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

[Seramus]

It was nerfed the wrong way.

For example - The 7th level ability was too powerful, but got replaced by an ability that is way way worse than the Storm Rune you get earlier in the class. But nothing was done about the storm rune. Both should have been moderately trimmed back, instead of one being over nerfed and the other being untouched.

To be fair, I think a lot of options in Tashas are somewhat underpowered. Several minor bonuses, but nothing really class defining or scaling.

 

[Undrave]

To be fair, I think a lot of options in Tashas are somewhat underpowered.

They're really scared of power creep.

 

[jgsugden]

It was nerfed the wrong way.

For example - The 7th level ability was too powerful, but got replaced by an ability that is way way worse than the Storm Rune you get earlier in the class. But nothing was done about the storm rune. Both should have been moderately trimmed back, instead of one being over nerfed and the other being untouched.

To be fair, I think a lot of options in Tashas are somewhat underpowered.

If you pick any option in Tasha's, experienced gamers can build a PC using that option that is 'competitive' and effective. As long as that is true, nothing is underpowered.

Do you have a particular option that you think is so underpowered as to be problematic?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Also, don't you end up with more Runes you can engrave than gear you can carry?

No. You can engrave a rune onto a necklace or piece of jewellery. So you can wear however many you know.

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

It was nerfed the wrong way.

For example - The 7th level ability was too powerful, but got replaced by an ability that is way way worse than the Storm Rune you get earlier in the class. But nothing was done about the storm rune. Both should have been moderately trimmed back, instead of one being over nerfed and the other being untouched.

To be fair, I think a lot of options in Tashas are somewhat underpowered... clocking in around Storm Sorcerer levels. Several minor bonuses, but nothing really class defining or scaling.

They're really scared of power creep.

I've another gripe related to a lot of the new mechanics in general. If they were so worried about power creep, why the hell did they make a bunch of mechanics that scale off proficiency modifier? It's just asking people to multi class and create that very problem?!

No. You can engrave a rune onto a necklace or piece of jewellery. So you can wear however many you know.

This is true, though it should be noted that some runes only work on certain objects, like the fire rune with tools. Thankfully my DM and I are doing the sensible thing and not caring one wit about what rune is put where, merely that we have one. Honestly very little mechanical benefit of ruling it that way and let's me fluff them as being part of a character backstory as learning them from a sword given to him by his mother. I've been roleplaying them sort of like materia in FF7 thus far, or runes from Warcraft.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Proficiency modifiers don't stack, they go of character level, not class level.

 

[Ancalagon]

Proficiency modifiers don't stack, they go of character level, not class level.

I think they are concerned about "dipping" - like how a level 20 character with a small warlock dip has an eldrich blast that is potentially as potent as a 20th level warlock?

 

[Ancalagon]

They're really scared of power creep.

The Twilight Cleric would like to have a word...

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This is true, though it should be noted that some runes only work on certain objects, like the fire rune with tools.

No. The fire rune affects tools, but it can be on anything worn or carried, just like the other runes.

"While wearing or carrying an object inscribed with this rune, your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses your proficiency with a tool."

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

Proficiency modifiers don't stack, they go of character level, not class level.

See this:

I think they are concerned about "dipping" - like how a level 20 character with a small warlock dip has an eldrich blast that is potentially as potent as a 20th level warlock?

I despise class features that encourage minmaxing and multiclassing and the single greatest thing from 5e in my opinion other than bounded accuracy is the trade off of multiclassing in this edition. I accept that cantrips are a necessary evil but I do NOT like that one can take 3 levels of fighter and use Giants Might as after as a 20th level rune knight as a 3 fighter / 17 wizard/warlock/etc.

Not every class is so bad at it mind you, but I've seen enough players who've taken one level of fighter to cast in full plate as a wizard or two levels of warlock just to get agonizing blast with ZERO roleplaying reasoning to poison multiclassing for me forever, and the types of people who do that sort of stuff do NOT need more ammunition/options. But I do acknowledge that my opinion on this is perhaps a tad but extreme.