So with the updates from Tasha - some interesting changes to Runeknight. But this one just confuses me:
Giant’s Might
3rd-level Rune Knight feature
You have learned how to imbue yourself with the might of giants. As a bonus action, you magically gain the following benefits, which last for 1 minute:
Once on each of your turns, one of your attacks with a weapon or an unarmed strike can deal an extra 1d6 damage to a target on a hit.
(I've removed the other benefits)
Anyone else think the change from +D6 to weapon attacks (all attacks) when enlarged, to 1 attack a turn, makes no sense? If you're bigger, your weapon doesn't just do a bit more damage on one attack than the other? (and as it's per turn, any reaction attacks, like AoO get the +D6)
The enlarge spell is all attacks. As does Hunters Mark etc. Okay they are concentration to lose, but this is a limited class ability.
It just doesn't make sense to me? If you're big, and your weapons are big...nope = the weapons grows and then shrinks?
(if it was a power thing, it could have always been changed to a D4, to match the spell?)
Its a balance thing. *shrugs* You can't really compare it to Enlarge, considering the latter is a Concentration spell, which comes with its own host of drawbacks and restrictions. You compare Enlarge to other spells like Magic Weapon. Meanwhile, you compare Giant's Might to, say, Colossus Slayer.
Does it make perfect sense from a strictly narrative perspective? Not really. But its a price for more balanced mechanics, and something that your suspension of disbelief will have to take on.
I mean, I would have preferred a lower damage per hit before more damage per hit to balance it out, but they went this way.
I'm really not a fan of "once per turn" damage boosts on classes with multiple attacks.. it just feels kinda lame.. I would've prefered lowering the die aswell... It's especially unstafisfying because certain sublass features for the rune knight are mostly just about the die increasing a step.. which isn't very impactful at all when it's once per turn.
The "Great Stature" feature at lvl 10 literally only only increases your die and then an entirely cosmetic upgrade.. I think the rune knight's starting features are really interesting, but "Great stature" feels like it should be a minor side benefit instead being the entirety of what you get at lvl 10.
The designers seem to be fixating on a single and potentially larger damage boost rather rather than small amounts on every attack. This is happening with many of the mew features from different classes. Ranger, fighter, barbarian, rogue, even the warlock.
from a mechanical standpoint, it allows the player to be potent, but limits how ridiculous your die rolls can be for tipping combat in a negative or positive way.
Dm throws horde mode at you, your PCs will be able to reliable make work of them without killing them too quickly. Dm throws big bad at you with high AC? Your more likely to miss most of your attacks, but one of your attacks will hurt quite a bit more. We see this to an extreme degree with the rogues design.
I can definitely understand not getting behind that flavor. I try to look at it like it's a matter of power vs stamina. The magic gives you power, but the body is new to you and you can't use your mass as effectively as a someone that is always that size. This was definitely done for balance though, not because it matches the idea of a Rune Knight perfectly.
There are actually very few class abilities that give a small bonus to every attack you make in a round (even pre Tasha's). It's not something they do often. Barbarian is probably the easiest example. But that doesn't effect ranged attacks and they wanted Giant's Might to effect those. I guess this was the balance they decided to strike
Great Stature is easily my least favorite feature on the class. A cute ribbon ability and bumping bonus damage from 1d6 only one die size to a 1d8. It's so lame. Waiting 7 levels for that kind of scaling is just sad.
Even core mechanics of DnD like HP and AC make no sense. You either learn to suspend your disbelief when the system changes things for the sake of balance or simplicity, or move to more realistic and complicated systems.
One of the fundamental rules in D&D has always been that a larger size means more damage. While this need not be linear (an ancient red dragon's attacks use 2 dice despite being gargantuan) nor does it come with only benefits (easier to get swarmed, lowered AC in older editions), this rule has held true. Enlarge/reduce may only grant a d4 to attack damage, but the fact remains that it followed that rule.
UA's d6 bonus to all attacks was definitely too powerful for tier 1 or 2, but to knock it down to only once per round makes zero sense. I think we all agree that Great Stature is mediocre, so it ought to be fine to replace it with UA's Giant's Might, nerfed to use d4 to keep it in check, and buffing it to 2d4 when you eventually become huge at level 18. Rune Knights already get a bunch of passive and active features from its runes, so Giant's Might shouldn't really be needed at level 3.
Giant's Might is a long rest feature; Colossus Slayer is passive. It should feel strong, but somebody dropped the ball here.
It definitely feels like something is off when you are told that your giant-power-imbued warrior can only increase damage on 1 attack during your turn. I'm surprised they didn't try out reducing the damage increase to a flat +1 damage per attack. That would reduce the amount of dice rolling, saves time, and really limits crit roll damage spikes.
Anyway, the main benefit of Giant's Might is clearly supposed to be the Runes you access and the ability to grapple Huge creatures, both of which are useful for people who like to multi-class. A lot of folks can see the potential for Barbarian and Monk multi-classes here, which I guess feeds into the devs' fear of adding 1d4 for every attack at 3rd level.
Alternatively if you want actual damage relative to your size you can try the following:
1. Locate a creature that is large and has their own weapon sized for them, like an ogre or half-ogre
2. Take their weapon from them through any means necessary
3. Before combat, place said weapon on the ground next to you
4. Use Giants Might to become Large
5. Pick up the weapon from the ground, as it wasn't on your person it will be the same size except you are now large enough to wield it effectively, allowing you to double the dice rolled on damage rolls
6. The DM chimes in at this point "I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be proficient in 'Large' weapons, regardless of your new size, so I won't allow it"
7. You, being the annoying rules lawyer you are, state that "Ackchually it says in the Create a Monster section in the DMG that any creature can wield any size weapon provided the weapon isn't 2 sizes larger than the creature. If the weapon is 1 size larger than the creature has disadvantage with attack rolls using it, but as my character is now large, they can wield it normally"
8. The DM, annoyed that he is having yet another argument about games mechanics, responds "Well as you grab it, the weapon becomes 1 size larger, so you'll still have disadvantage on the attack"
9. You, once again dealing with your DM's insistence that you be not allowed to have fun, point out that "It doesn't say in Tasha's that anything you grab becomes larger, would you make it so if I tried to move a boulder out the way it would grow as well, or if I grab a door would it suddenly burst off its hinges as it grew too big"
10. The Ranger, whose been waiting patiently for his chance to shoot the Bugbear, intervenes "For Christ sake Greg, just let him use the sword he's been carrying for the last 3 sessions!", once again praying that your argument doesn't derail yet another session.
11. The DM relents, you feel victorious in having the DM see sense, after all, following the rules makes the game more balanced and fun. The Ranger, your new best friend, shoots his crossbow and misses, he punch's the table, annoyed that he'd waited all that time to achieve nothing. You go next, you managed to hit the Bugbear, you grab 2 d10's to roll for damage, suddenly you remember "Akkkkkchually if we go by 'Rules as Written', I also get to add a d6 to my first damage roll this turn as well". Suddenly the room erupts in noise.
12. An argument proceeds to occur, the words 'Not what the designers intended' and 'Unbalanced' are thrown up quite a bit. You point out the bullsh*t amount of damage the Sorlock deals, suddenly dragging him off his phone and into the argument. "I spent 20 hours making this campaign!", "Chris, can you cut this sh*t out!?!" and "The UA version was much better" are just some of the comments made, alongside rants about Power Players and comparisons to Matt Mercer.
13. Everyone settles down, you kindly agree to not add the d6 (Even though you were well in your rights to) in order to allow the game to progress.
14. Later in the session a dragon steals your large sword. When you try to replace it, you find the blacksmiths aren't skilled enough to make a sword that big 'apparently' and there are a distinct lack of ogres and half-ogres in the sessions that follow.
Or the GM tells you that the extra damage for an ogre's oversized club is a property of the ogre and not the club, and that you as a player character don't get that effect for the same reason that Bugbear PCs have different racial traits than Bugbear NPCs. Any further argument results in your character being spontaneously crushed under a cow that falls from the sky.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Flat damage is an option but then its pretty much just Rage at that point.
Rune knight already shares a ton of mechanical design space with barbarian so why not go full in on it?
Funny how Brute was lambasted for being too close to barbarian but Rune Knight gets Rage (Giant's Might) and the Damage Resistances of Rage (Hill Giant) but was cool somehow.
Flat damage is an option but then its pretty much just Rage at that point.
Rune knight already shares a ton of mechanical design space with barbarian so why not go full in on it?
Funny how Brute was lambasted for being too close to barbarian but Rune Knight gets Rage (Giant's Might) and the Damage Resistances of Rage (Hill Giant) but was cool somehow.
I think the problem with Brute was that it was as simplistic as the Champion Fighter but it was better in pretty much every way.
Flat damage is an option but then its pretty much just Rage at that point.
Rune knight already shares a ton of mechanical design space with barbarian so why not go full in on it?
Funny how Brute was lambasted for being too close to barbarian but Rune Knight gets Rage (Giant's Might) and the Damage Resistances of Rage (Hill Giant) but was cool somehow.
I think the problem with Brute was that it was as simplistic as the Champion Fighter but it was better in pretty much every way.
Yeah I wish they had just given the Champion some flat damage options in Tasha's instead of the criticals. Also instead of the 7th level feature you get the brute die to saves CON mod number of times per short rest. Would have been a better champion X10.
Flat damage is an option but then its pretty much just Rage at that point.
Rune knight already shares a ton of mechanical design space with barbarian so why not go full in on it?
Funny how Brute was lambasted for being too close to barbarian but Rune Knight gets Rage (Giant's Might) and the Damage Resistances of Rage (Hill Giant) but was cool somehow.
The big difference here is that the hill rune doesn't become a factor until level 7, while Rage is a level 1 feature. It also competes with Giant's Might in the action economy, whereas Rage gets both benefits at once. Another issue was that the level 3 benefit of the Brute was exactly the same as the Champion's.
Personally, I wouldn't take the hill rune for both balance and lore reasons.
Flat damage is an option but then its pretty much just Rage at that point.
Rune knight already shares a ton of mechanical design space with barbarian so why not go full in on it?
Funny how Brute was lambasted for being too close to barbarian but Rune Knight gets Rage (Giant's Might) and the Damage Resistances of Rage (Hill Giant) but was cool somehow.
The big difference here is that the hill rune doesn't become a factor until level 7, while Rage is a level 1 feature. It also competes with Giant's Might in the action economy, whereas Rage gets both benefits at once. Another issue was that the level 3 benefit of the Brute was exactly the same as the Champion's.
Personally, I wouldn't take the hill rune for both balance and lore reasons.
Ultimately it does share 99% of that mechanical space regardless of how effective it is to activate them. Its a hard mirror of rage effects mechanically.
Also Brute 3rd level was not the same as Champion....it was the Brute Dice vs Improved Critical for Champion.
Last I recalled, the UA Brute fighter increased the crit chance at 3rd and later granted a bonus damage die on a crit. Was it updated? I honestly don't recall that brute die chart...
The issue I see with the brute die is that it applies to every damaging attack passively. Given how many attacks fighters make, that's too strong. Colossus Slayer only procs once per turn passively, and Rage requires using a long rest resource to utilize its damage bonus.
Last I recalled, the UA Brute fighter increased the crit chance at 3rd and later granted a bonus damage die on a crit. Was it updated? I honestly don't recall that brute die chart...
The issue I see with the brute die is that it applies to every damaging attack passively. Given how many attacks fighters make, that's too strong. Colossus Slayer only procs once per turn passively, and Rage requires using a long rest resource to utilize its damage bonus.
Actually if you do the math the Battlemaster is actually ahead most of the time due to the "normal" approach to the game (1-2 encounters between rests) the Battlemaster is comfortably ahead in average damage:
Its not until the third attack ( level 11) that the Brute pulls ahead. At level 15 the brute bursts ahead with the crazy critical bonus they got.
Overall its actually in line or weaker than current classes damage output.
Brute also gives up literally all out combat benefits that Battlemaster now enjoys with Tasha's as they can add die to a variety of things that allow them to be more rounded even outside of combat.
So its not too powerful...and even if it was I would 100% be ok with that as that is the entire point of the subclass at the cost of everything else.
Rage running out is not an issue that comes up to Barbarians it seems....I have never seen it happen at my table and I have never seen people complain about it when discussing the class. I looked at the first 3 pages of the barbarian forum section with no threads addressing this as a concern. While this does not represent all tables it is surely a decent sounding board for common concerns of which Rage is not one.
Colossus slayer procs only once a turn but the Ranger has ways of proc'ing damage on every attack (Hunters Mark) so its balanced against that.
Overall it was a better champion which I think people did not like but seemingly are ok with changing the beastmaster to make it better but not the champion...not sure why.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So with the updates from Tasha - some interesting changes to Runeknight. But this one just confuses me:
(I've removed the other benefits)
Anyone else think the change from +D6 to weapon attacks (all attacks) when enlarged, to 1 attack a turn, makes no sense? If you're bigger, your weapon doesn't just do a bit more damage on one attack than the other? (and as it's per turn, any reaction attacks, like AoO get the +D6)
The enlarge spell is all attacks. As does Hunters Mark etc. Okay they are concentration to lose, but this is a limited class ability.
It just doesn't make sense to me? If you're big, and your weapons are big...nope = the weapons grows and then shrinks?
(if it was a power thing, it could have always been changed to a D4, to match the spell?)
This would really hurts any 2WF!
And everyone when you get extra attack.
Or am I just complaining about nothing?
Its a balance thing. *shrugs* You can't really compare it to Enlarge, considering the latter is a Concentration spell, which comes with its own host of drawbacks and restrictions. You compare Enlarge to other spells like Magic Weapon. Meanwhile, you compare Giant's Might to, say, Colossus Slayer.
Does it make perfect sense from a strictly narrative perspective? Not really. But its a price for more balanced mechanics, and something that your suspension of disbelief will have to take on.
I mean, I would have preferred a lower damage per hit before more damage per hit to balance it out, but they went this way.
I'm really not a fan of "once per turn" damage boosts on classes with multiple attacks.. it just feels kinda lame.. I would've prefered lowering the die aswell... It's especially unstafisfying because certain sublass features for the rune knight are mostly just about the die increasing a step.. which isn't very impactful at all when it's once per turn.
The "Great Stature" feature at lvl 10 literally only only increases your die and then an entirely cosmetic upgrade.. I think the rune knight's starting features are really interesting, but "Great stature" feels like it should be a minor side benefit instead being the entirety of what you get at lvl 10.
The designers seem to be fixating on a single and potentially larger damage boost rather rather than small amounts on every attack. This is happening with many of the mew features from different classes. Ranger, fighter, barbarian, rogue, even the warlock.
from a mechanical standpoint, it allows the player to be potent, but limits how ridiculous your die rolls can be for tipping combat in a negative or positive way.
Dm throws horde mode at you, your PCs will be able to reliable make work of them without killing them too quickly. Dm throws big bad at you with high AC? Your more likely to miss most of your attacks, but one of your attacks will hurt quite a bit more. We see this to an extreme degree with the rogues design.
I can definitely understand not getting behind that flavor. I try to look at it like it's a matter of power vs stamina. The magic gives you power, but the body is new to you and you can't use your mass as effectively as a someone that is always that size. This was definitely done for balance though, not because it matches the idea of a Rune Knight perfectly.
There are actually very few class abilities that give a small bonus to every attack you make in a round (even pre Tasha's). It's not something they do often. Barbarian is probably the easiest example. But that doesn't effect ranged attacks and they wanted Giant's Might to effect those. I guess this was the balance they decided to strike
Great Stature is easily my least favorite feature on the class. A cute ribbon ability and bumping bonus damage from 1d6 only one die size to a 1d8. It's so lame. Waiting 7 levels for that kind of scaling is just sad.
Technically because it says "once on each of your turns" it won't work on AoO's.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Even core mechanics of DnD like HP and AC make no sense. You either learn to suspend your disbelief when the system changes things for the sake of balance or simplicity, or move to more realistic and complicated systems.
One of the fundamental rules in D&D has always been that a larger size means more damage. While this need not be linear (an ancient red dragon's attacks use 2 dice despite being gargantuan) nor does it come with only benefits (easier to get swarmed, lowered AC in older editions), this rule has held true. Enlarge/reduce may only grant a d4 to attack damage, but the fact remains that it followed that rule.
UA's d6 bonus to all attacks was definitely too powerful for tier 1 or 2, but to knock it down to only once per round makes zero sense. I think we all agree that Great Stature is mediocre, so it ought to be fine to replace it with UA's Giant's Might, nerfed to use d4 to keep it in check, and buffing it to 2d4 when you eventually become huge at level 18. Rune Knights already get a bunch of passive and active features from its runes, so Giant's Might shouldn't really be needed at level 3.
Giant's Might is a long rest feature; Colossus Slayer is passive. It should feel strong, but somebody dropped the ball here.
It definitely feels like something is off when you are told that your giant-power-imbued warrior can only increase damage on 1 attack during your turn. I'm surprised they didn't try out reducing the damage increase to a flat +1 damage per attack. That would reduce the amount of dice rolling, saves time, and really limits crit roll damage spikes.
Anyway, the main benefit of Giant's Might is clearly supposed to be the Runes you access and the ability to grapple Huge creatures, both of which are useful for people who like to multi-class. A lot of folks can see the potential for Barbarian and Monk multi-classes here, which I guess feeds into the devs' fear of adding 1d4 for every attack at 3rd level.
Good spot!
Alternatively if you want actual damage relative to your size you can try the following:
1. Locate a creature that is large and has their own weapon sized for them, like an ogre or half-ogre
2. Take their weapon from them through any means necessary
3. Before combat, place said weapon on the ground next to you
4. Use Giants Might to become Large
5. Pick up the weapon from the ground, as it wasn't on your person it will be the same size except you are now large enough to wield it effectively, allowing you to double the dice rolled on damage rolls
6. The DM chimes in at this point "I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be proficient in 'Large' weapons, regardless of your new size, so I won't allow it"
7. You, being the annoying rules lawyer you are, state that "Ackchually it says in the Create a Monster section in the DMG that any creature can wield any size weapon provided the weapon isn't 2 sizes larger than the creature. If the weapon is 1 size larger than the creature has disadvantage with attack rolls using it, but as my character is now large, they can wield it normally"
8. The DM, annoyed that he is having yet another argument about games mechanics, responds "Well as you grab it, the weapon becomes 1 size larger, so you'll still have disadvantage on the attack"
9. You, once again dealing with your DM's insistence that you be not allowed to have fun, point out that "It doesn't say in Tasha's that anything you grab becomes larger, would you make it so if I tried to move a boulder out the way it would grow as well, or if I grab a door would it suddenly burst off its hinges as it grew too big"
10. The Ranger, whose been waiting patiently for his chance to shoot the Bugbear, intervenes "For Christ sake Greg, just let him use the sword he's been carrying for the last 3 sessions!", once again praying that your argument doesn't derail yet another session.
11. The DM relents, you feel victorious in having the DM see sense, after all, following the rules makes the game more balanced and fun. The Ranger, your new best friend, shoots his crossbow and misses, he punch's the table, annoyed that he'd waited all that time to achieve nothing. You go next, you managed to hit the Bugbear, you grab 2 d10's to roll for damage, suddenly you remember "Akkkkkchually if we go by 'Rules as Written', I also get to add a d6 to my first damage roll this turn as well". Suddenly the room erupts in noise.
12. An argument proceeds to occur, the words 'Not what the designers intended' and 'Unbalanced' are thrown up quite a bit. You point out the bullsh*t amount of damage the Sorlock deals, suddenly dragging him off his phone and into the argument. "I spent 20 hours making this campaign!", "Chris, can you cut this sh*t out!?!" and "The UA version was much better" are just some of the comments made, alongside rants about Power Players and comparisons to Matt Mercer.
13. Everyone settles down, you kindly agree to not add the d6 (Even though you were well in your rights to) in order to allow the game to progress.
14. Later in the session a dragon steals your large sword. When you try to replace it, you find the blacksmiths aren't skilled enough to make a sword that big 'apparently' and there are a distinct lack of ogres and half-ogres in the sessions that follow.
That is an oddly specific story.
Or the GM tells you that the extra damage for an ogre's oversized club is a property of the ogre and not the club, and that you as a player character don't get that effect for the same reason that Bugbear PCs have different racial traits than Bugbear NPCs. Any further argument results in your character being spontaneously crushed under a cow that falls from the sky.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Flat damage is an option but then its pretty much just Rage at that point.
Rune knight already shares a ton of mechanical design space with barbarian so why not go full in on it?
Funny how Brute was lambasted for being too close to barbarian but Rune Knight gets Rage (Giant's Might) and the Damage Resistances of Rage (Hill Giant) but was cool somehow.
I think the problem with Brute was that it was as simplistic as the Champion Fighter but it was better in pretty much every way.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Yeah I wish they had just given the Champion some flat damage options in Tasha's instead of the criticals. Also instead of the 7th level feature you get the brute die to saves CON mod number of times per short rest. Would have been a better champion X10.
The big difference here is that the hill rune doesn't become a factor until level 7, while Rage is a level 1 feature. It also competes with Giant's Might in the action economy, whereas Rage gets both benefits at once. Another issue was that the level 3 benefit of the Brute was exactly the same as the Champion's.
Personally, I wouldn't take the hill rune for both balance and lore reasons.
Ultimately it does share 99% of that mechanical space regardless of how effective it is to activate them. Its a hard mirror of rage effects mechanically.
Also Brute 3rd level was not the same as Champion....it was the Brute Dice vs Improved Critical for Champion.
Last I recalled, the UA Brute fighter increased the crit chance at 3rd and later granted a bonus damage die on a crit. Was it updated? I honestly don't recall that brute die chart...
The issue I see with the brute die is that it applies to every damaging attack passively. Given how many attacks fighters make, that's too strong. Colossus Slayer only procs once per turn passively, and Rage requires using a long rest resource to utilize its damage bonus.
Actually if you do the math the Battlemaster is actually ahead most of the time due to the "normal" approach to the game (1-2 encounters between rests) the Battlemaster is comfortably ahead in average damage:
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?547187-Clearing-up-the-Brute-s-Damage#:~:text=The Battlemaster deals exactly 0,using the PAM bonus attack.
Its not until the third attack ( level 11) that the Brute pulls ahead. At level 15 the brute bursts ahead with the crazy critical bonus they got.
Overall its actually in line or weaker than current classes damage output.
Brute also gives up literally all out combat benefits that Battlemaster now enjoys with Tasha's as they can add die to a variety of things that allow them to be more rounded even outside of combat.
So its not too powerful...and even if it was I would 100% be ok with that as that is the entire point of the subclass at the cost of everything else.
Rage running out is not an issue that comes up to Barbarians it seems....I have never seen it happen at my table and I have never seen people complain about it when discussing the class. I looked at the first 3 pages of the barbarian forum section with no threads addressing this as a concern. While this does not represent all tables it is surely a decent sounding board for common concerns of which Rage is not one.
Colossus slayer procs only once a turn but the Ranger has ways of proc'ing damage on every attack (Hunters Mark) so its balanced against that.
Overall it was a better champion which I think people did not like but seemingly are ok with changing the beastmaster to make it better but not the champion...not sure why.