D&D 5E Rune Knight Is The Best Fighter Overall IMHO.

[Ancalagon]

EK using booming blade also often disincentivizes 1 enemy from moving away from him.

If he took warcaster that can be 2.

Maybe I’m missing something about the RK. RK gets size and thus can better grapple if that’s your thing. Also the larger size can help block corridors and such. He’s fairly durable too. But I’m not seeing what makes him better at tanking?

the RN has a number of method to shield allies from attack:

• the cloud rune
• the storm rune
• the runic shield

One could argue that the control ability of the fire rune and stone rune can also help protect allies, but that's stretching the definition.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Eg RAW you cant cast shield if you're using a two handed weapon or a shield.

You absolutely can RAW if you're using a two-handed weapon. But yeah not if you're using a shield, RAW.

I agree that overall, certainly for a less-expert player, Rune Knight is a really outstanding choice.

It's kind of hilarious and unfortunate that 3 out of 4 - or 4 out of 4 if you go with ECMO's selection - of the best Fighter subclasses use magic an absolute ton. I don't think it's an LFQW thing but rather shows a real lack of imagination and bravery in subclass design in 5E for martials.

 

[Zardnaar]

You absolutely can RAW if you're using a two-handed weapon. But yeah not if you're using a shield, RAW.

I agree that overall, certainly for a less-expert player, Rune Knight is a really outstanding choice.

It's kind of hilarious and unfortunate that 3 out of 4 - or 4 out of 4 if you go with ECMO's selection - of the best Fighter subclasses use magic an absolute ton. I don't think it's an LFQW thing but rather shows a real lack of imagination and bravery in subclass design in 5E for martials.

How do you do that when it's not your turn? Taking your hand off your weapon would negate any AoO?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

One of the runes redirects tracks. Our one in CoS used it to negative an attack and redirect it into a hags sister.

That is an absolutely great rune - very "clutch" as they say, as there's no saving throw or check or way to stop it. So long as there are at least two creatures you don't like with 30ft you can redirect it, and it's explicitly after the roll and hit, too! So a huge crit from some terrible beast can in fact wreck the master of said beast or whatever. Even if the enemy is solo, if you've got someone with a familiar out nearby, well, better to ask forgiveness later and have poor Mr Caws the Raven eat that 46 point crit than Emon the Rogue.

 

[Zardnaar]

That is an absolutely great rune - very "clutch" as they say, as there's no saving throw or check or way to stop it. So long as there are at least two creatures you don't like with 30ft you can redirect it, and it's after explicitly after the roll and hit, too! So a huge crit from some terrible beast can in fact wreck the master of said beast or whatever. Even if the enemy is solo, if you've got someone with a familiar out nearby, well, better to ask forgiveness later and have poor Mr Caws the Raven eat that 46 point crit than Emon the Rogue.

Yeah thatsxwhat he did negated a crit.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

How do you do that when it's not your turn? Taking your hand off your weapon would negate any AoO?

That's not how it works, there's no requirement to continually hold the weapon in two hands. This has been clarified by the designers more than once (so is 100% definitely RAI), but regardless of that, there's no RAW that requires you to use more than one hand to hold a 2H weapon, only to attack with it.

 

[Zardnaar]

That's not how it works, there's no requirement to continually hold the weapon in two hands. This has been clarified by the designers more than once (so is 100% definitely RAI), but regardless of that, there's no RAW that requires you to use more than one hand to hold a 2H weapon, only to attack with it.

That's what I'm getting at. That designer clarification was a long time ago and there's nothing in the PHB afaok about being able to take you hand off when it's not your turn.

Whole problem goes away if they just let you use your weapon as a spellcasting focus.

Hexblade similar problem but there's an invocation in xanathars at least that gives you that option.

 

[Ancalagon]

That's not how it works, there's no requirement to continually hold the weapon in two hands. This has been clarified by the designers more than once (so is 100% definitely RAI), but regardless of that, there's no RAW that requires you to use more than one hand to hold a 2H weapon, only to attack with it.

I concur. You can hold on to your halberd or great sword etc with one hand for a moment to cast a spell with the other.

"Hand economy" is an important, but somewhat obscured, part of the game. A lot of GMs don't care, but some do.

 

[Ancalagon]

That is an absolutely great rune - very "clutch" as they say, as there's no saving throw or check or way to stop it. So long as there are at least two creatures you don't like with 30ft you can redirect it, and it's explicitly after the roll and hit, too! So a huge crit from some terrible beast can in fact wreck the master of said beast or whatever. Even if the enemy is solo, if you've got someone with a familiar out nearby, well, better to ask forgiveness later and have poor Mr Caws the Raven eat that 46 point crit than Emon the Rogue.

Worse case scenario, the RK can redirect the attack to themselves, esp if the hill rune is going. Not ideal, but it can save a squishy ally.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That's what I'm getting at. That designer clarification was a long time ago and there's nothing in the PHB afaok about being able to take you hand off when it's not your turn.

Re: the bolded bit, because there doesn't need to be!

As I explained, the game is clear that you only need to use two hands with a two-handed weapon when you're attacking, not just when you're standing around - you don't drop a 2H weapon just because it's only in one hand. You're asking for an extra layer of clarification of the kind that 5E has almost none of, because of the "natural language" approach to the rules. If the PHB intended that you couldn't do this, then there would be a rule saying that. As there isn't, you can.

The issue with a shield and sword or the like is that both your hands are filled - so you can't put them down.

I agree that making weapons a spellcasting focus would be sensible, but not because of 2H weapons - because of 1H ones - currently 2H has a distinct advantage over sword and board and dual-wield for anyone who can cast.