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

[Hawk Diesel]

would that work, though? I understand the logic of it, and I blame the rules for the wonky way they handle different sized weapons (see Enlarge, or even Rune Knight with the pesky 1d6 bonus damage 1/turn, pfff), but I’m guessing some DMs will not go for it.

I mean, it really does makes complete sense to bring an oversized weapon with you for double die damage, why didn’t they just write it like this?!

I wonder what the ruling is in AL

Yea, I think this is meant to be reflected in the additional 1d6 damage that you can apply once per turn. I mean, thinking about a fighter that can essentially double his damage for just about every combat, as well as access those rune abilities, would easily put this archetype well above any other fighter archetype in terms of raw damage output. I don't think it would be even close. It would also completely outpace any other martial build as well. Add in action surge on top of that, and why would anyone pick anything other than a Rune Knight fighter?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

would that work, though? I understand the logic of it, and I blame the rules for the wonky way they handle different sized weapons (see Enlarge, or even Rune Knight with the pesky 1d6 bonus damage 1/turn, pfff), but I’m guessing some DMs will not go for it.

I mean, it really does makes complete sense to bring an oversized weapon with you for double die damage, why didn’t they just write it like this?!

I wonder what the ruling is in AL

I agree, 5e doesn't handle large weapons the way 3rd edition does. Large weapons are part of a monster's stat block and not intended to apply when someone else uses them.

However, growing to large size would enable a gnome or halfling to use a weapon with the "heavy" property without disadvantage.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

The storm rune has a level requirement of level 7...They compete against each other because both use your reaction but both are quite good. The level 7 feature seems to be a gap filler whenever you don´t want to invoke a rune or were not able to.

I didn´t follow the UA version, but what is presented is quite powerful. You get passive abilities all day long and 2/short rest abilities at level 3, 3/short rest abilities at level 7 and it gets better. In the end, you have 10/short rest abilities, because you can use each rune twice per short rest. That does not make an underpowered class. As I heard there was also a buff by switching the DC from Int to Con, which is significant for a fighter.

Compare that to the cavallier of Xanathar´s who got each and every ability nerfed from per short rest to per long rest and is dependend on 20 Str and Con to get 5 uses per long rest.

 

[Phion]

Regardless I can't wait for these covid restrictions to disappear so I can play a half orc rune knight who argues with people that he is a warlock or sorcerer based on his research.

 

[pyhriel]

Hello

So it is quite common for Unearthed Arcana sub-classes to be a bit too good, and nerfed a bit when published in an "official" book. And the Rune Knight was too good - the combo of the hill giant rune giving your damage resistance, and the +1d6 dmg to all attacks was just... a little bit much. So a nerf was clearly necessary.

I did like the mechanics and the "flavor" of the subclass a lot. So I hoped it would be published officially. I wondered how it would be nerfed however. Would it be OP (probably not), just right or over-nerfed?

Now that I see the official version I'm a bit... torn. Level-gating the hill giant rune makes sense, but it's a long weight for that subclass feature to kick in. And limiting the extra damage of giant's might to 1d6 per turn, with a slow increase to 1d8 and then 1d10.... it's a bit harsh.

It's clearly still a playable subclass! But... did they go too far?

Like some other members, I never read the previous version of the subclass, just the Tasha's Cauldron version. From my point of view even in that form it is the fighter subclass that is the strongest. From my point of view I don't see why I'd choose a battle master over a rune knight except for narrative purposes, but if I just consider raw power, rune knight is way way stronger.
Most runes provide a rather strong passive bonus, and for those who say many passive bonuses aren't combat related, that is exactly my point. With fire runes you suddenly become specialized in any tools you are proficient with, for races that do not have infravision the stone rune provides you with it and makes you suddenly more insightful. From my perspective the runes can be used to either amplify your strengths a lot or compensate your weaknesses, proficiency wise. That is not too powerful in and of itself, but it is a very potent bonus. I don't see any other fighter subclasses that provides two of these kind of bonuses from the get go (at level 3). Then there are the more powerful powers of the runes. The stone rune (which you can get at level 3) gives you more or less the Hold Monster ability once per short rest, without concentration. The fire rune, while a little weaker on the hold part will both restrain and inflict continuous damage every round, again without concentration.
The DC is purposefully set to a fighter friendly stats (constitution) so it doesn't force you to at least take a more magical stats to have good DC.
Now that is just two "beginner" runes, you also get the ability with a bonus action to "weak rage". Now, the way this rage is setup, you do get diminishing returns as you level up since the bonus damage is only once per turn and not on every attacks, but until you get 3 attacks per round it is still a pretty nice bonus that you can trigger a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus per long rest and lasts for 1 minute.
Let's compare this to 4 uses of battle techniques per short rest among a pool of 3 techniques for a battle master. There is no battle master technique that can incapacitate an enemy as well as the stone rune, and no technique compares damage-wise to the fire rune.
From my perspective, the rune knight is just on another balance chart. If I ask my players to build the strongest 3rd level fighter, mechanically (using only the subclasses from PHB, Xanathar and Tasha) they all make a rune knight. Now, if we try this with an 18th level fighter, maybe there is a little more wiggle room for some other sub-class, but I am really not sure, at 18th level you'll have the use of 5 of the 6 runes and Storm and Hill runes are very strong, also at that point you can use the runes "strong power" twice per short rest... so honestly I just don't see how the rune knight is equal to other fighter sub-classes, maybe if you accept all UA subclasses it is comparable to some of those, but not to the subclasses in the PHB and Xanathar manuals.

 

[jayoungr]

I saw both versions in play at the table from levels 5 to 9. I think the original version was completely OP and the new version was still extremely effective, so no, I don't think it was over-nerfed.

 

[Bacon Bits]

This is why I don't care about UA and gave up downloading it.

Always gonna get nerfed, changed or dropped so care factor is 0.

Let someone else do the work, cheers.

I don't really care about using UA in a game. I care about seeing something that I can then think about and submit feedback on in the survey. It's as close as I can get to being involved in the game's development without publishing my own content.

 

[Bacon Bits]

See this:

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.

I think the major problem with multiclassing is not really a problem with multiclassing itself. I think the problem is that Warlock is a fairly poor class design. I love the theming and background of the class, but the mechanics are awful. The design is simply exacerbated when multiclassing is included. Warlock's major problem is that the class feature progression hits a brick wall at level 2 that doesn't go away until level 11. The base class is not worth being single class through the meat of the game.

Stepping back, the biggest problem with multiclassing overall is the fact that class abilities over level 10 are virtually never worth staying in the class for unless you're getting spell levels 7, 8 and 9. The abilities you gain below level 10 are almost universally better than those you gain from levels 12 to 19. Multiclassing should be balanced out by the fact that class abilities above level 11 are really compelling and they just aren't. They're trash with very few exceptions. It's not uncommon to get nothing but incremental improvements that suffer from diminishing returns. Yeah, capstones are often great, but because they're level 20 they virtually don't exist and should not bear significant weight in a standard campaign.

And, yes, there are some subclass features that are worth sticking around for, but they're fairly rare and highly varied. Champion Fighter's level 18 Survivor is amazing, while Battle Master's level 18 Improved Combat Superiority is trash tier. And Champion's Survivor doesn't necessarily make that subclass compelling after level 11 or 12.

To be clear, there are a number of well designed classes, most especially Rogue. The problem is that the majority don't fit that mold, and spellcasters are only worth it because of new spells.

What you will find is that multiclassing has costs. For example, that wizard with one level of fighter? 50% of the time she will denied access to highest level spells. Level 5? welp, no fireball for you!. Level 9? Can't cast teleport, sorry.

In fact, multiclassing is the best way to screw up your character in 5e - it has to be done just right.

I don't think the difficulty of multiclassing is a significant limitation to it. Rather, I don't think it's difficult enough to figure out to be called a real limitation. Even if it were, the fact that someone might choose badly or that a choice is hard to evaluate isn't a true balancing mechanic. That's just raising the bar of the system mastery learning curve. It might discourage people from using multiclassing but it doesn't balance the game's mechanics at all. It just hides what's broken.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

...

I think you are right with class design.

I do think the multiclass rules are indeed great. I currently play a 3 class character and am level 9.
Every time I get a level there is no real best class to level up. All have advantages and disadvantages.

I like that a 3 level dip actually allows you to have the most important abilities of a class and you only fall 3 or 4 levels behind in your actual class.

But there are a few classes that just don't care about being behind at some point. A fighter after level 5 performs as well as a level 5 fighter for quite a while. A barbarian even more so.

Actually every class with less than full spellcasting can quite freely multiclass without feeling bad about it for quite a while. So a few more (flavourful) abilities would help, especially between level 11 and 16 mostly.

After thinking about abilities with prof bonus per long rest for a while, I did atart to like them.
I now look at them like cantrips. It allows a class or subclass to have their basic functionality grow with level up.

It is however important that tgere is only one sigmature ability that works this way. The rest needs to be level dependend.

 

[Ancalagon]

Someone liked my post, so I will necro this tread with an important comment:

I got this late spring to run a game with a level 6 rune knight in it. The player was only able to make 2 sessions, but those 2 sessions convinced me that the RK is really strong. I was thinking too much about the extra damage and the damage resistance rune being pushed to level 7, but it doesn't matter - the runes overall are so good that the nerf was definitely necessary.

So yeah, I was wrong. Playtesting is so important!