D&D 5E Balancing the Rune Knight
I always suggest playtesting in a one-shot or limited campaign. Existing campaigns are a lot of work, and a badly designed element introduced can really mess up the campaign (if not kill it). I've experienced this with homebrew stuff in the past, and nothing makes a player angry like nerfing their character mid-game.
MostlyHarmless42
Adventurer
To be honest? My only real concern with the rune knight is that maybe them learning two runes to start at level 3 combined with the other Giants ability, might be slightly too much.
I honestly don't think it is, though if you feel it is, the easy fix is to either cut the Giants ability, or give them only ONE rune at 3rd. It would put them more in line with other fighters.
I honestly don't think it is, though if you feel it is, the easy fix is to either cut the Giants ability, or give them only ONE rune at 3rd. It would put them more in line with other fighters.
Ancalagon
Dusty Dragon
I've considered it as an alternative build to a level 3 eldritch knight/level 5 hexblade character I had. He also had great weapon mastery. So by sacrificing that feat (but gaining the 2d6 dmg) I didn't lose much. Why did I sacrifice? to retain some of the wizard spells and cantrips, so the flavor of the character wasn't lost. The loss of the spell slots for shield spell was more than made up for by the damage resistance, which would really stack well with Armor of Agathy.
Undrave
Legend
At level 3 you have 2 runes. That's only 2 'invoke rune' ability until you take a short rest, plus 2 Giant might a day.
That's a little better than a Warlock's Spell Slot, but without all the cantrips. Sure, you got heavy armor and weapon proficiency, but you're also wading in melee where you're expected to be hit, not slinging Eldritch Blast from the next county. Nor do you get stuff similar to Eldritch Invocations that give you at-will spells.
I think what you could do, to test the water, is only allow 1 'invoke rune' action per short rest. If nothing else, I wouldn't allow someone to stack them, even if they have multiple runes and they probably shouldn't stack with Giant's Might. It's one or the other.
Also, you need to decide is the passive ability can be passed on to another character. That's kinda important. If I put my rune on my buddy's weapon or shield for exemple.
... This makes me realize that, as written, you could technically encribe the same run more than once on your gear and thus get to use its invocation more than once. Huh... neat!
EDIT: Ah, no, nevermind, it specifies 'A different rune in each object'.
That's a little better than a Warlock's Spell Slot, but without all the cantrips. Sure, you got heavy armor and weapon proficiency, but you're also wading in melee where you're expected to be hit, not slinging Eldritch Blast from the next county. Nor do you get stuff similar to Eldritch Invocations that give you at-will spells.
I think what you could do, to test the water, is only allow 1 'invoke rune' action per short rest. If nothing else, I wouldn't allow someone to stack them, even if they have multiple runes and they probably shouldn't stack with Giant's Might. It's one or the other.
Also, you need to decide is the passive ability can be passed on to another character. That's kinda important. If I put my rune on my buddy's weapon or shield for exemple.
... This makes me realize that, as written, you could technically encribe the same run more than once on your gear and thus get to use its invocation more than once. Huh... neat!
EDIT: Ah, no, nevermind, it specifies 'A different rune in each object'.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
If you are concered something from UA will disrupt game balance you have to say "no".
WotC are, so far as we know, moving forwards with the Rune Knight, which means a properly balanced version is likely to be released around November. Until then, your player can play something else. It's not as if there is a lack of things to choose from.
WotC are, so far as we know, moving forwards with the Rune Knight, which means a properly balanced version is likely to be released around November. Until then, your player can play something else. It's not as if there is a lack of things to choose from.
Benjamin Olson
Hero
If you are concerned about something from UA disrupting balance you have to have a player willing to change things later on as necessary. If you have that then allow any crazy UA thing you want. If you have a player who is going to throw a fit if you need to nerf abilities down the road or try to lawyer you about it because "you said I could" then you should not allow such things. It sounds like the player in this case is willing to be flexible.
Horwath
Legend
anything in UA that affects a non-full caster has very low chance to unbalance stuff in the game.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
I think the problem with the rune knight is not one of power, it's one of fussiness. The rules in the UA are overcomplicated and could slow play. The finished version is likely to be more streamlined.
Weiley31
Legend
Sounds like you got your future BBEG!
