-wise, they're rather different from Clerics, focusing on secret knowledge of the workings of the world over divine revelation, and definitely so mechanics-wise. It's pretty clear they were designed as a Sohei class and reassigned after WotC rightly decided that "Power Source: Asia" was dumb. Under the new Essentials idea of variant builds, though, I think they could have worked as a type of Cleric with a completely different set of class features from PHB1 Clerics, but access to the common powers and feats, which would allow them to be fully "supported" without any further from WotC. Simplifying them into a melee basic + riders class, though, would kill what currently makes them interesting (which, admittedly, may broaden their appeal, but not to me).
Similar Threads
