D&D 5E Was the Rune Knight (in Tasha's) "over-nerfed"?

[MostlyHarmless42]

In the same game, the party was hit by an Evard's Black Tentacle, cast by an unseen mage (so you couldn't just hit the mage to break concentration). Most of the party failed their save and were caught. This was a big problem....

except no, not really, because it does 3d6 dmg/round, and the temp hp of 1d6+6 almost negated it. The urgency was almost entirely removed.

Meanwhile I'm just sitting over here reading this and thinking that unless that mage has subtle spell, he is not by rules of the game itself "unseen" after casting a spell with a verbal component and therefore targetable to try and break concentration. Behind cover and maybe being attacked at disadvantage perhaps, but NOT hidden as per the rules of the game and therefore targetable. Tangential to the argument you two are having perhaps, but this particular example isn't the ironclad proof you think it might be.

 

[Ancalagon]

Meanwhile I'm just sitting over here reading this and thinking that unless that mage has subtle spell, he is not by rules of the game itself "unseen" after casting a spell with a verbal component and therefore targetable to try and break concentration. Behind cover and maybe being attacked at disadvantage perhaps, but NOT hidden as per the rules of the game and therefore targetable. Tangential to the argument you two are having perhaps, but this particular example isn't the ironclad proof you think it might be.

What a petty detail to worry about. There are several ways this could be accomplished... like casting and leaving. The point is that twilight cleric makes "damage over time/area" spells much much less dangerous, and that is just one example.

 

[physix]

So a couple of thought I have in terms of adjusting the rune knight.

1) I don't like the crossover between the fighter and barbarian rage. I also don't agree with the runes being level-gated. They should all be within the same relative power scale. So here are a couple of the runes I have re-worked.

I mean, a player could be Barbarian 2 / Rogue 1 and get this same benefit.

So what would be different about having a Rune Knight / Rogue 1 do it for 10 rounds, once per short rest versus a Barb 2 / Rogue 1 that could do it every round, for eternity, plus a mostly d12 hit die?

One's a level 4 character, the other one is a level 3 character.

I think it's people not actually playing the UA version of Rune Knight and simply looking at it on paper and complaining about it that made them change it and, yes, nerf it unnecessarily.

 

[physix]

I find it odd that a lot of people are saying the rune knight has been nerfed (except for the fact you need to be level 7 to access storm and hill rune; seems fair to stop level dipping and preventing things like a rogue having a minute straight of sneak attack through advantage)

I mean, a player could be Barbarian 2 / Rogue 1 and get this same benefit.

So what would be different about having a Rune Knight / Rogue 1 do it for 10 rounds, once per short rest versus a Barb 2 / Rogue 1 that could do it every round, for eternity, plus a mostly d12 hit die?

One's a level 4 character, the other one is a level 3 character.

I think it's people not actually playing the UA version of Rune Knight and simply looking at it on paper and complaining about it that made them change it and, yes, nerf it unnecessarily.

I continued playing an UA Rune Knight, multiclassed with War Cleric / Sorcerer up to an 18-level campaign and it was powerful, yes, but it certainly wasn't overpowered. Not in the least.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

I mean, a player could be Barbarian 2 / Rogue 1 and get this same benefit.

So what would be different about having a Rune Knight / Rogue 1 do it for 10 rounds, once per short rest versus a Barb 2 / Rogue 1 that could do it every round, for eternity, plus a mostly d12 hit die?

One's a level 4 character, the other one is a level 3 character.

I think it's people not actually playing the UA version of Rune Knight and simply looking at it on paper and complaining about it that made them change it and, yes, nerf it unnecessarily.

Well for one, you are assuming that the multiclass rules (which are technically optional) are being used and this is just not universally true across games. Also, I'm not sure what mechanic you are referring to that a Barbarian / Rogue can do at will that a Rune Knight / Rogue could do for a minute per short rest? And depending on the mechanic, functionally being able to do something for 1 minute per short rest versus at will can be fairly equivalent depending on how many encounters an adventuring group may have between short rests.

But just because a multiclass build can achieve some particular mechanical goal does not negate the point I was making. There are certain core aspects to classes that are so strongly tied to their identity that granting them to other classes diminishes that identity. A fighter subclass should not grant sneak attack, a wizard subclass should not grant wild shape, a ranger subclass should not grant action surge, etc.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I also find it very odd that the Hill Giant rune is one of the strongest when they are by FAR the weakest and dumbest of the giants by a wide margin.

I have not played one, but this to me appeared a great inconsistency in the subclass design.

 

[physix]

Well for one, you are assuming that the multiclass rules (which are technically optional) are being used and this is just not universally true across games. Also, I'm not sure what mechanic you are referring to that a Barbarian / Rogue can do at will that a Rune Knight / Rogue could do for a minute per short rest?

Sorry, hawk. I responded to the wrong post (which did actually mention a RK / Rogue MC).

I couldn't find a delete button unfortunately

 

[ECMO3]

nm

 

[Casimir Liber]

Back to Rune Knights - one of my players is thinking about one, but felt it'd be great if the runes could be changed after each long rest. Do folks think this would massively overpower it...

 

[ECMO3]

Meanwhile I'm just sitting over here reading this and thinking that unless that mage has subtle spell, he is not by rules of the game itself "unseen" after casting a spell with a verbal component and therefore targetable to try and break concentration. Behind cover and maybe being attacked at disadvantage perhaps, but NOT hidden as per the rules of the game and therefore targetable. Tangential to the argument you two are having perhaps, but this particular example isn't the ironclad proof you think it might be.

I think he is not hidden after casting the spell, he is still unseen though unless players can see him.