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


log in or register to remove this ad

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...
Given that they start knowing two runes and two of the six runes are blocked until level 7, when they learn a third rune anyway, this is effectively just doubling the number of runes known, and then having a separate limit on number of objects that can have runes on them.

I would posit that the limitation on runes known has more to do with keeping players from getting confused by too many abilities than limiting power by limiting flexibility. The real power limitation is in the number of objects they can put their runes on. As long as that limitation is preserved you're probably good. I think most players would quickly fall into a groove of using the same runes all the time even given the option to switch on a long rest.
 

Given that they start knowing two runes and two of the six runes are blocked until level 7, when they learn a third rune anyway, this is effectively just doubling the number of runes known, and then having a separate limit on number of objects that can have runes on them.

I would posit that the limitation on runes known has more to do with keeping players from getting confused by too many abilities than limiting power by limiting flexibility. The real power limitation is in the number of objects they can put their runes on. As long as that limitation is preserved you're probably good. I think most players would quickly fall into a groove of using the same runes all the time even given the option to switch on a long rest.
The big difference would be they can swap out if they Puck a non-useful rune at first. So I also vote "go for it."
 

Remove ads

Top