Apologies if this is the wrong place for this post, it seemed to be the most fitting though.
I'm playing a barbarian in a homebrew campaign and really enjoying the class. Been talking with the DM a bit about progression and mentioned that the rune knight looks fun and I really like the flavor of it, and that I might multiclass into fighter to get access to it. He responded saying that he'd be cool with it just being another archetype option for the barbarian class. We went up to level 2 at the end of last session.
My question is, would that be balanced? Neither he (at least I don't think) nor I have much experience tinkering with classes like that and it makes me worry about game balance. We've already discussed re-working some of the runes, or straight up making new ones that make sense with the world, so some of the redundancies or complications from some of the runs (I think the hill rune gives you resistance to normal weapon damage like rage does) could be worked out.
I have zero issues multiclassing into fighter, hell, some of the features are pretty damn appealing, but I've also been digging the barbarian. The character does have a motivation to become a fighter, so it makes sense (to me at least) why they would do so. The biggest issue with that would be delaying the extra attack feature, which I know is a big bump in power for the martial classes, but I've made my peace with that.
Barbarian subclasses get features at 3rd, 6th, 10th, and 14th level. Fighter subclasses get features at 3rd, 7th, 15th, and 18th level — and I’ll be assuming the fighter and barbarian subclasses are balanced with one another for the moment (which they aren’t).
Now, the slight bump from a 7th or 15th-level feature to a 6th or 14th-level feature wouldn’t be an issue (very much), but it’s the 18th-level feature that concerns me. If perhaps you were willing to simply let go of the 18th-level feature, there wouldn’t really be an issue.
Then there’s the problem of the balancing of the subclasses. Problem is, fighter subclasses simply aren’t balanced to fit barbarian ones. The only way to accurately decide their balance is through playtesting. A lot of it. I’m guessing you don’t have the time or people for it.
Bottom line, talk to your DM to decide what it is that makes the Rune Knight unbalanced against, say, the Storm Herald or the Totem Warrior, and fix it, change the 7th and 15th-level features to 6th and 14th-level features — and probably drop the possibility of an 18th-level feature.
Appreciate the response. Hadn't even noticed the level difference of when the classes get new features. Really just thinking I'll multiclass and save myself and the DM a headache.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Apologies if this is the wrong place for this post, it seemed to be the most fitting though.
I'm playing a barbarian in a homebrew campaign and really enjoying the class. Been talking with the DM a bit about progression and mentioned that the rune knight looks fun and I really like the flavor of it, and that I might multiclass into fighter to get access to it. He responded saying that he'd be cool with it just being another archetype option for the barbarian class. We went up to level 2 at the end of last session.
My question is, would that be balanced? Neither he (at least I don't think) nor I have much experience tinkering with classes like that and it makes me worry about game balance. We've already discussed re-working some of the runes, or straight up making new ones that make sense with the world, so some of the redundancies or complications from some of the runs (I think the hill rune gives you resistance to normal weapon damage like rage does) could be worked out.
I have zero issues multiclassing into fighter, hell, some of the features are pretty damn appealing, but I've also been digging the barbarian. The character does have a motivation to become a fighter, so it makes sense (to me at least) why they would do so. The biggest issue with that would be delaying the extra attack feature, which I know is a big bump in power for the martial classes, but I've made my peace with that.
Here’s what I’ve got.
Barbarian subclasses get features at 3rd, 6th, 10th, and 14th level. Fighter subclasses get features at 3rd, 7th, 15th, and 18th level — and I’ll be assuming the fighter and barbarian subclasses are balanced with one another for the moment (which they aren’t).
Now, the slight bump from a 7th or 15th-level feature to a 6th or 14th-level feature wouldn’t be an issue (very much), but it’s the 18th-level feature that concerns me. If perhaps you were willing to simply let go of the 18th-level feature, there wouldn’t really be an issue.
Then there’s the problem of the balancing of the subclasses. Problem is, fighter subclasses simply aren’t balanced to fit barbarian ones. The only way to accurately decide their balance is through playtesting. A lot of it. I’m guessing you don’t have the time or people for it.
Bottom line, talk to your DM to decide what it is that makes the Rune Knight unbalanced against, say, the Storm Herald or the Totem Warrior, and fix it, change the 7th and 15th-level features to 6th and 14th-level features — and probably drop the possibility of an 18th-level feature.
Come participate in the Competition of the Finest Brews, Edition XXVIII?
My homebrew stuff:
Spells, Monsters, Magic Items, Feats, Subclasses.
I am an Archfey, but nobody seems to notice.
Extended Signature
Appreciate the response. Hadn't even noticed the level difference of when the classes get new features. Really just thinking I'll multiclass and save myself and the DM a headache.