ADDITIONS/ERRATA: -7:29 To clarify, you CAN wield a weapon and a standard shield as a runesmith! But it's clunky. Shields are strapped to your arm in this game. However, to Raise a Shield, you must also "hold" it. Player Core 274: " All shields, unless specifically noted or described otherwise, must be strapped to your arm AND HELD IN ONE HAND, so you can't hold anything with that hand and Raise a Shield, and you lose the shield's benefits if that hand is no longer free." Therefore, you should be able to Release the shield as a free action, and then Trace a Rune. However, if you want to Raise the Shield later, you need to Interact to re-grip it. (You don't need to worry about this with a buckler, which lets you use your hand for other things so long as it's not wielding a weapon)
The "best" option imo is to wield something like a gauntlet or gauntlet bow in your offhand and make use of its parry trait. You dont get the same amount of AC as you would if raising a shield, and obv theres no hardness and soak potential, but you get to keep the freehand. Go into battle with something like a katana or bastard sword to switch between 1h and 2h combat as needed
@@aldrm002 or better yet a buckler which can still shield block and benefit from the shield runes. The parry trait is really only useful when dual-wielding, on a 2h weapon, as a back-up in case your shield breaks, or for specific builds (swashbuckler's parry, for instance). Buckler/weapon, shield/free-hand weapon, shield/unarmed strike, shield with a shield boss... they are all options that exist on a spectrum of tradeoffs of offense potential and defense potential. No one of them is strictly better or worse than the others, just better at some things and worse at others.
16:25 - I think Paizo underestimated how broken this one is in combination with sigil. There are no upper limits to the number of sigils you can place and they last indefinitely. You can place a sigil on the armor of all of your teammates and have unlimited teleportation to each of them that costs only 2 actions (1 to place and 1 to activate). This means you can bounce all around the battlefield to wherever you are needed. This would also let you teleport your entire team to basically anywhere you have ever been and set up a sigil.
I feel like this is pretty fair considering you are still very limited on how much use you can make of such plays, due to simple 3 action economy. And most runes have a limited use count per day. Some runes even require rune stacking, example the Vital Composite invocation, so its not really an oversight. Also they can only last indefinitely if the Runesmith is capable of indefinitely maintaining them, as depending on your level you have a maximum number of etchings (2 up to 6 at level 20). So you could indeed not teleport your entire party until level 9 in which case you could sustain the 4 etched ruins, but as soon as you etch another, someone loses theirs. This would make you otherwise useless in combat other than bouncing all over, as doing literally any other runic crafting would remove the teleports from your teammates. "Your magic can sustain up to 2 etched runes at a time, and you can etch any number of runes up to this maximum during your daily preparations and when you spend 10 minutes in exploration mode. As you increase in level, the maximum amount of etched runes you can have at a given time increases. Your etched runes remain indefinitely until they’re expended or removed, or until you etch more runes than your maximum, which causes your oldest rune to fade."
@@MattWeber That only applies to etched runes. Etched runes last until activated and you would have to spend 10 minutes to recreate them afterward. Traced runes last until the end of you next turn, take only 1 or 2 actions to create,technically have no number limit and don't count toward your limit of etched runes.. You could trace 3 runes one turn, then two runes next turn and activate all 5 at once. As for teleporting yourself, the Sigil spell lasts indefinitely. You can place sigils on your teams armor/clothing and 1 action trace the rune on yourself, then 1 action activate it to move to them. This teleport does not have a distance limit on it. So you can bypass hazards and enemies and/or cross large battlefields with fewer actions spent.
would making this a exploration or downtime activity potentially balance it more in your eyes? spend 10 mins to do so, once per day bounce for combat viable amount of actions? or the opposite? i personally love the out of combat implications of this. at this level i don't WANT to as a player AND gm ever have to worry about travel. in combat it being AT WILL seems a BIT much, but i would want to see it in action before making any clear decisions.
For the problem all we see, about 2 handed weapons/sword and board: the requirement tontrace a rune should be "hand free, artisan toolkit OR a weapon from the hammer weapon group"
The big problem I had with it are the shield feats built into the class. They obviously wanted sword and board to be a legitimate play style for the class but made it so that the class simply doesn't work with it. I think they could fix it in a similar way to what they did with the kineticist armor impulses that gave shields. Make shields count as an empty hand for Trace Rune in the same way those abilities made them for impulses.
@@piedpiper1185 Maybe they're trying to encourage the use of bucklers? Bucklers count your hand as being free when you're not raising them don't they? Or maybe I'm misremembering.
I like a lot of what i see about the Runesmith, even if i have to fight with a shield in one hand and a gauntlet in another. But i do wish the final version comes with, like, 2x as many runes to choose.
This is the criticism people have with every recent playtest. The exemplar playtest had half as many ikons as the final version, the commander playtest didn't have enough tactics, etc.
@@johngleeman8347 Paizo never put all options of a clas in the playtest, so we have more exitement when the final version are released. The playtest are for we can play the mecanics of a clas and we can said if a mecanic is good or bad.
@@corsariosandrorect5238 Mm. Though, the mechanics of this particular class are heavily dependant on the runes it has access to. As it is, it doesn't have many support or debuffs runes before level 9. Just one or two. And the amount of runes really does not interact well with the combination invocation feats. I think playtest exemplar suffered a lot less from this problem. It didn't feel as tangibly incomplete. Heck, I think Commander has the same problem and even it doesn't seem as bad
While I was reading this playtest in the car, I kept exclaiming and scaring the others in the car. I think there are so many cool things in this class. Maybe a little jank to get cleared up from the playtest, but I love the ideas here and definitely want to play one (forever GM).
I think you could use a weapon with Two-Hand tag. Obviously free action release one hand from the weapon before tracing/etching runes, then 1 action to grip the weapon before strike. Or just attack with 1 hand.
@@rod4309 That feat doesn't literally let you "trace a rune on hit". It's an action compression, you Strike THEN Trace, so you're till subjected to all the requirements (free hand or tools) and traits (manipulate) of the Trace action.
I see one issue, class require free hand but feats encourages sword and bord style so you have to either pick up buckler, use just shield as wepon (forcing you to go str), or drop shield entirely
Something that should be noted - the rune that increases the bonus of a shield by +1 is possibly the ONLY shield boost ability in ALL of Pathfinder 2e.
It doesn't boost the AC granted by the shield, it grants the runebearer a +1 Status bonus to AC when the shield is raised. So while it's the only ability I know of in the system that further boosts AC when the shield is raised, it's not actually improving the shield itself. Protection is a 1st rank spell that provides a status bonus to AC AND saving throws. That's why I'd argue that the main draw of the rune is the Invoke effect
@@tyrusdalet Nope - look it up, it's a +1 Circumstance bonus, not Status bonus. I have the text right in front of me right now. This means that the usual +2 Circumstance bonus from a normal shield becomes a +3... and the monstrous +4 from a tower shield becomes a nigh impenetrable +5.
Elf-Gate Key seems like a very funny way to kill/defeat enemies. Step 1: Etch a rune/Sigil on something and leave it somewhere extremely hazardous. Step 2: Trace Elf-Gate on an Enemy. Step 3: Invoke Elf-Gate. Step 4: Repeat Step 2+3 as necessary until the enemy is forcefully teleported to The Bad Place. Step 5: Victory
Very interesting class, but with a few awkward bits here and there I'm hoping will be ironed out after playtesting for release. At the moment, I'm imagining two different standard builds for it, Elven Archer and Dwarf w/ Shield. Would like maybe some support, with limits (like lowering the die size by one) for 2H weapon Runesmith
Regarding shield block. With how shields are written in the rules to work now, being strapped to your arm. Can't you just release the shield(Free action) freeing your hand(but no longer use the shield) trace a rune, then change grip/draw by grabbing your shield again? Or am I completely misunderstanding shields now? Least I thought from reading it that the shield can still be strapped to your arm.. but so long you are not -holding- the shield, you can't benefit from it, such as raising shield.
Thanks for this. I did a deep dive on my Discord with some other folks and I think you're right. It does involve an action to regrip your shield however AND it's clunky, BUT possible. Adding to my pinned comment
@TheRulesLawyerRPG absolutely agree it is clunky! But possible. You dont have to stow it so least its an action less post remaster! Glad to have brought it to attention. Keep doing your awesome work!
Aside from the limitations on weapons due to needing the free hand, this is pretty close to my idea class I'd want added. A martial character that mixes things up with distinct magical abilities unique to their own class like kinetecist impulses rather than the magus approach of using actual spells that you're not as good at as full casters.
Mediocre HP has me a little concerned, feels like they're making the same trap Inventor fell into where the class was pretty much built around being a front-line sword-and-board type martial but was marred by average at best defenses. That said, love the concept and hope it gets fixed. Whole class kind of feels like Inventor 2, tbh, which I'm not against. It's like how Thaumaturge is like Ranger 2, same general concept but different execution.
@@PersephoneApplewhite-uk8ts Funnily, I think Gunslinger and Inventor have almost the same core flaw: their subclasses are hella unbalanced and don't always deliver the fantasy they offer. Sniper and Pistolero Gunslinger are both real good, Drifter is pretty good, but Vanguard really struggles on delivering the macho-meathead/heavy gunner vibe it was going for since the class gets just sucks in close-combat offensively and defensively. Armor and Construct Inventor likewise are both pretty cool, though Armor Inventor still kind of stinks as a close-range melee tank. Weapon Inventor on the other hand just sort of feels _bad_ bad. Sure, it gets good... eventually, but you really struggle until you reach its better breakthroughs.
I would have liked to see some proficiency with languages be part of this class. To give it something special that is thematic and not just another combat tool.
Okay, I really like this class for flexibility (the flavor is great, too). It provides you with a nice set of tools to deal with combat in a variety of ways and some out of combat skills and abilities, too. I think two key factors in considering balance are 1) the very limited number of runes you can know (the class has a tool for every situation, but you can't have them all as a character so you can't assume you've a full Batman utility belt) and 2) your key attribute is Intelligence so you'll be a little behind on accuracy and most-likely multi-attribute dependent. This is something I like about Paizo's balancing in several of their classes: initially you think something is incredibly broken but upon further analysis realize the devil is in the details. Also, this might be an interesting class Archetype for one-handed weapon users--you have an option for the dangling third action. In a similar vein, splicing this onto an Investigator sounds sick. Devise a Strategem, then depending on the resultant roll use Engraving Strike (assuming you take it) to guarantee a traced rune or use conventional Trace a Rune if you don't have any good options for a skill-based action if your DaS roll is low.
Fun little combo, with the Drawn In Red feat, you can do your little Fireball trick every turn from up to 60 feet away. Trace Akryl, Trace En-, Invoke. Kaboom. 3 action fireball every round until they die.
Runesmith is magus but with action economy tools. Okay I'm joking but damn seeing some of its feats to manipulate its action economy, as a magus, makes me very envious. In your comparison with magus the other thing is also that Magus then has to recharge their spellstrike, runesmith can do it ad nauseam.
A class that really wants 3 hands, buckler sword and board, shield boss/spikes and bows seem the only good workarounds as of the current state. I appreciate rune singer is there but mantaining decent intelligence & charisma on a frontline martial is a mddening experiance in this system, so we would be back to bows anyway. Given the art @ 10:17 you'd think some decent 2H weapon support would be here but there is none to be found.
I thnik Paizo desig the Runesmith in a form that you don´t need to trace Rune all the time in combat to be a effective Runesmith. You can choose Runes that aplly before combat with etched and use 2 handed weapon or shield an hand weapon in combat using trace Rune only when is necesary as and option.
Considering the basket egg conversation at the end I agree partially with you. But at the same time it's good having 3 different basket because you can be almost sure you'll get some damage,but I think you are more prone to deal with higher dc/ high ac of the monster instead of having everything on one single basket. Will there be a playtest fight?
Can I just point out this class has an explanation for how the elves got to golarion in built? Those elf gates are a HUGE ancestral secret, the elves being unable to make them anymore. I love this. so much. The class is thematically at least HIGHLY rare, and has real and massive lore implications. I wish these happened more, and I wish it happened at lower level.
One thing it seems everyone else have overlooked is that, with a Shield Boss/Spikes, "Shield Duelists" are a very viable playstyle, especially with the Runesmith. I am surprised to see there isn't a "The Blade is My Pen" feat that enables Sword+Board builds to still trace runes, but it's an interesting restriction imo. I wouldn't be opposed to new class feats coming out that enable a two-weapon/weapon+shield playstyle to work on the Runesmith, but I also wouldn't be bothered if the class was forced to be free-hand, either. Both seem like interesting design directions for the class.
I agree with the assessment that this feels like a new design direction, and I also see a lot of similarities with the Exemplar. In fact, I've already found myself confusing a few of the Exemplar's Ikons and their effects with some of the Runes!
Correction! Unless I'm mistaken, etching a rune is not technically an activity. The rules text says you do it "by spending 10 minutes in exploration mode" but makes no reference to it being your activity. I assume that's not RAI but I'm nothing if not a pedant.
That's true, and leads to being able to do the sword-and-board build very well! Just make your weapon your innovation, and then it counts as your artisan tools allowing you to produce all of your runes with it :D EDIT: Actually, this doesn't work " As long as you are wielding, wearing, or adjacent to your innovation, you have the same quick access to these tools as the tools you are wearing, and they don't count against the usual limit of tools you can wear." You're counted as wearing them, not holding them, while the class requires you to hold them
Aiuen, The elf-gate key seems pretty busted, its basically a save or die at that point, just place your sigil somewhere thats a 100% certain death to a creature and teleport them there.
The first time I cracked a PF2e book (around the OGL crisis), I immediately felt it was DD4e done right. Siloed classes give classes unique mechanics that might become broken if mixed and matched like 3e/5e D&D, but are reasonably balanced. However, the Pathfinder mechanics actually feel unique instead of mostly the same (4e Rangers vs Warlocks with prime shot and similar mark/curse abilities are a lot more samey than PF2e Fighters vs Rangers vs Rogues vs Swashbucklers all of which can be Dex-based melee warriors and feel really different). Character scaling also feels a lot nicer. You had to give up abilities to progress in 4e, which felt awkward, since the specific debuffs and other tools weren’t exactly replicated on higher level versions of your encounter and daily powers with more damage. PF also keeps a more traditional spell caster system with slots, which helps casters feel distinct, but between focus spells on Rangers, Champions, and Monks, as well as Kineticist/Exemplar/Runesmith action-based “casting,” the space for martial characters with spell-like effects is fairly solid. And while the reasonably well-defined Standard/Move/Minor 4e actions were better designed than the mess of 5e bonus actions, the 3 action system just expands the space, and fives a lot more opportunities for class design and tactical play.
The problem with setting up abilities is that combats tend to be short ("I -just- got my combo going, and all the enemies are dead already!"), and starting in a weird position or suboptimal arrangement can basically mean that ability can't get used effectively at all. I like me a good "lower the boom" combo, but one rogue with "Gang Up" can often be more effective then four maguses...
In terms of "unbalanced", if you want to trace two runes, like in your example, both of those actions will have the manipulate trait, meaning you'd provoke an attack of opportunity. So not something that can be done against an enemy with reactive strike, plus it requires you to use 3 actions while staying in melee range, meaning the monster you do this to, can unleash hell on you, ebcasue it now doesn't need to move etc. also not considering the fact that you'd have to get into melee range first, which will take actions, and another turn you'd have to stay in a monster's melee range for all 3 of its actions
Spellstrike almost always triggers Reactive Strike as well. And requires an action to recharge, so you'll be standing in place to deliver Spellstrikes. Which is a good balance decision overall given the power of going all offense. However next to the Magus those downsides apply to the Magus too, while being generally more consistent, reliable, and flexible.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG I can see the point, but I'd wanna wait and see, this is still playtest material after all, and this doesn't jump out as obviously bad, as so much of the OneDnD playtest Besides, I am not nearly as familiar with pathfinder as i'd like to be, so I'm going to trust your word on the power of the magus and how this compares.
While your example about tracing two runes is possible and could be over powered, don't forget that in order to do it you need to be next to the target and perform a manipulate action, provoking reactions. Which of course means that it is possible to lose the action if the reactive strike is a critical. So while tracing two runes could be too powerful there is a way to potentially counter it.
Once all the new class get released officially, rune smith/commander. Plant the flag in the ground and become of the best shield bearer in the game. With a decent HP comparable range damage. Int skill support.
Tho damn. Again with that one handed restriction. Tho i imagine if you pick some rune right you can make it work with two-hander if you try as a sub-class.
I hope we are seeing a shift in design such that the eventual Pathfinder 3e has spell slots on only a couple classes or even gone altogether. I think the 4e influence is more about sharing design goals and learning from the mistakes of the past than being a target or even inspiration (for the system, there are surely specific things inspired by 4e). Really, moving away from spell slots and daily powers as a norm is very much in line with the initial design goals of PF2e, shifting the emphasis from the a limiting "adventuring day" to a more narratively pleasing "encounters when they feel right". No need to throw in meaningless or semi-nonsensical encounters to drain resources to make a narratively significant encounter also mechanically challenging. I can recall numerous situations where the party cleverly found (or made) a back way through a dungeon and faced the boss first instead of last... and it was a boring fight followed by boring clean-up as the party scoured the dungeon for loot. Not to mention the perennial problem of spellcaster powerbloat as new spells get introduced with each new publication...
My main concern with the class as is, that I've already pointed out elsewhere here, is the lack of support runes, and the related problem of the inability to contribute in a fight against anything with high fortitude. A high fort PL+2 very ofter succeeds its saves on a 2 or 3. Even PL+0 high fort saves aren't much better. It's a miserable experience to fight them as a Runesmith. Nothing you do against them works. You don't really gain any options till level 9. And even then, it's relatively little damage in a specific circumstance on a reflex save, or a fairly good effect on a will save that a creature is immune to for an hour after being effected. With the themes of Runesmiths harnessing the rawest form of magecraft, I'd really like to see them be able to freely switch between Fortitude and Reflex for their rune invocations. It just makes sense to me. Atleast for their main damage runes. It would fix a lot of issues, and it would let them use their int score for more than just crafting And having more support runes would help as well. Lets them do other things more confidently. Though, this would require having a bigger repetoire. But I suspect not by much. In the playtest version, I can pick up literally every rune I want by level 3
Is it just me or does the weapon familiarity feats seem a little useless, unless there are feats that will be in the full release that require it or the book is going to have some new weapons to synergise with it, to me it feels like a waste of a feat looking at the advanced weapons you get access to.
If you're using a shield and free hand, and you don't cope that Fortifying Knock can etch shield spikes since the attached trait says it's built into the item, then it might be necessary to get a shield a shield augment to give it versatile s. In that case, you have a free hand that's potentially not great for attacking, since it's not guaranteed you'll have a d6 claw (and you'll want a claw because the Whetstone Rune won't apply to a fist). If all that applies, you can get a bladed hoop, a weapon that's essentially free hand if you have even a few seconds of warning of a fight incoming. And if you don't, it's an action to make it free hand. Bladed hoop, coincidentally, is an option granted by the feat
No they don't? Page 294 of Player Core (Or the Formulas rule page of AoN) provides a table with Formula costs for each item level. With the price of a formula ranging between 2%-50% of the cost of the full item, tending to be lower as the item's level increases. If you're buying formulas, you're likely doing it to do downtime crafting, meaning that formulas either break even, or end up saving you money if you're able to spend enough time crafting them. Also keep in mind that you can *only* craft Uncommon or rarer items if you possess the formula for it
Cast Aiuen Engraved on a rock. Or just a Sigil. Have your wizard friend use Interplanetary teleport to throw it into space. It's on the same plane, it's just in space. Spend two actions to space everything in your way for the rest of the campaign. Aiuen has no "friendly creature" target requirement. It's just "some guy". But that's like level 17 when wizards are ridiculous, let's go super early. Level 3. Etch two damage runes on a sword (Atryl/Fire, Ranshu/Thunder) Trace one more on round one of combat on yourself (Esvadir/Slashing) Engraving Strike Deal 12D6+D8+Str+2 bleed at 3rd level (4D6 fire, 4D6 electricity, 4D6 slashing, D8+Str sword that is also slashing but there's no fort save against this, 2 bleed) by detonating the runes. Next turn spend three actions to refresh runes via Trace (last until the end of your *next* turn) Deal 12D6+D8+Str+2 bleed every other round at level 3 Runesmith is extremely abusable. I like the idea, but this is extremely busted.
Etching the damage runes on your sword is going to do nothing but destroy your poor sword. Or if we get weird on the wording on "bearer," electrocute you and set you on fire. And also electrocute you every time you sit down with that sword in your sheathe. But yes. Doing lots of damage after a bit of setup is the point of the class. I personally am quite happy with it. I think it still doesn't outdamage a Greatsword Gleaming Blade Exemplar or a well built Fighter or Barbarian, not even accounting for the value of damage now vs damage later. Though, I may be wrong on the raw numbers. The class also does have its issues. All your damage comes from fort saves. Which, in a game balanced around high saves basically invalidating whatever's thrown at them, basically makes you completely useless in some encounters. High fort save PL+2s often succeed your DCs on 2s and 3s. And while PL+2s should theoretically be uncommon to fight, if you're even unlucky enough to fight one of these? You're practically useless for the fight other than handing out a bit of persistent damage, maybe buffing defenses if your allies have shields, and if you picked up Zohk, *maybe* providing some mobility. Oh, and Trace is manipulate. You're screwed if the enemies have Reactive
Aiuen gives an unwilling creature a save. And the fire/electricity runes do damage on whatever they're on, they don't add fire/electricity damage to your strike like the Flaming or Shocking runes.
I don't like the pattern of Commander and Runesmith having dedicated bespoke Stuff™ to learn. It feels counter to the system's already very modular design to go around introducing even more types of "slot"
I just really don't like the cooldown based abilities (Frequency: every 10 minutes). I did not like everything working that way in 4e DnD. I also felt like Focus Points were supposed to be used for that generally, and I prefer the resource managment or setup models. (Not a hugefan of traditional Vancian magic either.) That said, many classes do not work that way, so I am perfectly happy to have it there as long as it doesn't *replace* the at-will or resource based stuff. I don't need to play a Runesmith, and if people love this then that is cool. I would not play an edition that was all classes like this though.
I honestly just want more Runes when this comes out. The amount of options you have are awesome, but I need MORE! In all seriousness, one way to limit the power of the runes is to make a frequency limitation upon invoking them to prevent you from tracing or invoking it again for a while, to a minimum of until the end of your next turn. This can lead to a lot more tactical decisions.
its interesting/odd to me that after the remaster thankfully made it so easy to make nonverbal/mute spellcaster characters, runesmith uses premaster style "strong clear voice" langauge that prevents that. I get that it fits the "speaking true names" flavour/lore of the class, but it still feels notable.
Hmm, the same language allowing you to have a mute spellcaster so that mute characters can be represented is general table advice in the books, so it should be applicable to this as well methinks
The potential damage output of this class at level 1 is crazy high and easily consistent (Potential average of 25 1st round alpha strike, and consistent average of 18 with just minimal equipment) The focus on damage is disappointing and there should be more utility based runes Additional rune tiers at 5 and 13 or something would be great too, just to feel the variety.
I do agree. I'd really like more support runes. With how small the repetoire is, I thought it would really be a choice between the big boom damage and being a good support, but it kinda isn't. The support that is there is _nice,_ but it isn't enough to justify giving up 2d6 per rank of damage. Some more support runes to make the choice harder or to make going pure damage just a bit more painful would be really nice And utility runes too! I'd love the Runesmith to be a great out of combat class. I'm already coping with the Atryl and Ranshu (Fire and Thunder) being able to be etched on objects and being able to damage those objects, thus allowing you to demolish walls and structures. Makes you a very good demolitionist in a game when you sometimes just want the wonders of civilization and modern engineering to stop bothering you for a bit
@@StarryxNight5 Exactly, and i dont think its hard to consider some basic support runes by basing them off some of the lower level spells out there. Runes for water walking or breathing, Jump, longstrider, Heck maybe even something like a toned down "Rune of sustenance"
On the one hand, it's no different from a cantrip (1 action to trace, 1 to invoke) But it does raise my eyebrows when you're in melee and theoretically can trace 5 against foes and invoke all of them over the course of 2 turns.
I think it works for INT, but man I would love to see a WIS-based martial (Cleric and Eldrich Trickster don't count). I personally would've loved Commander to be a INT/WIS/CHA martial, I think that would've been cool.
I want a Wisdom based martial too. My thought is a class called a Warden that can gain the abilities of different animals. Similar to 1e Hunter without the animal companion focus. In terms of Runesmith, I understand it being Int based due to the crafting skill. But if they allow the option of Wisdom base and you can use that modifier for Crafting, I would be very happy
The original sin of 4e, beyond WotC’s initial mismanagement of D&D by having a new edition every 3-4 years, was a failure of diegesis. Roleplaying games by their nature have the potential to be the most diegetic game ever devised. Their entire concept is built around the interplay of asking “What do YOU do” and then coming up with rules that make the most sense for however the player answers. 4e threw all of that out the window. Why can my fighter only hit this guy for free under these conditions once per day? There’s literally no in-universe answer for that question. That 4e design crashed and burned amongst the community because it also carried the name of D&D and asked the community to take all their characters/worlds/stories and transfer that to a game system that didn’t care about the ‘why’ of its mechanics. Obviously magic doesn’t have this problem because…it’s magic. The success of these newer classes that draw upon supernatural abilities is that it allows the game makers to tap into all this design space without also throwing out the less explicitly magic martial characters that are so well established both in the game’s history as well as in fiction. Ronald’s point about how the action economy enables all these disparate fantasies to coexist is extremely insightful. 35:08
I would say it was a problem for 4e, though there were other issues as well. I'd only mention that PF2 does call for a lot of suspension of disbelief as well (Battle Medicine being so easy AND it having a daily cooldown being one of them). PF2 is just a bit better at hiding the "gaminess" of it
@@Nastara How would you say PbtA is not diegetic? I played Dungeon World and I thought the entire system was narrative first, and the point was keeping you within the narrative of the world.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG For a lot of people narrative first is not seen as diegetic because it leans on making things happen because of genre and not because simulation. Same with mechanics that let you “spawn” lore. Dungeon World’s equivalent perception check is very explicit about it being a vehicle and opportunity to change the situation on the spot thanks to a new detail being noticed. Or the bard’s being able to create a town because the bard in universe knows a town exists. When the game has explicit mechanics for such things it breaks the illusion for the simulationists out in the audience. I have extremely high tolerance to non-diegetic mechanics, abilities that allow players to create lore, and meta currencies. I love them to death because it leads to better genre simulation. 4e’s complaints about gamey powers are incredible for people like me who enjoy rules in a game that say: this is the effect, what that means in the narrative is up to you. I view encounter and daily powers as deciding impactful moments in a narrative and seizing an opportunity in a conflict. Goku doesn’t spam Kamehameha the entire fight. And his Super Kamehameha is a daily power because he’s only using it once. Otherwise the narrative of the fight is damaged.
I like reading pathfinder classes to see if there is anything unique to steal and homebrew into my D&D games. And with the Necromancer and Runesmith I'm just not seeing it. Runes of "gain bonus on attacks here", "bonus AC there" are actually mechanically boring. The necromancer has cool concepts of always having thralls out and sacrificing them. But that in itself faces the problem of one player with way too many tokens on the board. the only thing that looked fun was Inevitible Return, the ability to create an instant undead minion when a creature dies, and some of the unique thrall types you can get could have some uses. But you do not need an entirely new class to incorporate these concepts.
That's a core difference between DnD and PF2e. DnD subclasses can change a lot about how a class plays, whereas subclasses in PF2e are surface level benefits, a few additional actions maybe, and feat access down the line. To unlock a whole new play space of character concepts, PF2e needs new classes. Because of the 4 spell lists, instead of class based spell lists, if you added a bunch of thrall summoning spells, in DnD you could have those spells only accessible to a subclass, via granted spells. Whereas in PF2e, they're accessible to any class with access to that spell list - that is - unless you make them Focus Spells, which for the most part are locked to that class (or that class archetype). For example, Runesmith is similar to 5e Rune Knight Fighter subclass, if we were to make Runesmith a Fighter Class Archetype, we would lose out on the depth and range of feats the full class has, so it needs to be a full class to explore the concept properly. We have archetypes, but no true dual classing without variant rules
Why do content creators do it? Well, from my experience, all my videos that mention D&D are clicked on more, engaged with more, etc. My channel literally is BUILT on comparing the two systems. So it works. And based on people joining my Discord, I literally get ~20 people thanking for me comparing the systems for every 1 complaining that I make the comparison.
ADDITIONS/ERRATA:
-7:29 To clarify, you CAN wield a weapon and a standard shield as a runesmith! But it's clunky. Shields are strapped to your arm in this game. However, to Raise a Shield, you must also "hold" it. Player Core 274: " All shields, unless specifically noted or described otherwise, must be strapped to your arm AND HELD IN ONE HAND, so you can't hold anything with that hand and Raise a Shield, and you lose the shield's benefits if that hand is no longer free." Therefore, you should be able to Release the shield as a free action, and then Trace a Rune. However, if you want to Raise the Shield later, you need to Interact to re-grip it. (You don't need to worry about this with a buckler, which lets you use your hand for other things so long as it's not wielding a weapon)
Wait, so I can't raise my shield spell shield with a two hander in two hands?
The "best" option imo is to wield something like a gauntlet or gauntlet bow in your offhand and make use of its parry trait. You dont get the same amount of AC as you would if raising a shield, and obv theres no hardness and soak potential, but you get to keep the freehand. Go into battle with something like a katana or bastard sword to switch between 1h and 2h combat as needed
@@aldrm002 or better yet a buckler which can still shield block and benefit from the shield runes. The parry trait is really only useful when dual-wielding, on a 2h weapon, as a back-up in case your shield breaks, or for specific builds (swashbuckler's parry, for instance).
Buckler/weapon, shield/free-hand weapon, shield/unarmed strike, shield with a shield boss... they are all options that exist on a spectrum of tradeoffs of offense potential and defense potential. No one of them is strictly better or worse than the others, just better at some things and worse at others.
@@anorouch The Shield and Glass Shield spells, like the buckler, specify that they don't require a free hand.
@@anorouch You're talking about spells, which basically don't require a free hand in PF2 unless they have a "focus" which is like 1 out of 1000 spells
Now when you search “Rules Lawyer Runesmith” the first two videos are Runesmith talking about rules lawyers and Rules Lawyer talking about runesmiths.
The Circle is complete
16:25 - I think Paizo underestimated how broken this one is in combination with sigil. There are no upper limits to the number of sigils you can place and they last indefinitely. You can place a sigil on the armor of all of your teammates and have unlimited teleportation to each of them that costs only 2 actions (1 to place and 1 to activate). This means you can bounce all around the battlefield to wherever you are needed. This would also let you teleport your entire team to basically anywhere you have ever been and set up a sigil.
I feel like this is pretty fair considering you are still very limited on how much use you can make of such plays, due to simple 3 action economy. And most runes have a limited use count per day. Some runes even require rune stacking, example the Vital Composite invocation, so its not really an oversight.
Also they can only last indefinitely if the Runesmith is capable of indefinitely maintaining them, as depending on your level you have a maximum number of etchings (2 up to 6 at level 20). So you could indeed not teleport your entire party until level 9 in which case you could sustain the 4 etched ruins, but as soon as you etch another, someone loses theirs. This would make you otherwise useless in combat other than bouncing all over, as doing literally any other runic crafting would remove the teleports from your teammates.
"Your magic can sustain up to 2 etched runes at a time, and you can etch any number of runes up to this maximum during your daily preparations and when you spend 10 minutes in exploration mode. As you increase in level, the maximum amount of etched runes you can have at a given time increases. Your etched runes remain indefinitely until they’re expended or removed, or until you etch more runes than your maximum, which causes your oldest rune to fade."
@@MattWeber That only applies to etched runes. Etched runes last until activated and you would have to spend 10 minutes to recreate them afterward. Traced runes last until the end of you next turn, take only 1 or 2 actions to create,technically have no number limit and don't count toward your limit of etched runes.. You could trace 3 runes one turn, then two runes next turn and activate all 5 at once. As for teleporting yourself, the Sigil spell lasts indefinitely. You can place sigils on your teams armor/clothing and 1 action trace the rune on yourself, then 1 action activate it to move to them. This teleport does not have a distance limit on it. So you can bypass hazards and enemies and/or cross large battlefields with fewer actions spent.
would making this a exploration or downtime activity potentially balance it more in your eyes? spend 10 mins to do so, once per day bounce for combat viable amount of actions? or the opposite? i personally love the out of combat implications of this. at this level i don't WANT to as a player AND gm ever have to worry about travel. in combat it being AT WILL seems a BIT much, but i would want to see it in action before making any clear decisions.
Swingripper Jumpscare at 14:37 for those who need it
I needed it and didn't even know. Thank you for your service my friend
I thought it would be okay because I've done this before but I realize this one was a bit more frightening than usual
Sorry yall!
For the problem all we see, about 2 handed weapons/sword and board: the requirement tontrace a rune should be "hand free, artisan toolkit OR a weapon from the hammer weapon group"
I like the idea, but at least in this iteration it has the effect of making 1 weapon group the "mandatory" choice for the class
The big problem I had with it are the shield feats built into the class. They obviously wanted sword and board to be a legitimate play style for the class but made it so that the class simply doesn't work with it. I think they could fix it in a similar way to what they did with the kineticist armor impulses that gave shields. Make shields count as an empty hand for Trace Rune in the same way those abilities made them for impulses.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPGas opposed to fist only?
@@piedpiper1185Somehow I still don’t love the idea of tracing a rune on a shield with the hand that’s holding that shield. Doesn’t sound plausible.
@@piedpiper1185 Maybe they're trying to encourage the use of bucklers? Bucklers count your hand as being free when you're not raising them don't they? Or maybe I'm misremembering.
I like a lot of what i see about the Runesmith, even if i have to fight with a shield in one hand and a gauntlet in another. But i do wish the final version comes with, like, 2x as many runes to choose.
My thoughts exactly. Why are there are not runes of every rank? :o
There likely will be quite a bit more. I think this class looks so damn cool I have to try it.
This is the criticism people have with every recent playtest. The exemplar playtest had half as many ikons as the final version, the commander playtest didn't have enough tactics, etc.
@@johngleeman8347 Paizo never put all options of a clas in the playtest, so we have more exitement when the final version are released.
The playtest are for we can play the mecanics of a clas and we can said if a mecanic is good or bad.
@@corsariosandrorect5238 Mm. Though, the mechanics of this particular class are heavily dependant on the runes it has access to. As it is, it doesn't have many support or debuffs runes before level 9. Just one or two. And the amount of runes really does not interact well with the combination invocation feats.
I think playtest exemplar suffered a lot less from this problem. It didn't feel as tangibly incomplete. Heck, I think Commander has the same problem and even it doesn't seem as bad
While I was reading this playtest in the car, I kept exclaiming and scaring the others in the car. I think there are so many cool things in this class. Maybe a little jank to get cleared up from the playtest, but I love the ideas here and definitely want to play one (forever GM).
22:10 Imagine invoking runes on two allies and having them clothesline hordes of enemies.
All I want from this class is two handed weapon support. PLEASE PAIZO.
One of the iconics is wielding a giant dwarven hammer, so I imagine it'd be supported.
@@JustJaimi That is not an iconic. It is just vaguely fitting prior artwork. They used it because they already owned it.
I think you could use a weapon with Two-Hand tag.
Obviously free action release one hand from the weapon before tracing/etching runes, then 1 action to grip the weapon before strike.
Or just attack with 1 hand.
1st level feat lets you trace a rune on weapon hit.
@@rod4309 That feat doesn't literally let you "trace a rune on hit". It's an action compression, you Strike THEN Trace, so you're till subjected to all the requirements (free hand or tools) and traits (manipulate) of the Trace action.
I see one issue, class require free hand but feats encourages sword and bord style so you have to either pick up buckler, use just shield as wepon (forcing you to go str), or drop shield entirely
Or learn to juggle
Free Hand Weapons work as well. But those are pretty bad compared to other weapons.
Rondanche can be used too it states it's the same size as a buckler and has better hardness and hp
Something that should be noted - the rune that increases the bonus of a shield by +1 is possibly the ONLY shield boost ability in ALL of Pathfinder 2e.
It doesn't boost the AC granted by the shield, it grants the runebearer a +1 Status bonus to AC when the shield is raised. So while it's the only ability I know of in the system that further boosts AC when the shield is raised, it's not actually improving the shield itself. Protection is a 1st rank spell that provides a status bonus to AC AND saving throws.
That's why I'd argue that the main draw of the rune is the Invoke effect
@@tyrusdalet Nope - look it up, it's a +1 Circumstance bonus, not Status bonus. I have the text right in front of me right now. This means that the usual +2 Circumstance bonus from a normal shield becomes a +3... and the monstrous +4 from a tower shield becomes a nigh impenetrable +5.
@ you’re right! I was looking at the wrong rune! Though the +4 AC bonus for a Tower Shield does require an extra action to Take Cover behind it
I'm so sad that my brother didn't lived to see this class, he liked rune priests of 4e.
Excellent overview of this! I was looking for a concise discussion on the Runesmith. Great work!
13:25 allies can use Avert Gaze beforehand..?
Elf-Gate Key seems like a very funny way to kill/defeat enemies.
Step 1: Etch a rune/Sigil on something and leave it somewhere extremely hazardous.
Step 2: Trace Elf-Gate on an Enemy.
Step 3: Invoke Elf-Gate.
Step 4: Repeat Step 2+3 as necessary until the enemy is forcefully teleported to The Bad Place.
Step 5: Victory
Very interesting class, but with a few awkward bits here and there I'm hoping will be ironed out after playtesting for release.
At the moment, I'm imagining two different standard builds for it, Elven Archer and Dwarf w/ Shield. Would like maybe some support, with limits (like lowering the die size by one) for 2H weapon Runesmith
I love that PF2e has made the Runesmith class. I love it 😀 😍
Regarding shield block. With how shields are written in the rules to work now, being strapped to your arm. Can't you just release the shield(Free action) freeing your hand(but no longer use the shield) trace a rune, then change grip/draw by grabbing your shield again?
Or am I completely misunderstanding shields now? Least I thought from reading it that the shield can still be strapped to your arm.. but so long you are not -holding- the shield, you can't benefit from it, such as raising shield.
Thanks for this. I did a deep dive on my Discord with some other folks and I think you're right. It does involve an action to regrip your shield however AND it's clunky, BUT possible.
Adding to my pinned comment
@TheRulesLawyerRPG absolutely agree it is clunky! But possible. You dont have to stow it so least its an action less post remaster! Glad to have brought it to attention. Keep doing your awesome work!
Aside from the limitations on weapons due to needing the free hand, this is pretty close to my idea class I'd want added. A martial character that mixes things up with distinct magical abilities unique to their own class like kinetecist impulses rather than the magus approach of using actual spells that you're not as good at as full casters.
Mediocre HP has me a little concerned, feels like they're making the same trap Inventor fell into where the class was pretty much built around being a front-line sword-and-board type martial but was marred by average at best defenses. That said, love the concept and hope it gets fixed. Whole class kind of feels like Inventor 2, tbh, which I'm not against. It's like how Thaumaturge is like Ranger 2, same general concept but different execution.
Sorta like how Operative felt like Gunslinger 2. Both GnG classes need a little love
@@PersephoneApplewhite-uk8ts Funnily, I think Gunslinger and Inventor have almost the same core flaw: their subclasses are hella unbalanced and don't always deliver the fantasy they offer. Sniper and Pistolero Gunslinger are both real good, Drifter is pretty good, but Vanguard really struggles on delivering the macho-meathead/heavy gunner vibe it was going for since the class gets just sucks in close-combat offensively and defensively.
Armor and Construct Inventor likewise are both pretty cool, though Armor Inventor still kind of stinks as a close-range melee tank. Weapon Inventor on the other hand just sort of feels _bad_ bad. Sure, it gets good... eventually, but you really struggle until you reach its better breakthroughs.
I swear, back when I still ran D&D 5e, one of my players played a homebrew rune knight which I found for them.
and this exceeds even that one.
I would have liked to see some proficiency with languages be part of this class. To give it something special that is thematic and not just another combat tool.
Okay, I really like this class for flexibility (the flavor is great, too). It provides you with a nice set of tools to deal with combat in a variety of ways and some out of combat skills and abilities, too. I think two key factors in considering balance are 1) the very limited number of runes you can know (the class has a tool for every situation, but you can't have them all as a character so you can't assume you've a full Batman utility belt) and 2) your key attribute is Intelligence so you'll be a little behind on accuracy and most-likely multi-attribute dependent. This is something I like about Paizo's balancing in several of their classes: initially you think something is incredibly broken but upon further analysis realize the devil is in the details.
Also, this might be an interesting class Archetype for one-handed weapon users--you have an option for the dangling third action. In a similar vein, splicing this onto an Investigator sounds sick. Devise a Strategem, then depending on the resultant roll use Engraving Strike (assuming you take it) to guarantee a traced rune or use conventional Trace a Rune if you don't have any good options for a skill-based action if your DaS roll is low.
Fun little combo, with the Drawn In Red feat, you can do your little Fireball trick every turn from up to 60 feet away. Trace Akryl, Trace En-, Invoke. Kaboom. 3 action fireball every round until they die.
I found them to be very similar to the 4e Artificer. If you just give them an Alchemist Dedication, you will pretty much have a 4e Artificer.
Runesmith is magus but with action economy tools.
Okay I'm joking but damn seeing some of its feats to manipulate its action economy, as a magus, makes me very envious.
In your comparison with magus the other thing is also that Magus then has to recharge their spellstrike, runesmith can do it ad nauseam.
A class that really wants 3 hands, buckler sword and board, shield boss/spikes and bows seem the only good workarounds as of the current state. I appreciate rune singer is there but mantaining decent intelligence & charisma on a frontline martial is a mddening experiance in this system, so we would be back to bows anyway. Given the art @ 10:17 you'd think some decent 2H weapon support would be here but there is none to be found.
I thnik Paizo desig the Runesmith in a form that you don´t need to trace Rune all the time in combat to be a effective Runesmith.
You can choose Runes that aplly before combat with etched and use 2 handed weapon or shield an hand weapon in combat using trace Rune only when is necesary as and option.
Considering the basket egg conversation at the end I agree partially with you. But at the same time it's good having 3 different basket because you can be almost sure you'll get some damage,but I think you are more prone to deal with higher dc/ high ac of the monster instead of having everything on one single basket. Will there be a playtest fight?
Can I just point out this class has an explanation for how the elves got to golarion in built? Those elf gates are a HUGE ancestral secret, the elves being unable to make them anymore. I love this. so much. The class is thematically at least HIGHLY rare, and has real and massive lore implications. I wish these happened more, and I wish it happened at lower level.
One thing it seems everyone else have overlooked is that, with a Shield Boss/Spikes, "Shield Duelists" are a very viable playstyle, especially with the Runesmith.
I am surprised to see there isn't a "The Blade is My Pen" feat that enables Sword+Board builds to still trace runes, but it's an interesting restriction imo.
I wouldn't be opposed to new class feats coming out that enable a two-weapon/weapon+shield playstyle to work on the Runesmith, but I also wouldn't be bothered if the class was forced to be free-hand, either. Both seem like interesting design directions for the class.
as soon as I read the Arcane Casebook series by Dan Willis, I made this class, more or less, and Paizo was reading my notes as always. 😆
I agree with the assessment that this feels like a new design direction, and I also see a lot of similarities with the Exemplar. In fact, I've already found myself confusing a few of the Exemplar's Ikons and their effects with some of the Runes!
Correction! Unless I'm mistaken, etching a rune is not technically an activity. The rules text says you do it "by spending 10 minutes in exploration mode" but makes no reference to it being your activity. I assume that's not RAI but I'm nothing if not a pedant.
I kind of want to do a Tien one who does their trace runes as calligraphy.
The Inventor Archetype can get you a feat to allow your invention to double as an artisan toolkit. That should let you trace runes.
That's true, and leads to being able to do the sword-and-board build very well! Just make your weapon your innovation, and then it counts as your artisan tools allowing you to produce all of your runes with it :D
EDIT: Actually, this doesn't work
" As long as you are wielding, wearing, or adjacent to your innovation, you have the same quick access to these tools as the tools you are wearing, and they don't count against the usual limit of tools you can wear."
You're counted as wearing them, not holding them, while the class requires you to hold them
Shield block can be used with a buckler which does not occupy your hand.
Aiuen, The elf-gate key seems pretty busted, its basically a save or die at that point, just place your sigil somewhere thats a 100% certain death to a creature and teleport them there.
The first time I cracked a PF2e book (around the OGL crisis), I immediately felt it was DD4e done right.
Siloed classes give classes unique mechanics that might become broken if mixed and matched like 3e/5e D&D, but are reasonably balanced. However, the Pathfinder mechanics actually feel unique instead of mostly the same (4e Rangers vs Warlocks with prime shot and similar mark/curse abilities are a lot more samey than PF2e Fighters vs Rangers vs Rogues vs Swashbucklers all of which can be Dex-based melee warriors and feel really different).
Character scaling also feels a lot nicer. You had to give up abilities to progress in 4e, which felt awkward, since the specific debuffs and other tools weren’t exactly replicated on higher level versions of your encounter and daily powers with more damage.
PF also keeps a more traditional spell caster system with slots, which helps casters feel distinct, but between focus spells on Rangers, Champions, and Monks, as well as Kineticist/Exemplar/Runesmith action-based “casting,” the space for martial characters with spell-like effects is fairly solid.
And while the reasonably well-defined Standard/Move/Minor 4e actions were better designed than the mess of 5e bonus actions, the 3 action system just expands the space, and fives a lot more opportunities for class design and tactical play.
Seven word comment.
TH-cam algorithm rules.
Visibility.
Thanks for your service
I hate the algorithm
Why did I do this
@TheRulesLawyerRPG 🖖
Toot that horn!
Wouldn't using a buckler shield count as having a free hand?
yes it would (but also see my pinned comment... you can release a standard shield while it's still strapped to your arm as well)
The problem with setting up abilities is that combats tend to be short ("I -just- got my combo going, and all the enemies are dead already!"), and starting in a weird position or suboptimal arrangement can basically mean that ability can't get used effectively at all. I like me a good "lower the boom" combo, but one rogue with "Gang Up" can often be more effective then four maguses...
Runesmith? Love that channel
In terms of "unbalanced", if you want to trace two runes, like in your example, both of those actions will have the manipulate trait, meaning you'd provoke an attack of opportunity. So not something that can be done against an enemy with reactive strike, plus it requires you to use 3 actions while staying in melee range, meaning the monster you do this to, can unleash hell on you, ebcasue it now doesn't need to move etc. also not considering the fact that you'd have to get into melee range first, which will take actions, and another turn you'd have to stay in a monster's melee range for all 3 of its actions
Spellstrike almost always triggers Reactive Strike as well. And requires an action to recharge, so you'll be standing in place to deliver Spellstrikes.
Which is a good balance decision overall given the power of going all offense. However next to the Magus those downsides apply to the Magus too, while being generally more consistent, reliable, and flexible.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG I can see the point, but I'd wanna wait and see, this is still playtest material after all, and this doesn't jump out as obviously bad, as so much of the OneDnD playtest
Besides, I am not nearly as familiar with pathfinder as i'd like to be, so I'm going to trust your word on the power of the magus and how this compares.
Well there's not that many enemies that have a reactive strike, but you can ask your other martials to trigger it for you.
While your example about tracing two runes is possible and could be over powered, don't forget that in order to do it you need to be next to the target and perform a manipulate action, provoking reactions. Which of course means that it is possible to lose the action if the reactive strike is a critical. So while tracing two runes could be too powerful there is a way to potentially counter it.
If it's one of the few enemies that has such a reaction, sure.
I'm really hoping we get Gloomblade as a class eventually. Just a personal hope.
Any word on what new book the Necromancer and Runesmith will be in?
Nope! We just know this is the "Impossible Playtest"
Rumor has it that there will be a splatbook thematically tied to the Impossible Lands.
Runesmith: the "set up us the bomb" class! 😜
We are building a 2d10 fantasy system based on the universal resource, actions.
Once all the new class get released officially, rune smith/commander. Plant the flag in the ground and become of the best shield bearer in the game. With a decent HP comparable range damage. Int skill support.
Tho damn. Again with that one handed restriction. Tho i imagine if you pick some rune right you can make it work with two-hander if you try as a sub-class.
I think these could be Aroden's class, so thats why the shield thing
I hope we are seeing a shift in design such that the eventual Pathfinder 3e has spell slots on only a couple classes or even gone altogether. I think the 4e influence is more about sharing design goals and learning from the mistakes of the past than being a target or even inspiration (for the system, there are surely specific things inspired by 4e).
Really, moving away from spell slots and daily powers as a norm is very much in line with the initial design goals of PF2e, shifting the emphasis from the a limiting "adventuring day" to a more narratively pleasing "encounters when they feel right". No need to throw in meaningless or semi-nonsensical encounters to drain resources to make a narratively significant encounter also mechanically challenging. I can recall numerous situations where the party cleverly found (or made) a back way through a dungeon and faced the boss first instead of last... and it was a boring fight followed by boring clean-up as the party scoured the dungeon for loot.
Not to mention the perennial problem of spellcaster powerbloat as new spells get introduced with each new publication...
Mechanically, Runesmith feels related to Exemplar but more versatile.
My main concern with the class as is, that I've already pointed out elsewhere here, is the lack of support runes, and the related problem of the inability to contribute in a fight against anything with high fortitude.
A high fort PL+2 very ofter succeeds its saves on a 2 or 3. Even PL+0 high fort saves aren't much better. It's a miserable experience to fight them as a Runesmith. Nothing you do against them works. You don't really gain any options till level 9. And even then, it's relatively little damage in a specific circumstance on a reflex save, or a fairly good effect on a will save that a creature is immune to for an hour after being effected.
With the themes of Runesmiths harnessing the rawest form of magecraft, I'd really like to see them be able to freely switch between Fortitude and Reflex for their rune invocations. It just makes sense to me. Atleast for their main damage runes. It would fix a lot of issues, and it would let them use their int score for more than just crafting
And having more support runes would help as well. Lets them do other things more confidently. Though, this would require having a bigger repetoire. But I suspect not by much. In the playtest version, I can pick up literally every rune I want by level 3
make an awakened animal to be a runesmith so he can be the rune BEAR-er
Runesmith reminds me of Artifacer in DnD... Not exactly but similar
Is it just me or does the weapon familiarity feats seem a little useless, unless there are feats that will be in the full release that require it or the book is going to have some new weapons to synergise with it, to me it feels like a waste of a feat looking at the advanced weapons you get access to.
If you're using a shield and free hand, and you don't cope that Fortifying Knock can etch shield spikes since the attached trait says it's built into the item, then it might be necessary to get a shield a shield augment to give it versatile s. In that case, you have a free hand that's potentially not great for attacking, since it's not guaranteed you'll have a d6 claw (and you'll want a claw because the Whetstone Rune won't apply to a fist).
If all that applies, you can get a bladed hoop, a weapon that's essentially free hand if you have even a few seconds of warning of a fight incoming. And if you don't, it's an action to make it free hand. Bladed hoop, coincidentally, is an option granted by the feat
Ah yes the etchn'sketch class!
How are formulae cheap? They cost the same amount as the actual item.
No they don't? Page 294 of Player Core (Or the Formulas rule page of AoN) provides a table with Formula costs for each item level. With the price of a formula ranging between 2%-50% of the cost of the full item, tending to be lower as the item's level increases.
If you're buying formulas, you're likely doing it to do downtime crafting, meaning that formulas either break even, or end up saving you money if you're able to spend enough time crafting them. Also keep in mind that you can *only* craft Uncommon or rarer items if you possess the formula for it
Cast Aiuen Engraved on a rock. Or just a Sigil.
Have your wizard friend use Interplanetary teleport to throw it into space. It's on the same plane, it's just in space.
Spend two actions to space everything in your way for the rest of the campaign.
Aiuen has no "friendly creature" target requirement. It's just "some guy".
But that's like level 17 when wizards are ridiculous, let's go super early. Level 3.
Etch two damage runes on a sword (Atryl/Fire, Ranshu/Thunder)
Trace one more on round one of combat on yourself (Esvadir/Slashing)
Engraving Strike
Deal 12D6+D8+Str+2 bleed at 3rd level (4D6 fire, 4D6 electricity, 4D6 slashing, D8+Str sword that is also slashing but there's no fort save against this, 2 bleed) by detonating the runes.
Next turn spend three actions to refresh runes via Trace (last until the end of your *next* turn)
Deal 12D6+D8+Str+2 bleed every other round at level 3
Runesmith is extremely abusable. I like the idea, but this is extremely busted.
Etching the damage runes on your sword is going to do nothing but destroy your poor sword. Or if we get weird on the wording on "bearer," electrocute you and set you on fire. And also electrocute you every time you sit down with that sword in your sheathe.
But yes. Doing lots of damage after a bit of setup is the point of the class. I personally am quite happy with it. I think it still doesn't outdamage a Greatsword Gleaming Blade Exemplar or a well built Fighter or Barbarian, not even accounting for the value of damage now vs damage later. Though, I may be wrong on the raw numbers.
The class also does have its issues. All your damage comes from fort saves. Which, in a game balanced around high saves basically invalidating whatever's thrown at them, basically makes you completely useless in some encounters. High fort save PL+2s often succeed your DCs on 2s and 3s. And while PL+2s should theoretically be uncommon to fight, if you're even unlucky enough to fight one of these? You're practically useless for the fight other than handing out a bit of persistent damage, maybe buffing defenses if your allies have shields, and if you picked up Zohk, *maybe* providing some mobility.
Oh, and Trace is manipulate. You're screwed if the enemies have Reactive
Aiuen gives an unwilling creature a save.
And the fire/electricity runes do damage on whatever they're on, they don't add fire/electricity damage to your strike like the Flaming or Shocking runes.
I don't like the pattern of Commander and Runesmith having dedicated bespoke Stuff™ to learn. It feels counter to the system's already very modular design to go around introducing even more types of "slot"
I just really don't like the cooldown based abilities (Frequency: every 10 minutes). I did not like everything working that way in 4e DnD. I also felt like Focus Points were supposed to be used for that generally, and I prefer the resource managment or setup models. (Not a hugefan of traditional Vancian magic either.)
That said, many classes do not work that way, so I am perfectly happy to have it there as long as it doesn't *replace* the at-will or resource based stuff. I don't need to play a Runesmith, and if people love this then that is cool. I would not play an edition that was all classes like this though.
I honestly just want more Runes when this comes out. The amount of options you have are awesome, but I need MORE!
In all seriousness, one way to limit the power of the runes is to make a frequency limitation upon invoking them to prevent you from tracing or invoking it again for a while, to a minimum of until the end of your next turn. This can lead to a lot more tactical decisions.
Seems more like Artificer than Rune Knight
its interesting/odd to me that after the remaster thankfully made it so easy to make nonverbal/mute spellcaster characters, runesmith uses premaster style "strong clear voice" langauge that prevents that. I get that it fits the "speaking true names" flavour/lore of the class, but it still feels notable.
Hmm, the same language allowing you to have a mute spellcaster so that mute characters can be represented is general table advice in the books, so it should be applicable to this as well methinks
The speaking clearly doesn't need clarification. It's verbal components, not auditory
The potential damage output of this class at level 1 is crazy high and easily consistent (Potential average of 25 1st round alpha strike, and consistent average of 18 with just minimal equipment)
The focus on damage is disappointing and there should be more utility based runes
Additional rune tiers at 5 and 13 or something would be great too, just to feel the variety.
I do agree. I'd really like more support runes. With how small the repetoire is, I thought it would really be a choice between the big boom damage and being a good support, but it kinda isn't. The support that is there is _nice,_ but it isn't enough to justify giving up 2d6 per rank of damage. Some more support runes to make the choice harder or to make going pure damage just a bit more painful would be really nice
And utility runes too! I'd love the Runesmith to be a great out of combat class. I'm already coping with the Atryl and Ranshu (Fire and Thunder) being able to be etched on objects and being able to damage those objects, thus allowing you to demolish walls and structures. Makes you a very good demolitionist in a game when you sometimes just want the wonders of civilization and modern engineering to stop bothering you for a bit
@@StarryxNight5 Exactly, and i dont think its hard to consider some basic support runes by basing them off some of the lower level spells out there. Runes for water walking or breathing, Jump, longstrider, Heck maybe even something like a toned down "Rune of sustenance"
"other better ideas"
Tailwind?
Does runesinging seem to be dragon shouts (skyrim) to anyone else.
Being able to apply effects to enemies without a saving throw seems a bit strong.
On the one hand, it's no different from a cantrip (1 action to trace, 1 to invoke)
But it does raise my eyebrows when you're in melee and theoretically can trace 5 against foes and invoke all of them over the course of 2 turns.
I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again, I think the Runesmith should be Wis based.
The problem is that crafting is an int Skill and this class is all about crafting runes. They would have to let it use WIS modified for crafting
I think it works for INT, but man I would love to see a WIS-based martial (Cleric and Eldrich Trickster don't count). I personally would've loved Commander to be a INT/WIS/CHA martial, I think that would've been cool.
I want a Wisdom based martial too. My thought is a class called a Warden that can gain the abilities of different animals. Similar to 1e Hunter without the animal companion focus.
In terms of Runesmith, I understand it being Int based due to the crafting skill. But if they allow the option of Wisdom base and you can use that modifier for Crafting, I would be very happy
@ Yeah, there’s a DnD hombrewer on GMbinder called LaserLlama that let their Commander class use Int/Wis/Cha based on a Pact Boon style choice
why
why woudl it be wisdom?
The only reasoning i can see is "we need more wis classes"
The original sin of 4e, beyond WotC’s initial mismanagement of D&D by having a new edition every 3-4 years, was a failure of diegesis. Roleplaying games by their nature have the potential to be the most diegetic game ever devised. Their entire concept is built around the interplay of asking “What do YOU do” and then coming up with rules that make the most sense for however the player answers. 4e threw all of that out the window. Why can my fighter only hit this guy for free under these conditions once per day? There’s literally no in-universe answer for that question. That 4e design crashed and burned amongst the community because it also carried the name of D&D and asked the community to take all their characters/worlds/stories and transfer that to a game system that didn’t care about the ‘why’ of its mechanics.
Obviously magic doesn’t have this problem because…it’s magic.
The success of these newer classes that draw upon supernatural abilities is that it allows the game makers to tap into all this design space without also throwing out the less explicitly magic martial characters that are so well established both in the game’s history as well as in fiction. Ronald’s point about how the action economy enables all these disparate fantasies to coexist is extremely insightful. 35:08
That is not true as many many many RPGs are not “diegetic”. We have a ton with Fate and Powered by the Apocalypse being some of the biggest ones.
I would say it was a problem for 4e, though there were other issues as well.
I'd only mention that PF2 does call for a lot of suspension of disbelief as well (Battle Medicine being so easy AND it having a daily cooldown being one of them). PF2 is just a bit better at hiding the "gaminess" of it
@@Nastara How would you say PbtA is not diegetic? I played Dungeon World and I thought the entire system was narrative first, and the point was keeping you within the narrative of the world.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG For a lot of people narrative first is not seen as diegetic because it leans on making things happen because of genre and not because simulation. Same with mechanics that let you “spawn” lore. Dungeon World’s equivalent perception check is very explicit about it being a vehicle and opportunity to change the situation on the spot thanks to a new detail being noticed. Or the bard’s being able to create a town because the bard in universe knows a town exists.
When the game has explicit mechanics for such things it breaks the illusion for the simulationists out in the audience.
I have extremely high tolerance to non-diegetic mechanics, abilities that allow players to create lore, and meta currencies. I love them to death because it leads to better genre simulation.
4e’s complaints about gamey powers are incredible for people like me who enjoy rules in a game that say: this is the effect, what that means in the narrative is up to you. I view encounter and daily powers as deciding impactful moments in a narrative and seizing an opportunity in a conflict. Goku doesn’t spam Kamehameha the entire fight. And his Super Kamehameha is a daily power because he’s only using it once. Otherwise the narrative of the fight is damaged.
I like reading pathfinder classes to see if there is anything unique to steal and homebrew into my D&D games. And with the Necromancer and Runesmith I'm just not seeing it. Runes of "gain bonus on attacks here", "bonus AC there" are actually mechanically boring. The necromancer has cool concepts of always having thralls out and sacrificing them. But that in itself faces the problem of one player with way too many tokens on the board. the only thing that looked fun was Inevitible Return, the ability to create an instant undead minion when a creature dies, and some of the unique thrall types you can get could have some uses. But you do not need an entirely new class to incorporate these concepts.
That's a core difference between DnD and PF2e. DnD subclasses can change a lot about how a class plays, whereas subclasses in PF2e are surface level benefits, a few additional actions maybe, and feat access down the line. To unlock a whole new play space of character concepts, PF2e needs new classes.
Because of the 4 spell lists, instead of class based spell lists, if you added a bunch of thrall summoning spells, in DnD you could have those spells only accessible to a subclass, via granted spells. Whereas in PF2e, they're accessible to any class with access to that spell list - that is - unless you make them Focus Spells, which for the most part are locked to that class (or that class archetype).
For example, Runesmith is similar to 5e Rune Knight Fighter subclass, if we were to make Runesmith a Fighter Class Archetype, we would lose out on the depth and range of feats the full class has, so it needs to be a full class to explore the concept properly. We have archetypes, but no true dual classing without variant rules
Why does every video turn into “D&D sucks and here’s why”??? It’s genuinely off putting
I don't recall this video doing that, may have just glossed it over, could you timestamp a moment of what you're talking about?
Why do content creators do it? Well, from my experience, all my videos that mention D&D are clicked on more, engaged with more, etc. My channel literally is BUILT on comparing the two systems. So it works.
And based on people joining my Discord, I literally get ~20 people thanking for me comparing the systems for every 1 complaining that I make the comparison.
@@emdivine I don't compare them in the video (though I should have lol). I put D&D in the title because algorithm
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG I thought the comment looked reactionary, so I asked them to say something specific and they didn't come back about it ;)
@@emdivine Look at the title 😅