D&D 5E (2014) Companion thread to "5E Survivor - Subclasses (Part VI: Fighters)"

[Undrave]

Man... people really piled on the poor Rune Knight. Is it just because they hate the way runes were linked to giants in DnD or they just don't like the subclass as it is??

 

[humble minion]

Man... people really piled on the poor Rune Knight. Is it just because they hate the way runes were linked to giants in DnD or they just don't like the subclass as it is??

As a card-carrying Rune Knight hater, let me count the ways...

• it's a fighter subclass centred around magical abilities rather than fighting
• it's got nothing to do with runes, and nothing to do with knighthood
• D&Ds elemental-themed giants are boring and uninspired despite the enormous effort 5th ed has put into trying to convince people otherwise
• it's silly that Rune Knights can get giant-based abilities that giants themselves don't have
• if WotC wants PC giants, they should stop being cowards and write them up as a race, not mess about with subclasses that turn PCs into part-time quasi-giants
• the 'runes' are a poorly balanced and unthematic mess. The Hill Giant ability is probably the best, and that's not the way it should work given they're the whipping boys of giantkind. The abilities the runes grant are really just a random grab-bag of buttons to press with any sort of in-world thematic coherence a distant afterthought.
• the class feature where your PC grows permanently by a small amount is pointless and meaningless and is the sort of thing that should be left to players and GMs. Possibly the only dumber class feature in the entirety of D&D is that monk subclass where as one of your class abilities you get ... a mask. Which does nothing. Except it's a mask. That you can wear on your face.
• the illusion of choice - you choose the runes you know, but there are so few and so many of them are level-gated that basically all Rune Knights will end up roughly the same anyway

 

[Ancalagon]

As a card-carrying Rune Knight hater, let me count the ways...

• it's a fighter subclass centred around magical abilities rather than fighting
• it's got nothing to do with runes, and nothing to do with knighthood
• D&Ds elemental-themed giants are boring and uninspired despite the enormous effort 5th ed has put into trying to convince people otherwise
• it's silly that Rune Knights can get giant-based abilities that giants themselves don't have
• if WotC wants PC giants, they should stop being cowards and write them up as a race, not mess about with subclasses that turn PCs into part-time quasi-giants
• the 'runes' are a poorly balanced and unthematic mess. The Hill Giant ability is probably the best, and that's not the way it should work given they're the whipping boys of giantkind. The abilities the runes grant are really just a random grab-bag of buttons to press with any sort of in-world thematic coherence a distant afterthought.
• the class feature where your PC grows permanently by a small amount is pointless and meaningless and is the sort of thing that should be left to players and GMs. Possibly the only dumber class feature in the entirety of D&D is that monk subclass where as one of your class abilities you get ... a mask. Which does nothing. Except it's a mask. That you can wear on your face.
• the illusion of choice - you choose the runes you know, but there are so few and so many of them are level-gated that basically all Rune Knights will end up roughly the same anyway

As someone who's played a RK and had a great time:

1: You are still a fighter. You have abilities that make you bigger and better at grappling, do more damage, resist more damage... and a lot of the "magical abilities" are protective, allowing you to defend you party better -the RK is probably the best tank amongst the fighter (better than the cavalier). It is a "magical fighter" - same as the EK - but with a more primal feel, less "I spent a semester at wizard school".

2: The Runes are in the fluff. It's just that though - it could have been special crystals, alchemical extracts, etc etc. BUT having Runes that work in a mechanical way is quite challenging. As far the knight... that complain is valid for a lot of subclasses.

3: Giants are boring? Eh, they could be better, but I played in SKT and it was interesting.

4: That is an excellent point - and I give rune powers to giant "leaders". You know, to make them more interesting.

5: Balancing giants as a playable race is a nightmare. How many hp do you have at level 1? 3.X tried (somewhat) and it was wonky.

6: Could the runes be better? Yes. Could they be more balanced? Yes, but that's why level gating some of them was necessary I suppose. It is strange that the hill giant is so strong but here we are.

7: It's a ribbon feature, calm down

8: Once again, a valid complaint that is valid about a number of other subclasses...

 

[Paul Farquhar]

4: That is an excellent point - and I give rune powers to giant "leaders". You know, to make them more interesting.

I've already used giant rune knights in the game. The easy way to stop giants being boring is to give them class abilities.

 

[Undrave]

Patient Turtle
Skill: Insight
If you do not move on your turn, or you use Second Wind, the next attack made against you before the start of your next turn is made at a disadvantage.

Thought of a new version of this one:

Patient Turtle
Skill: Insight
If you did not move this turn, you can take the Dodge action as a bonus action, then, if you do, your speed becomes 0 until the end of the turn. If you use the Second Wind class feature, you gain the benefit of the Dodge action.

Feels a little more active this way, more deliberate and not just a side effect of not moving.

 

[Undrave]

As a card-carrying Rune Knight hater, let me count the ways...

• it's a fighter subclass centred around magical abilities rather than fighting
• it's got nothing to do with runes, and nothing to do with knighthood
• D&Ds elemental-themed giants are boring and uninspired despite the enormous effort 5th ed has put into trying to convince people otherwise
• it's silly that Rune Knights can get giant-based abilities that giants themselves don't have
• if WotC wants PC giants, they should stop being cowards and write them up as a race, not mess about with subclasses that turn PCs into part-time quasi-giants
• the 'runes' are a poorly balanced and unthematic mess. The Hill Giant ability is probably the best, and that's not the way it should work given they're the whipping boys of giantkind. The abilities the runes grant are really just a random grab-bag of buttons to press with any sort of in-world thematic coherence a distant afterthought.
• the class feature where your PC grows permanently by a small amount is pointless and meaningless and is the sort of thing that should be left to players and GMs. Possibly the only dumber class feature in the entirety of D&D is that monk subclass where as one of your class abilities you get ... a mask. Which does nothing. Except it's a mask. That you can wear on your face.
• the illusion of choice - you choose the runes you know, but there are so few and so many of them are level-gated that basically all Rune Knights will end up roughly the same anyway

Would you say it's better or worse than the Rune Carver Wizard?

I always felt like Runes should be a thing you carve into equipments and could be used to buff OTHER people and not just you. runes should basically be a thing Artificer can do.

That, or be used to divine the future like actual ancient furthark runes...

But I liked the mechanics well enough.

 

[CleverNickName]

Geez, the last 24 hours were a massacre in that thread. It's still anyone's game but my predictions are:

• By this time tomorrow we'll be down to BM vs EK.
• Regardless of the next two eliminations, BM will win.

 

[Undrave]

Geez, the last 24 hours were a massacre in that thread. It's still anyone's game but my predictions are:

• By this time tomorrow we'll be down to BM vs EK.
• Regardless of the next two eliminations, BM will win.

I always felt it was going to be down to BM vs EK... They're both optimizers' favourites and the BM is basically the poster boy for interesting martial classes.

 

[CleverNickName]

I always felt it was going to be down to BM vs EK... They're both optimizers' favourites and the BM is basically the poster boy for interesting martial classes.

Yep, agree on all points. My favorite in this contest was Echo Knight, but I'm happy to settle for Eldritch Knight or Battle Master.

 

[DND_Reborn]

this is so false that 5e's encounter math literally disagrees with it. you are 100% expected to have a 20 in your casting/attack stat by level 8, and you can see that from looking at the CR table. it's a big reason why i genuinely hate that ASIs and feats take up the same resource (and that they seem to be doubling down on it for 5.5).

Totally disagree with this, and agree with @doctorbadwolf on it. 16 is all you need--you sure as heck don't need a 20 by level 8!

For myself (anyway), you need (or at least really want IME):
Tier 1: 14
Tier 2: 16
Tier 3: 18
Tier 4: 20

Do you need an 18 or 20 ever? No. But it is helpful at higher levels--at lower levels it is overkill and therefore I usually take half-feats so I slowly improve my ability score.

Man... people really piled on the poor Rune Knight. Is it just because they hate the way runes were linked to giants in DnD or they just don't like the subclass as it is??

Most of the points @humble minion made.

Geez, the last 24 hours were a massacre in that thread. It's still anyone's game but my predictions are:

• By this time tomorrow we'll be down to BM vs EK.
• Regardless of the next two eliminations, BM will win.

Yep. Unless a drive was made to eliminate either or both of them in the beginning (to get rid of the old), it was bound to happen.

Yep, agree on all points. My favorite in this contest was Echo Knight, but I'm happy to settle for Eldritch Knight or Battle Master.

My favorite was (still is) Champion, but I knew it would never make it...