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

[Weiley31]

I mean you can always stick to the UA version, change the INT to CON, remove the level rune gate locks, and then just apply any other buff from Tasha's to the UA version.

Rune Knight though, is probably one of my top three fave Fighter Subclasses.(Rune Knight, Echo Knight, and Battle Master.)

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

My problem with the archetype is two issues:
First, with only 6 runes to pick from, I cannot help but think that levelgating two of them is a bad idea without adding more rune options. Having played the UA version for quite a bit now, I can definitely agree that while it is powerful, that "slow to turn on" thing of the bonus actions is a bigger balancing factor than people realize. 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 would have much rather they nerfed storm giant rune and possibly even the hill giant than make them level gated.

Second they completely left my main complaint unaddressed with the archetype, that there are too many competing reaction abilities in one archetype, especially when they all effectively accomplish the same thing: granting disadvantage or causing an attack to miss. It's also particularly odd that they felt that the 7th level feature had to be nerfed from an infinitely useable ac bonus of proficiency to what they changed it to, when the storm rune is that AND MORE of a full minute every short rest. Like how the hell did that make it out of the design room?

If anything the storm rune and the 7th level shield ability should be switched, or make the stone rune the 7th level ability. Don't get me wrong, I am loving this archetype in play, but my DM and I took one look at the changes, both said "well that was stupid", and are now trying to figure how to fix it.

 

[Ancalagon]

My problem with the archetype is two issues:
Having played the UA version for quite a bit now, I can definitely agree that while it is powerful, that "slow to turn on" thing of the bonus actions is a bigger balancing factor than people realize. 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 would have much rather they nerfed storm giant rune and possibly even the hill giant than make them level gated.

Second they completely left my main complaint unaddressed with the archetype, that there are too many competing reaction abilities in one archetype, especially when they all effectively accomplish the same thing: granting disadvantage or causing an attack to miss. It's also particularly odd that they felt that the 7th level feature had to be nerfed from an infinitely useable ac bonus of proficiency to what they changed it to, when the storm rune is that AND MORE of a full minute every short rest. Like how the hell did that make it out of the design room?

If anything the storm rune and the 7th level shield ability should be switched, or make the stone rune the 7th level ability. Don't get me wrong, I am loving this archetype in play, but my DM and I took one look at the changes, both said "well that was stupid", and are now trying to figure how to fix it.

1: Re slowness thank you!
2: Hill giant rune being so good: Yes! that bothered me too.
3: It definitely bothers me too that it feels... unpolished. It's almost like the mechanics reflect the fact that the giants don't work well together... which is kinda cool in a way, but not fun?

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

1: Re slowness thank you!
2: Hill giant rune being so good: Yes! that bothered me too.
3: It definitely bothers me too that it feels... unpolished. It's almost like the mechanics reflect the fact that the giants don't work well together... which is kinda cool in a way, but not fun?

If anything, the giants for feeling like they don't work together is just further issues on WotC's part, particularly when they have several written adventures prominently featuring Giants already in both this edition and previous ones.

I'm gonna brainstorm on it this weekend and see what we come up with, I might post it here for critique. The fact is I'm not convinced that the stone giant rune needs to be level gated or nerfed as it's not as terrifying in actual play as it seems, and giant's might, while gaining an extra use in the published one at low levels is getting limited in damage. Even if one does view it ass too strong for level 3, past level 5 the stone giants rune is 100% fine, but I think 7th level is a wee bit punishing. We'll see.

My main design goal is going to be figuring out how to keep two runes and the 7th level ability from all using reaction, and figuring out how to keep the storm rune from just being the 7th level ability or the cloud rune...but better. We shall see.

 

[Undrave]

Did they better explain wether you can put runes on somebody else's stuff? I feel like this was a thing that should have been made clearer. A lot of these passive bonuses would be appreciated by other party members.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Did they better explain wether you can put runes on somebody else's stuff? I feel like this was a thing that should have been made clearer. A lot of these passive bonuses would be appreciated by other party members.

The text is pretty clearly "no" on this.

 

[Undrave]

The text is pretty clearly "no" on this.

Sucks, but to be expected. The UA wasn't clear on that point so its at least nice that it gets specified here.

It also feels ike a missed opportunity. Feels like being able to engrave runes on your allies' gear would be a cool way to offer support, but that you would just be able to tap into them much better than them,ya know? Maybe that kind of thing would work for a Bard of Fashion or something? Give minor buffs through magical embroidery!

 

[BacchusNL]

I found it kinda weird, lore-wise, that they put Hill Giant next to Storm Giant as the 2nd tier of abilities. Cloud Giant would have made more sense, traditionaly speaking.

The Hill Giant rune effect (resistance to bludgeoning/ piercing and slashing damage for 1 minute) also seems a lot more like the kind of abilities you see at 3rd level compared to the Cloud Giants, in my opinion, more unique effect (misdirecting an enemy attack), so I'm not sure what the thought process was there.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Sucks, but to be expected. The UA wasn't clear on that point so its at least nice that it gets specified here.

I don't think the text is much changed - I don't think the UA was unclear.

It also feels ike a missed opportunity. Feels like being able to engrave runes on your allies' gear would be a cool way to offer support, but that you would just be able to tap into them much better than them ya know?

Improving other people's gear is covered by the Artificer, Forge cleric and talisman warlock. The idea is to let go of the "be the best or go home" mentality. The runes give the fighter a chance to be good, or at least competent, at some things fighters aren't usually known for.

 

[jayoungr]

I've got a player who's playing the original UA Rune Knight, and it's crazy powerful. I haven't seen the new version, but I'd say it needed a bit of nerfing.