Runepriests

[Dragonhelm]

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.

You know, I got an Indiana Jones vibe from them.

I took a 3.5 Dragonlance prestige class and converted it to 4th edition. It had that sort of vibe, and seemed to fit the runepriest well.

Pagefinder of Gilean

I just find it funny that my approach to runepriest paragon paths is so different from WotC's. Yet I think it's just as viable.

Come to think of it, I should write up a dwarven runepriest now just to up the runepriest support numbers.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I love this class: the flavour/tone/theme and the flexibility (offensive/defensive rune states) are the main selling points for me. Which is not to say there aren't bad points to this class; other posts in this thread have them covered off (non-scaling at-wills, paying attention to who's in which of your areas-of-effect, etc.).

 

[The Human Target]

Mechanically I like em okay.

But they have the big problems already mentioned. Wonky at-wills, no support, and a good bit of redundancy while at the same time having an almost too small focus.

 

[Psikus]

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

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.

 

[Obryn]

I think they're about twice as complicated as they really need to be, with very fiddly abilities. What's more, there are a few too many decision trees for players; I think they'd slow down play a bit.

I've tried to stat up a few, but always end up going, "ehhhh..."

-O

 

[DracoSuave]

Rune feats are bad?

Let's say your first two Rune feats you take are Rune of Vengeance and Rune of Hope. That's +2 damage after you're bloodied, and +2 thp with every rune of mending you do. Not bad.

Then your next feat is +3 to Bluff and Diplomacy, or +3 to Athletics and Endurance. These are pretty decent ways to spend a feat, unless you never encounter npcs in your game, or never encounter diseases or things to jump over or climb.

So, you take one, suddenly you're at +3 damage after bloodied, +3 thp, +3 to two good skills... or +4 damage, +4 thp, +4 to four useful skills... Not bad at all. What other feats do you need? DWT and Expertise, really.

Rune of Torment is pretty good... giving all your powers with saves +5 or more ongoing damage, effectively, is nothing to sneeze at... and this is not something Runepriests lack in. They are decent at debuffing. Rune of Escape is very good as well, especially when someone, anyone, is using Heal checks.

Rune of Battle is stupid good.

Rune of Healing is decent, making your dog healing power a little better.

I get that a lot of the Rune feats are utility-based rather than damage adds... but you're a leader. Really, utility is your thing.

 

[Mapache]

Rune feats are bad?

Let's say your first two Rune feats you take are Rune of Vengeance and Rune of Hope. That's +2 damage after you're bloodied, and +2 thp with every rune of mending you do. Not bad.

Extra damage once per fight on a trigger you don't control is pretty bad, if you ask me. Rune of Hope is rather nice if you can crank it up.

Then your next feat is +3 to Bluff and Diplomacy, or +3 to Athletics and Endurance. These are pretty decent ways to spend a feat, unless you never encounter npcs in your game, or never encounter diseases or things to jump over or climb.

Rune of Eloquence is crap for a class that pumps Strength and Wisdom or Constitution and doesn't even have either Bluff or Diplomacy as class skills. Even with it, you're not going to be the party face, and those are skills where it's much less likely that the party as a whole needs to make checks. Rune of Zeal does give useful bonuses.

So, you take one, suddenly you're at +3 damage after bloodied, +3 thp, +3 to two good skills... or +4 damage, +4 thp, +4 to four useful skills... Not bad at all. What other feats do you need? DWT and Expertise, really.

If you're not a dwarf, you need a superior weapon (especially if you're Defiant and don't get any military weapons for free) and Weapon Focus. If you're Defiant, you really want to be missed, so Heavy Shield Proficiency. If you're Wrathful, you almost certainly have the stats for Plate. Multiclassing to pick up another daily heal and a skill training sounds good. If you go Shaman, you spend two feats instead of one and have an extra encounter heal instead of a daily, plus you're likely a Longtooth Shifter and now you're primal, so you can take Longtooth Spirit Shifter. Then there's also Improved Defenses, Resilient Focus, Improved Initiative, maybe another racial feat or two, and other stuff that's certainly worth taking but not necessary.

Rune of Torment is pretty good... giving all your powers with saves +5 or more ongoing damage, effectively, is nothing to sneeze at... and this is not something Runepriests lack in. They are decent at debuffing. Rune of Escape is very good as well, especially when someone, anyone, is using Heal checks.

Rune of Torment can be decent, but Runepriests only have have Save Ends effects on some of their dailies, not any of their encounter powers. As for Rune of Escape, even at Paragon, no one Second Winds unless they have a way to do it as a non-Standard Action, because you gain less health than monsters can do to you in one round. If you're in a party with dwarves, rangers with Invigorating Stride, and humans with Frantic Recovery, then it starts looking pretty decent, but I'm still wary of effects that tie two different abilities to the same trigger. Often, when you need to heal you don't need to move and when you need to move you don't need to heal, so you'll waste half the effect, though the flexibility is nice.

Rune of Battle is stupid good.

Rune of Healing is decent, making your dog healing power a little better.

Can't get these until Epic, which means as far as most players are concerned they don't exist.

 

[Aulirophile]

Because all the Rune feats are God-awful (sorry Draco) they hybrid well! Half-Orc Paladin|Runepriest is as money build, overall. Runepriest|Warlord is also pretty decent. Since I think of a "balanced" party as 1 defender, 1.5 leaders, 1 controller, and 1.5 strikers it fits the bill nicely. It can be a .5 of a leader while actually doing a full defender's job pretty competently, as a hybrid (need to invest in Mass Sanctioning, but that is a gimme).

 

[Mapache]

Because all the Rune feats are God-awful (sorry Draco) they hybrid well!

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.

 

[Aulirophile]

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.

Yep. Cincture of Vivacity on yourself, Rune of Mending yourself to give yourself THP, Come and Get It. Doable first round of every encounter. Win.