That's the problem with the UA Runecrafter (and no, it's not just the name, though it should be Runecaster); mechanically it's just too generic to the point it doesn't specifically fit the Wizard any better than Artificer or Sorcerer, either of which would still arguably fit better thematically. Either it needs to be made more of a Wizard sub-class (and justify its theme better), or it should become a sub-class for one of the casters that it fits better; it would require almost no modification to fit Artificer, who needs more sub-classes anyway, and only minor changes to fit Sorcerer, which also has fewer sub-classes than Wizard.
From my perspective, a system of runic magic where the power is coming from the runes only really makes sense as a subclass for a warlock, a class specifically built around the idea that your magic comes from an external source
- it's weird for a wizard to be tacking extra bells and whistles onto their carefully studied spells, and for other wizards not to be able to do it if all it takes is study to learn how - it's weird for a sorcerer to be supplementing their internal magic with external runes - it's weird for an artificer, because slapping a rune on any old thing you have lying around in no way seems comparable to brewing potions or making constructs -- y'know, actual artificing
I'm not sure Warlock is any better as a fit, as it's very specifically described as a patron or a pact, so who are you making the deal with, an alphabet? It's also not as if the power is coming from someone or something else, it's still magic as we understand it, it's just that the runes enable/help to manipulate it.
I also don't see how it's "weird" for a sorcerer to supplement their internal magic? While a sorcerer's control over magic is innate, the power still comes from the Weave like most other spellcasters, so really all they'd be doing is giving themseleves an additional way to manipulate the Weave using runes on top of what already comes (un)naturally to them.
And for Artificers it's not weird; they're not "slapping a rune on any old thing" any more than they're "slapping an infusion on any old thing". Both are about augmenting items, though in its current form the "Runecrafter" isn't tied to any, you could at least assume that the runes that an Artifcer is manipulating for the mechanical effects were something they have crafted in a way not dissimilar to their infusions.
I should add that my desire is not for "Runecrafter" to be transplanted onto Artificer as-is with only minor changes (to the Arcane Recovery connection), my point was that mechanically it would function just as well on pretty much any caster. If it were to be reworked as an Artificer sub-class I'd expect some major changes to tie it into the Artificer class more, same I would like to see on Sorcerer if they gave it to them instead.
Really it's the same complaint I have about Wizard; mechanically the "Runecrafter" doesn't justify why it's a Wizard sub-class rather than something else, and it does a terrible job of justifying why thematically as well. If they made more clearly belong (both mechanically and thematically) as a Wizard sub-class I wouldn't mind so much, but they haven't. That's my criticism of the UA. I have a similar criticism of the Circle of I want a T-Rex, as it feels too much like it should just be a Beast Master Ranger option.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
That's the problem with the UA Runecrafter (and no, it's not just the name, though it should be Runecaster); mechanically it's just too generic to the point it doesn't specifically fit the Wizard any better than Artificer or Sorcerer, either of which would still arguably fit better thematically. Either it needs to be made more of a Wizard sub-class (and justify its theme better), or it should become a sub-class for one of the casters that it fits better; it would require almost no modification to fit Artificer, who needs more sub-classes anyway, and only minor changes to fit Sorcerer, which also has fewer sub-classes than Wizard.
From my perspective, a system of runic magic where the power is coming from the runes only really makes sense as a subclass for a warlock, a class specifically built around the idea that your magic comes from an external source
- it's weird for a wizard to be tacking extra bells and whistles onto their carefully studied spells, and for other wizards not to be able to do it if all it takes is study to learn how - it's weird for a sorcerer to be supplementing their internal magic with external runes - it's weird for an artificer, because slapping a rune on any old thing you have lying around in no way seems comparable to brewing potions or making constructs -- y'know, actual artificing
I'm not sure Warlock is any better as a fit, as it's very specifically described as a patron or a pact, so who are you making the deal with, an alphabet?
I thought runes weren't "just" an alphabet
Regardless, it's an external source, however you want to flavor it. Make it a knowledge-based entity. Make it a sentient alphabet or library if you want. Some definite fantasy equivalents to classic cyberpunk tropes down that path
And for Artificers it's not weird; they're not "slapping a rune on any old thing" any more than they're "slapping an infusion on any old thing".
Infusions aren't the basis for an entire subclass. Every artificer subclass to date has been based around making a specific type of thing -- alchemist makes potions, armorer makes fancy armor, artillerist makes a big cannon, battle smith makes a construct. Per the mechanical rules 5e has provided for runes, you don't "make" runes, you add them to other things. If you're saying runes are the same as infusions, then all you've done is provided another way to flavor your infusions, and if you want a subclass that's just souped-up infusions, there's absolutely no reason for it to be specifically rune-based
I know y'all want new artificer subclasses, but this ain't it
my point was that mechanically it would function just as well on pretty much any caster. If it were to be reworked as an Artificer sub-class I'd expect some major changes to tie it into the Artificer class more, same I would like to see on Sorcerer if they gave it to them instead.
And my point is that runes, as they've been introduced into 5e, don't make much sense on any caster class, but they at least fit the existing template for a warlock patron
The Tal'Dorei Reborn book has a rune-based sorcerer subclass, the Runechild, but it's presented very differently than Runecrafter. It's not "different runes have different effects, but you only have access to a limited number of them, because Reasons"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
They're not "just" an alphabet; but they are magical symbols that when inscribed give the bearer the means to control the Weave.
Regardless, it's an external source, however you want to flavor it. Make it a knowledge-based entity. Make it a sentient alphabet or library if you want. Some definite fantasy equivalents to classic cyberpunk tropes down that path
Warlocks are granted powers by an external entity, but there is no entity as such with runes, the "external source" would be magic itself. You could try to argue a patron who bestows knowledge of the runes, or maybe even the runes themselves, but then it's not really a pact as understood in D&D, as the entity itself isn't really granting you its powers at all.
Infusions aren't the basis for an entire subclass. Every artificer subclass to date has been based around making a specific type of thing -- alchemist makes potions, armorer makes fancy armor, artillerist makes a big cannon, battle smith makes a construct. Per the mechanical rules 5e has provided for runes, you don't "make" runes, you add them to other things. If you're saying runes are the same as infusions, then all you've done is provided another way to flavor your infusions, and if you want a subclass that's just souped-up infusions, there's absolutely no reason for it to be specifically rune-based
I'm not saying runes are exactly like infusions, but they're also not unlike them either; an Artificer with knowledge of how to inscribe runes could place them on objects, bestowing powers to themselves or others. Mechanically this is a lot like infusions, which is why if anyone should have them it's the class that basically operates in a similar way already, but they're also not infusions either, they're runes. Just as sigils aren't glyphs, even though they're basically the same thing as well.
A "Runecrafter" Artificer's "thing" would be whatever those runes enable them to do that infusions don't; if we're talking about just transplanting the current UA onto a different class with minimal changes, then this works perfectly well. The new "thing" is the Artificer learning to inscribe some runes at 3rd-level, and gaining the ability to change their spells as a result. Maybe they add some more effects, let the Artificer swap them out during a long rest (to represent the "crafting", at least as far as anything for Artificer actually does) and you've got an Artificer sub-class.
If we're talking major changes then if the runes are in addition to infusions then that can either mean more items with new magical effects, or if they can optionally be placed on already infused (or magical) items then it could mean new additional effects, i.e- their "thing" would be stronger or more plentiful infusions. There's no reason that an Artificer sub-class can't double down on something an Artificer is already good at.
And my point is that runes, as they've been introduced into 5e, don't make much sense on any caster class, but they at least fit the existing template for a warlock patron
I just don't see it; if they don't fit Artificer, Sorcerer or Wizard then they definitely don't fit Warlock any better either IMO.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I'm placing my internet money on a Dawn War/Nentir Vale campaign guide, but I thought Tasha's Cauldron of Afterthoughts was going to be a Planescape book so 🤷♂️
So are we thinking that this UA will be for a "First World" setting book?
That'd be cool.
I wouldn't complain if giants received the "Fizban's Treasury of Dragons" treatment, and received their own sourcebook.
"Anaam's Ordning of Giants", or "Secrets of Lost Ostoria", for example.
It would easily provide the first chapters alone..."Subclasses" and "Feats".
Spells...Magic Items...and an expanded selection of Monsters would be logical additions.
Speculation, of course...but it would be interesting to see what sorts of creatures Giants would have as mounts or enemies (aside from dragons, of course).
It's possible if enough people agree with us on this we might see the opposite of what happened when the Archivist Artificer became the Order of Scribes Wizard.
I'm pessimistic enough to think it's not remotely likely... but it's possible.
i've no idea why people want the runes to be artificer, it doesn't fit thematically or mechanically
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
i've no idea why people want the runes to be artificer, it doesn't fit thematically or mechanically
If you'd like to know why, then you've got 8 pages of reading to do. 😉
i have, and im yet to read a convincing argument
I’m pretty sure if they had called the Wiz a “Runecaster” or something instead of a “Runecrafter” it wouldn’t have sparked people to argue for it to be an Artificer.
1. They put “crafting” in the subclass name (which was inaccurate to the actual features, and very much an Artificer “thing”).
2. They gave the Wizard something similar to metamagic, which some felt was unfair to the Sorcerer.
3. The Wizard has too many subclasses
4. Wizards have subclasses appropriate to their schools of magic, and several intended for specific play styles, accounting for the number similar to Clerics.
5. Artificer has too few subclasses.
6. The Runecrafter subclass does not get to use it’s features frequently enough.
7. The Runecrafter features are too strong.
8. The Runecrafter features are too flawed.
9. Artificers can put runes on their gadgets, items, or apparal
Edit: nvm getting off the subject a bit.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I'm not sure Warlock is any better as a fit, as it's very specifically described as a patron or a pact, so who are you making the deal with, an alphabet? It's also not as if the power is coming from someone or something else, it's still magic as we understand it, it's just that the runes enable/help to manipulate it.
I also don't see how it's "weird" for a sorcerer to supplement their internal magic? While a sorcerer's control over magic is innate, the power still comes from the Weave like most other spellcasters, so really all they'd be doing is giving themseleves an additional way to manipulate the Weave using runes on top of what already comes (un)naturally to them.
And for Artificers it's not weird; they're not "slapping a rune on any old thing" any more than they're "slapping an infusion on any old thing". Both are about augmenting items, though in its current form the "Runecrafter" isn't tied to any, you could at least assume that the runes that an Artifcer is manipulating for the mechanical effects were something they have crafted in a way not dissimilar to their infusions.
I should add that my desire is not for "Runecrafter" to be transplanted onto Artificer as-is with only minor changes (to the Arcane Recovery connection), my point was that mechanically it would function just as well on pretty much any caster. If it were to be reworked as an Artificer sub-class I'd expect some major changes to tie it into the Artificer class more, same I would like to see on Sorcerer if they gave it to them instead.
Really it's the same complaint I have about Wizard; mechanically the "Runecrafter" doesn't justify why it's a Wizard sub-class rather than something else, and it does a terrible job of justifying why thematically as well. If they made more clearly belong (both mechanically and thematically) as a Wizard sub-class I wouldn't mind so much, but they haven't. That's my criticism of the UA. I have a similar criticism of the Circle of I want a T-Rex, as it feels too much like it should just be a Beast Master Ranger option.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I thought runes weren't "just" an alphabet
Regardless, it's an external source, however you want to flavor it. Make it a knowledge-based entity. Make it a sentient alphabet or library if you want. Some definite fantasy equivalents to classic cyberpunk tropes down that path
Infusions aren't the basis for an entire subclass. Every artificer subclass to date has been based around making a specific type of thing -- alchemist makes potions, armorer makes fancy armor, artillerist makes a big cannon, battle smith makes a construct. Per the mechanical rules 5e has provided for runes, you don't "make" runes, you add them to other things. If you're saying runes are the same as infusions, then all you've done is provided another way to flavor your infusions, and if you want a subclass that's just souped-up infusions, there's absolutely no reason for it to be specifically rune-based
I know y'all want new artificer subclasses, but this ain't it
And my point is that runes, as they've been introduced into 5e, don't make much sense on any caster class, but they at least fit the existing template for a warlock patron
The Tal'Dorei Reborn book has a rune-based sorcerer subclass, the Runechild, but it's presented very differently than Runecrafter. It's not "different runes have different effects, but you only have access to a limited number of them, because Reasons"
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Warlocks are granted powers by an external entity, but there is no entity as such with runes, the "external source" would be magic itself. You could try to argue a patron who bestows knowledge of the runes, or maybe even the runes themselves, but then it's not really a pact as understood in D&D, as the entity itself isn't really granting you its powers at all.
I'm not saying runes are exactly like infusions, but they're also not unlike them either; an Artificer with knowledge of how to inscribe runes could place them on objects, bestowing powers to themselves or others. Mechanically this is a lot like infusions, which is why if anyone should have them it's the class that basically operates in a similar way already, but they're also not infusions either, they're runes. Just as sigils aren't glyphs, even though they're basically the same thing as well.
A "Runecrafter" Artificer's "thing" would be whatever those runes enable them to do that infusions don't; if we're talking about just transplanting the current UA onto a different class with minimal changes, then this works perfectly well. The new "thing" is the Artificer learning to inscribe some runes at 3rd-level, and gaining the ability to change their spells as a result. Maybe they add some more effects, let the Artificer swap them out during a long rest (to represent the "crafting", at least as far as anything for Artificer actually does) and you've got an Artificer sub-class.
If we're talking major changes then if the runes are in addition to infusions then that can either mean more items with new magical effects, or if they can optionally be placed on already infused (or magical) items then it could mean new additional effects, i.e- their "thing" would be stronger or more plentiful infusions. There's no reason that an Artificer sub-class can't double down on something an Artificer is already good at.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
The Survey's up! Here's the link:
https://survey.alchemer.com/s3/6879299/D-D-UA-Survey-61-Giant-Options
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Survey took
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
So are we thinking that this UA will be for a "First World" setting book?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I'm placing my internet money on a Dawn War/Nentir Vale campaign guide, but I thought Tasha's Cauldron of Afterthoughts was going to be a Planescape book so 🤷♂️
That'd be cool.
I wouldn't complain if giants received the "Fizban's Treasury of Dragons" treatment, and received their own sourcebook.
"Anaam's Ordning of Giants", or "Secrets of Lost Ostoria", for example.
It would easily provide the first chapters alone..."Subclasses" and "Feats".
Spells...Magic Items...and an expanded selection of Monsters would be logical additions.
Speculation, of course...but it would be interesting to see what sorts of creatures Giants would have as mounts or enemies (aside from dragons, of course).
My guess is a Prehistoric campaign setting that might double as the First World/Dawn War 5e supplement.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Jurassic Park theme plays on the Lute
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I really really hope they wont nerf the giant option for the barbarian subclass and wont ruin it like they ruined the dragon monk.
{Nevermind. This was already discussed, I just forgot lol}
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
why?
druid is a bit weak
i've no idea why people want the runes to be artificer, it doesn't fit thematically or mechanically
If you'd like to know why, then you've got 8 pages of reading to do. 😉
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
i have, and im yet to read a convincing argument
I’m pretty sure if they had called the Wiz a “Runecaster” or something instead of a “Runecrafter” it wouldn’t have sparked people to argue for it to be an Artificer.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
1. They put “crafting” in the subclass name (which was inaccurate to the actual features, and very much an Artificer “thing”).
2. They gave the Wizard something similar to metamagic, which some felt was unfair to the Sorcerer.
3. The Wizard has too many subclasses
4. Wizards have subclasses appropriate to their schools of magic, and several intended for specific play styles, accounting for the number similar to Clerics.
5. Artificer has too few subclasses.
6. The Runecrafter subclass does not get to use it’s features frequently enough.
7. The Runecrafter features are too strong.
8. The Runecrafter features are too flawed.
9. Artificers can put runes on their gadgets, items, or apparal
10. Needs more runes.
I…I think that’s the summary of it.