No one said that Wizard has a higher claim, only that all casters use runes not just Artificers.
Also the argument has nothing to do with whether Artificers need a new subclass or not. It is about whether they need THIS subclass. Nothing about this subclass makes it a better option for Artificer over Wizard.
I'm not even arguing the thing you seem to think I'm arguing. You asked me "why would they need a "rune" subclass?"
I answered. Neither class needs THIS subclass. They'd both get along fine without it.
Wizard can have the Runecrafter (it should have a more fitting name).
No one said that Wizard has a higher claim, only that all casters use runes not just Artificers.
Also the argument has nothing to do with whether Artificers need a new subclass or not. It is about whether they need THIS subclass. Nothing about this subclass makes it a better option for Artificer over Wizard.
I'm not even arguing the thing you seem to think I'm arguing. You asked me "why would they need a "rune" subclass?"
I answered. Neither class needs THIS subclass. They'd both get along fine without it.
Wizard can have the Runecrafter (it should have a more fitting name).
"Artificers are about imbuing the magic in the mundane. They'd fit with runes just perfectly fine."
This lead me down the path I am currently on. I agree with this statement. BUT my point is they already "use runes" to do everything they currently do. A specific Rune based subclass seems unnecessary when every Artificer ALREADY can do it without having to sacrifice the features of another subclass for it. If they make a new Artificer subclass (which I hope they do) I would want it to be more creative than simply doubling down on what they already do.
Literally the only reason people start saying that the subclass should have be an Artificer is because the name has "crafter' in it. The subclass doesn't "craft" anything at all.
Neither does an Artificer most of the time; they touch something and it becomes magical. The "crafting" part of Artificer is figuring it out in the first place, if they could learn how to harness runes to do it then it fully makes sense that they would.
Artificers use a variety of tools to channel their arcane power. To cast a spell, an artificer might use alchemist’s supplies to create a potent elixir, calligrapher’s supplies to inscribe a sigil of power, or tinker’s tools to craft a temporary charm. The magic of artificers is tied to their tools and their talents, and few other characters can produce the right tool for a job as well as an artificer.
Your argument was that the Runecrafter features don't involving "crafting", remember? My point is that neither do a lot of the Artificer features, so this quote isn't the gotcha you seem to think it is, as most of the Artificer features tend to be instantaneous or "during a rest" at most, so not much in the way of actual crafting required either.
Secondly, runes presumably need to be inscribed somehow as well, so you haven't actually established why "crafter" being in the name isn't relevant. The flavour text mentioning that a "scribble" is good enough is an insanely weak justification in the UA, as it utterly devalues the runes if a child drawing on the walls in crayon could unleash the powers of a storm giant.
The features also don't tie into the Wizard class enough that they couldn't easily be transplanted to another class; the only link really is Arcane Recovery, and that could easily be tweaked. There is nothing about the sub-class features that demand that they be based on Wizard, and there is nothing about Wizard that makes it the best fit for rune casting.
Rune Knights, though they don't get any form of regular magic, still specifically mention tying runes to equipment, and that's basically an Artificers entire deal. Of all the classes available, Runecrafter (or Runecaster or whatever you want to call it) fits the Artificer better, though I'd settle for Sorcerer, I just don't think Wizard is the right fit at all. And that's separate from the fact that Wizard already has plenty of sub-classes already.
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.
As an artificer, you use tools when you cast your spells. When describing your spellcasting, think about how you’re using a tool to perform the spell effect. If you cast cure wounds using alchemist’s supplies, you could be quickly producing a salve. If you cast it using tinker’s tools, you might have a miniature mechanical spider that binds wounds. When you cast poison spray, you could fling foul chemicals or use a wand that spits venom. The effect of the spell is the same as for a spellcaster of any other class, but your method of spellcasting is special.
The same principle applies when you prepare your spells. As an artificer, you don’t study a spellbook or pray to prepare your spells. Instead, you work with your tools and create the specialized items you’ll use to produce your effects. If you replace cure wounds with heat metal, you might be altering the device you use to heal—perhaps modifying a tool so that it channels heat instead of healing energy.
Such details don’t limit you in any way or provide you with any benefit beyond the spell’s effects. You don’t have to justify how you’re using tools to cast a spell. But describing your spellcasting creatively is a fun way to distinguish yourself from other spellcasters.
The entire premise of the Artificer is the creation of items using tools to cause the various effects of the Class/Subclass instead of standard casting. Most Artificer features are tied to crafting in some form or another, including spellcasting since Artificers can't cast without tools.
"Creating an experimental elixir requires you to have alchemist’s supplies on your person"
"Your metallurgical pursuits have led to you making armor a conduit for your magic. As an action, you can turn a suit of armor you are wearing into Arcane Armor, provided you have smith’s tools in hand."
"You've learned how to create a magical cannon. Using woodcarver’s tools or smith’s tools, you can take an action to magically create a Small or Tiny eldritch cannon..."
Is it mostly cosmetic and RP? Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that the theme of the class is that of a adventuring crafter.
The theme of the "Runecrafter" (terrible name) isn't crafting related.
When you choose this subclass, you learn how to amplify your magic through the application of various runes. Your knowledge of these runes is stored in your spellbook, though you determine the runes’ cosmetic appearance. For example, your runes could be engraved into the cover of your spellbook, glowing whenever you cast a spell, or you could work the shape and meaning of the runes directly into a spell’s somatic and verbal components.
Physical manifestation of these runes are not required in any way beyond the "knowledge of these runes is stored in your the spellbook."
Could there be a Runecrafter subclass for Artificer? Yes, but I have covered that concept in other posts.
While I agree that Wizard has enough subclasses, especially compared to the poor Artificer, I don't see any reason to make a Runecrafter an Artificer. Runes are a more primal form of Magic and or Divination, not constructing machines or potions. Making it a class on its own is a better solution, not that that is going to happen, but I can dream.
Artificers aren't just "constructing machines or potions". Their whole base concept is imbuing objects with magic, whether that be a potion, set of armor, a weapon/cannon, or a construct. Which, historically, has been the main use of runes in fantasy (especially D&D 5e, just take a look at Storm King's Thunder).
And in D&D terms, runes really aren't "primal". Sure, they are "primitive", but in D&D, those really aren't synonymous. Druids, Rangers, and Barbarians are "primal", but not necessarily "primitive". Runes are primitive "without" necessarily being "primal".
Euhm hard disagree on the Fantasy part. Seidr is associated with Divination and poetry. So a Skald Bard would fit better than an artificer. Heck, even a Cleric would fit better. The way runes have been used in DnD is as a shortcut to bypass scholarly Wizardry. And is a Primal form of Magic. I would say it would have been the first written form of Magic in some settings. Where a concept i.e. a spell is captured by a Runic representation.
. . . What does Seidr have to do with runes other than being a Norse version of witchcraft? The Wikipedia article says that it was more connected to chanting/singing than drawing/carving runes. So, yes, a "Seidr" subclass would definitely fit a Bard. You could already play a Seidr character with the existing Bard subclasses (College of Lore? Or Spirits?). And the concept of "runes as a source of magic" has evolved a lot in the past 1,000 years.
And, again, "primal" and "primitive" really haven't been synonyms in D&D since 4e. "Primal" is more of a power source (even though it's not a thing in 5e) for Barbarians, Druids, and Rangers, while "primitive" is just a description.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
No one said that Wizard has a higher claim, only that all casters use runes not just Artificers.
How do Runes fit any caster? That's a dumb claim. The only two casting classes that would have anything to do with drawing/inscribing runes are Wizards and Arftificers. Druids, Clerics, Bards, Sorcerers, Paladins, Rangers, and Warlocks all would fit a "Runecaster" worse than both Artificers and Wizards. I'll admit that Artificers and Wizards fit the theme of "using drawn/carved runes to channel magic" about equally. However, the Order of the Scribes already fulfills that pretty well and having another wizard subclass that focuses on writing magical symbols seems redundant. Artificers don't have one of those yet, as their subclasses are very specialized.
Also the argument has nothing to do with whether Artificers need a new subclass or not. It is about whether they need THIS subclass. Nothing about this subclass makes it a better option for Artificer over Wizard.
No class in the game needs more subclasses. All of them function just fine with their current array of subclasses. However, Artificers do need a new subclass more than a Wizard does, especially when the Wizard just got a subclass (which it stole from the Artificer, I'll note) that fills most of the thematic niche that this subclass does.
No one said that Wizard has a higher claim, only that all casters use runes not just Artificers.
How to Runes fit any caster? That's a dumb claim. The only two casting classes that would have anything to do with drawing/inscribing runes are Wizards and Arftificers. Druids, Clerics, Bards, Sorcerers, Paladins, Rangers, and Warlocks all would fit a "Runecaster" worse than both Artificers and Wizards.
Per DMG: "The character must also be a spellcaster with spell slots and must be able to cast any spells that the item can produce." Creating a magic item is not limited to just Artificers or Wizards, just spellcasters. Marking an item with runes is a common trope attached to empowering magical items.
Edit: Also, how does the Rune Knight work into your idea that only Artificers and Wizards should be using runes?
No one said that Wizard has a higher claim, only that all casters use runes not just Artificers.
How to Runes fit any caster? That's a dumb claim. The only two casting classes that would have anything to do with drawing/inscribing runes are Wizards and Arftificers. Druids, Clerics, Bards, Sorcerers, Paladins, Rangers, and Warlocks all would fit a "Runecaster" worse than both Artificers and Wizards.
Per DMG: "The character must also be a spellcaster with spell slots and must be able to cast any spells that the item can produce." Creating a magic item is not limited to just Artificers or Wizards, just spellcasters. Marking an item with runes is a common trope attached to empowering magical items.
Can you please provide the context for where that quote is? Just a single sentence doesn't explain much.
And the fact that anyone can make magic items doesn't invalidate the fact that Wizards and Artificers just fit that role better than anyone else.
Edit: Also, how does the Rune Knight work into your idea that only Artificers and Wizards should be using runes?
Oh, that is not what I said. I specified "casters" when saying that Wizards and Artificers fit Rune Magic the best. Rune Knights are not casters. Fighters are trained warriors. I'm fine with them getting rune magic because they train for their abilities. Clerics do not train. Bards do train but focus on verbal sources of magic, not written/carved. Druids do not train, Paladins and Rangers only train for their martial abilities, Sorcerers don't train, and Warlocks bargain (which would work with runes if it's an Odin situation).
Fighters are fine with getting Rune Powers because they're training to get their abilities, like Eldritch Knights, Arcane Archers, and Psi Knights.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Can you please provide the context for where that quote is? Just a single sentence doesn't explain much.
And the fact that anyone can make magic items doesn't invalidate the fact that Wizards and Artificers just fit that role better than anyone else.
Crafting a Magic Item
Magic items are the DM’s purview, so you decide how they fall into the party’s possession. As an option, you can allow player characters to craft magic items.
The creation of a magic item is a lengthy, expensive task. To start, a character must have a formula that describes the construction of the item. The character must also be a spellcaster with spell slots and must be able to cast any spells that the item can produce. Moreover, the character must meet a level minimum determined by the item’s rarity, as shown in the Crafting Magic Items table. For example, a 3rd-level character could create a wand of magic missiles (an uncommon item), as long as the character has spell slots and can cast magic missile. That same character could make a +1 weapon (another uncommon item), no particular spell required.
You can decide that certain items also require special materials or locations to be created. For example, a character might need alchemist’s supplies to brew a particular potion, or the formula for a flame tongue might require that the weapon be forged with lava.
If any caster can make magic items, any caster can use runes to do so.
Oh, that is not what I said. I specified "casters" when saying that Wizards and Artificers fit Rune Magic the best. Rune Knights are not casters. Fighters are trained warriors. I'm fine with them getting rune magic because they train for their abilities. Clerics do not train. Bards do train but focus on verbal sources of magic, not written/carved. Druids do not train, Paladins and Rangers only train for their martial abilities, Sorcerers don't train, and Warlocks bargain (which would work with runes if it's an Odin situation).
Fighters are fine with getting Rune Powers because they're training to get their abilities, like Eldritch Knights, Arcane Archers, and Psi Knights.
How are Paladins and Rangers not trained warriors like a Fighter. And as far as Clerics are concerned, are you aware of the Forge Domain? How is a the College of Lore not trained in written magic? Also, exactly what do you think sheet music is if not written forms of music? Poetry? Plays?
Also, runes are nothing more than an alphabet used before Latin took it's place. Anyone that can learn to read and write can learn how to use runes.
Early examples and uses
The oldest runic inscriptions found to date are from around 150 AD, while runes were used by many Germanic communities from the 1 or 2 century AD. Runes began to be replaced with Latin characters once Christianity began to take hold between 700-1100 AD, though their practical use persisted for some decorative and specialized purposes for sometime after.
The three most well known runic alphabets are the Scandinavian ‘Elder Futhark’ (150-800AD) and ‘Younger Futhark’ (800-1100 AD) and the Anglo-Saxon ‘Futhorc’ (400-1100 AD). The Anglo-Saxon form differs in name due to a shift in the sound when pronounced in Old English. The Younger Futhark is also subdivided into several branches and developed into the Medieval and Dalecarlian Runes as time went on.
The Younger Futhark was widely spread and examples have been found around 3,000 times in Scandinavia and other Viking Age settlements. The Elder Futhark is thought to have been a more secretive script, know by a much fewer literate elite (only about 350 inscriptions have been found).
Between 650 to 800 AD, some inscriptions mixed the use of Elder and Younger Futhark runes.
Fun fact: The Swedish province of Dalarna (where the Dalecarlian runes persisted until the 20 century) has been called the ‘last stronghold of the Germanic script’.
The word ‘rune’
The name ‘rune’ is derived from the Germanic root ‘run’ (Gothic ‘runa’), to mean ’whisper’ or ‘secret’. Similarly, in Old Irish Gaelic, ‘run’ also means ‘secret’ as well as ‘mystery’ or ‘intention’ and in Old English and Welsh, 'rūn' and 'rhin' mean ‘mystery’, ‘secret’ or ‘secret writing’ - fitting, considering the mystery and power that runes (and language as a whole) have been considered to wield throughout history, and an insight into why they may have been looked upon to wield magical properties too.
In other cultures, the root ‘run’ means ‘’speech’’ in some Baltic languages, while ‘runoti’ (Lithuanian) means ‘’to speak’’ or ‘’to cut with a knife’’ – we imagine their ancestors must have had some sharp tongues and wits indeed!
Another theory is that the root of ‘rune’ comes from the root ‘reuə’ ('dig’) in Indo-European language, while the Finnish term for rune (‘riimukirjain’) means ‘scratched letter’ and ‘runo’, which originates from a similar source to the English ‘rune’ means ‘poem’ – a word borrowed from the Proto-Germanic ‘rūnō’, which means ‘letter’, ‘literature’ or ‘secret’.
No wonder Tolkien was inspired by the runic alphabet for the languages he forged for The Lord of the Rings. If we imagine runes as the physical embodiment of secrets and intention, it’s not hard to imagine them having fantastical properties – bringing mystery, power, protection and a certain magic that lies beneath to the world in a more physical form; especially when, during early history, the written word was mastered by far fewer people than it is now. Those that became adept in it were not only able to speak power into the world, but carry it with them too.
Per DMG: "The character must also be a spellcaster with spell slots and must be able to cast any spells that the item can produce." Creating a magic item is not limited to just Artificers or Wizards, just spellcasters. Marking an item with runes is a common trope attached to empowering magical items.
This doesn't make the case for why Runecrafter should be Wizard for some reason; you're grasping at straws for why it shouldn't be Artificer, but you can't justify why it should be Wizard instead. People have given far more reasons why Artificer or Sorcerer would be a better fit, and you've spent your time trying to undermine them rather than making your own case for Wizard.
Nothing mechanically or thematically makes it a better fit for Wizard, and you're not likely to change people's minds about that.
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.
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.
Oh, that is not what I said. I specified "casters" when saying that Wizards and Artificers fit Rune Magic the best. Rune Knights are not casters. Fighters are trained warriors. I'm fine with them getting rune magic because they train for their abilities. Clerics do not train. Bards do train but focus on verbal sources of magic, not written/carved. Druids do not train, Paladins and Rangers only train for their martial abilities, Sorcerers don't train, and Warlocks bargain (which would work with runes if it's an Odin situation).
Fighters are fine with getting Rune Powers because they're training to get their abilities, like Eldritch Knights, Arcane Archers, and Psi Knights.
How are Paladins and Rangers not trained warriors like a Fighter.
Again. Didn't say that. Stop putting words in my mouth, please.
I noted that they were trained warriors, but they're not trained casters. Because they're not fully a "trained" class, I don't think they should get a Runic subclass. Wizards, Artificers, and Fighters are all "fully trained" for all of their abilities. No faith, oath swearing, or spiritual bindings with different aspects of nature involved in a Fighter, Wizard, or Artificer when they get their powers.
And as far as Clerics are concerned, are you aware of the Forge Domain?
Which get their magical abilities from their faith. Not from training.
How is a the College of Lore not trained in written magic?
Because their magic is still musical. Which is played or sung to produce their magic. Bards can't just write musical notes or poetry and get magic. They have to use an Arcane Focus (which often is an instrument).
Also, runes are nothing more than an alphabet used before Latin took it's place. Anyone that can learn to read and write can learn how to use runes.
Nope. I'm gonna stop you right there, because this is a red herring. Yep, Runes (in the real world) are just an alphabet. Not in D&D and most other fantasy worlds that specifically use runes. Runes have a mythical/magical connection in D&D. Giants use them to make magic items (as evidenced by Storm King's Thunder), Dwarves copied the giants to do the same thing (probably back when they were enslaved by them), and Runes have always had a magical connection in D&D. The real world origin for them doesn't matter because D&D is not the real world and it is rife with typical fantasy tropes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The whole who does this subclass really belong to has kind of gotten out of hand and might be best suited to either PM or its own thread.
Basically the entire point of releasing UA is to prompt a discussion of whether it would make sense as official content. So no, this is the right place
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)
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
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)
Per DMG: "The character must also be a spellcaster with spell slots and must be able to cast any spells that the item can produce." Creating a magic item is not limited to just Artificers or Wizards, just spellcasters. Marking an item with runes is a common trope attached to empowering magical items.
This doesn't make the case for why Runecrafter should be Wizard for some reason; you're grasping at straws for why it shouldn't be Artificer, but you can't justify why it should be Wizard instead. People have given far more reasons why Artificer or Sorcerer would be a better fit, and you've spent your time trying to undermine them rather than making your own case for Wizard.
Nothing mechanically or thematically makes it a better fit for Wizard, and you're not likely to change people's minds about that.
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.
I think you are not following the discussion between Third and I very well.
We are talking about
How to Runes fit any caster? That's a dumb claim. The only two casting classes that would have anything to do with drawing/inscribing runes are Wizards and Arftificers.
Which the rules of the DMG and Magic Item creation does not support. Unless you can find a rule somewhere that says that spellcasters can make magic items, but they can't involve runes. Which of course doesn't exist because nothing in D&D lore limits the use of runes to a specific class or race.
If we want to reference the real world mythology, then we have to use all the aspects of the mythology and the culture it came from. There are no Artificers in Norse mythology where magic was shamanistic and spiritual in nature. It was more Cleric or Druid than either Wizard or Artificer.
If we want to talk fantasy, Runes aren't limited in anyway to any specific type of caster. Nothing is because fiction can literally be anything the writer wants.
Also the concept that Rune Knight is some how better "Trained" is a laughable argument to make. Why would a subclass that can have an Intelligence and Wisdom of 3 without any loss of Runic ability, be considered "better trained" than any other class? The Rune Knight is keyed off of Constitution. If that is the stat that needs "training" then Barbarian would be the best class for Runes.
I am not making the argument that Runecrafter is a better Wizard subclass, WotC decided that it should be Wizard and I just happen to be ok with that. What I am arguing is that Artificer is in no way a better choice than any other class for having a Rune themed subclass. Nothing from mythology, D&D lore or rules supports that claim.
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
Honestly, I think there could be a strong argument made for a rune themed Warlock for much the same reason as Cleric or Druid as they all tap into an external source which most times are ancient in nature.
As for the Wizard part, delving into the "old magic" of runes seems fairly thematic to me, but I do agree that it could be better implemented as a subclass feature.
I kind of agree with the sorcerer thing, but a Giant Soul/Blood Sorcerer could be born with an innate understanding of "Giant Magic and Runes"
As for Artificer, I think that their infusions could be seen as allowing them to slap runes on things, but I agree that it doesn't really match the inventing or "artificing" aspect of the class.
Odd quirk of the wording I just noticed. The text for Giant Stature on the Path of the Giant Barbarian states:
Your reach increases by 5 feet, and if you are smaller than Large, you become Large, along with anything you are wearing. If there isn’t enough room for you to become Large, your size doesn’t change.
I thought the norm for an effect like this is that it's also applied to anything you are wearing and carrying. But this doesn't affect carried items. So this effect doesn't change the size of your weapons. Picture a level 14 Path of the Giant Barbarian wielding a greatsword that's the comparative size of a butter knife. Naturally, still two-handed because of weapon properties.
Though I just checked the Rune Knight and they have the same quirk for the size change in Giant's Might. It only specifies you and anything you are wearing, with no mention of carrying. However, the Rune Knight does get an extra 1d6 of weapon damage so there I think the increased damage is maybe supposed to account for size increased weapon similar to how it works with Enlarge/Reduce.
This is the main question I know will come up in my games. Does my Greataxe effectively become a hand axe?
Tbh I’m just looking forward to playing it for the fun RP this is going to create with my Dwarf Barbarian. I have a sweepstake going on the first party member to utter
“Nobody is getting tossed by the Dwarf…”
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm not even arguing the thing you seem to think I'm arguing. You asked me "why would they need a "rune" subclass?"
I answered. Neither class needs THIS subclass. They'd both get along fine without it.
Wizard can have the Runecrafter (it should have a more fitting name).
This lead me down the path I am currently on. I agree with this statement. BUT my point is they already "use runes" to do everything they currently do. A specific Rune based subclass seems unnecessary when every Artificer ALREADY can do it without having to sacrifice the features of another subclass for it. If they make a new Artificer subclass (which I hope they do) I would want it to be more creative than simply doubling down on what they already do.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Your argument was that the Runecrafter features don't involving "crafting", remember? My point is that neither do a lot of the Artificer features, so this quote isn't the gotcha you seem to think it is, as most of the Artificer features tend to be instantaneous or "during a rest" at most, so not much in the way of actual crafting required either.
Secondly, runes presumably need to be inscribed somehow as well, so you haven't actually established why "crafter" being in the name isn't relevant. The flavour text mentioning that a "scribble" is good enough is an insanely weak justification in the UA, as it utterly devalues the runes if a child drawing on the walls in crayon could unleash the powers of a storm giant.
The features also don't tie into the Wizard class enough that they couldn't easily be transplanted to another class; the only link really is Arcane Recovery, and that could easily be tweaked. There is nothing about the sub-class features that demand that they be based on Wizard, and there is nothing about Wizard that makes it the best fit for rune casting.
Rune Knights, though they don't get any form of regular magic, still specifically mention tying runes to equipment, and that's basically an Artificers entire deal. Of all the classes available, Runecrafter (or Runecaster or whatever you want to call it) fits the Artificer better, though I'd settle for Sorcerer, I just don't think Wizard is the right fit at all. And that's separate from the fact that Wizard already has plenty of sub-classes already.
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 entire premise of the Artificer is the creation of items using tools to cause the various effects of the Class/Subclass instead of standard casting. Most Artificer features are tied to crafting in some form or another, including spellcasting since Artificers can't cast without tools.
Is it mostly cosmetic and RP? Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that the theme of the class is that of a adventuring crafter.
The theme of the "Runecrafter" (terrible name) isn't crafting related.
Physical manifestation of these runes are not required in any way beyond the "knowledge of these runes is stored in your the spellbook."
Could there be a Runecrafter subclass for Artificer? Yes, but I have covered that concept in other posts.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
. . . What does Seidr have to do with runes other than being a Norse version of witchcraft? The Wikipedia article says that it was more connected to chanting/singing than drawing/carving runes. So, yes, a "Seidr" subclass would definitely fit a Bard. You could already play a Seidr character with the existing Bard subclasses (College of Lore? Or Spirits?). And the concept of "runes as a source of magic" has evolved a lot in the past 1,000 years.
And, again, "primal" and "primitive" really haven't been synonyms in D&D since 4e. "Primal" is more of a power source (even though it's not a thing in 5e) for Barbarians, Druids, and Rangers, while "primitive" is just a description.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
How do Runes fit any caster? That's a dumb claim. The only two casting classes that would have anything to do with drawing/inscribing runes are Wizards and Arftificers. Druids, Clerics, Bards, Sorcerers, Paladins, Rangers, and Warlocks all would fit a "Runecaster" worse than both Artificers and Wizards. I'll admit that Artificers and Wizards fit the theme of "using drawn/carved runes to channel magic" about equally. However, the Order of the Scribes already fulfills that pretty well and having another wizard subclass that focuses on writing magical symbols seems redundant. Artificers don't have one of those yet, as their subclasses are very specialized.
No class in the game needs more subclasses. All of them function just fine with their current array of subclasses. However, Artificers do need a new subclass more than a Wizard does, especially when the Wizard just got a subclass (which it stole from the Artificer, I'll note) that fills most of the thematic niche that this subclass does.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Per DMG: "The character must also be a spellcaster with spell slots and must be able to cast any spells that the item can produce." Creating a magic item is not limited to just Artificers or Wizards, just spellcasters. Marking an item with runes is a common trope attached to empowering magical items.
Edit: Also, how does the Rune Knight work into your idea that only Artificers and Wizards should be using runes?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Can you please provide the context for where that quote is? Just a single sentence doesn't explain much.
And the fact that anyone can make magic items doesn't invalidate the fact that Wizards and Artificers just fit that role better than anyone else.
Oh, that is not what I said. I specified "casters" when saying that Wizards and Artificers fit Rune Magic the best. Rune Knights are not casters. Fighters are trained warriors. I'm fine with them getting rune magic because they train for their abilities. Clerics do not train. Bards do train but focus on verbal sources of magic, not written/carved. Druids do not train, Paladins and Rangers only train for their martial abilities, Sorcerers don't train, and Warlocks bargain (which would work with runes if it's an Odin situation).
Fighters are fine with getting Rune Powers because they're training to get their abilities, like Eldritch Knights, Arcane Archers, and Psi Knights.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
If any caster can make magic items, any caster can use runes to do so.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
How are Paladins and Rangers not trained warriors like a Fighter. And as far as Clerics are concerned, are you aware of the Forge Domain? How is a the College of Lore not trained in written magic? Also, exactly what do you think sheet music is if not written forms of music? Poetry? Plays?
Also, runes are nothing more than an alphabet used before Latin took it's place. Anyone that can learn to read and write can learn how to use runes.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
This doesn't make the case for why Runecrafter should be Wizard for some reason; you're grasping at straws for why it shouldn't be Artificer, but you can't justify why it should be Wizard instead. People have given far more reasons why Artificer or Sorcerer would be a better fit, and you've spent your time trying to undermine them rather than making your own case for Wizard.
Nothing mechanically or thematically makes it a better fit for Wizard, and you're not likely to change people's minds about that.
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.
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.
Again. Didn't say that. Stop putting words in my mouth, please.
I noted that they were trained warriors, but they're not trained casters. Because they're not fully a "trained" class, I don't think they should get a Runic subclass. Wizards, Artificers, and Fighters are all "fully trained" for all of their abilities. No faith, oath swearing, or spiritual bindings with different aspects of nature involved in a Fighter, Wizard, or Artificer when they get their powers.
Which get their magical abilities from their faith. Not from training.
Because their magic is still musical. Which is played or sung to produce their magic. Bards can't just write musical notes or poetry and get magic. They have to use an Arcane Focus (which often is an instrument).
Nope. I'm gonna stop you right there, because this is a red herring. Yep, Runes (in the real world) are just an alphabet. Not in D&D and most other fantasy worlds that specifically use runes. Runes have a mythical/magical connection in D&D. Giants use them to make magic items (as evidenced by Storm King's Thunder), Dwarves copied the giants to do the same thing (probably back when they were enslaved by them), and Runes have always had a magical connection in D&D. The real world origin for them doesn't matter because D&D is not the real world and it is rife with typical fantasy tropes.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
The whole who does this subclass really belong to has kind of gotten out of hand and might be best suited to either PM or its own thread.
Basically the entire point of releasing UA is to prompt a discussion of whether it would make sense as official content. So no, this is the right place
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)
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
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)
My thread and I think this discussion is fairly relevant to the UA.
I think you are not following the discussion between Third and I very well.
We are talking about
Which the rules of the DMG and Magic Item creation does not support. Unless you can find a rule somewhere that says that spellcasters can make magic items, but they can't involve runes. Which of course doesn't exist because nothing in D&D lore limits the use of runes to a specific class or race.
If we want to reference the real world mythology, then we have to use all the aspects of the mythology and the culture it came from. There are no Artificers in Norse mythology where magic was shamanistic and spiritual in nature. It was more Cleric or Druid than either Wizard or Artificer.
If we want to talk fantasy, Runes aren't limited in anyway to any specific type of caster. Nothing is because fiction can literally be anything the writer wants.
Also the concept that Rune Knight is some how better "Trained" is a laughable argument to make. Why would a subclass that can have an Intelligence and Wisdom of 3 without any loss of Runic ability, be considered "better trained" than any other class? The Rune Knight is keyed off of Constitution. If that is the stat that needs "training" then Barbarian would be the best class for Runes.
I am not making the argument that Runecrafter is a better Wizard subclass, WotC decided that it should be Wizard and I just happen to be ok with that. What I am arguing is that Artificer is in no way a better choice than any other class for having a Rune themed subclass. Nothing from mythology, D&D lore or rules supports that claim.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Any word on the survey yet?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Honestly, I think there could be a strong argument made for a rune themed Warlock for much the same reason as Cleric or Druid as they all tap into an external source which most times are ancient in nature.
As for the Wizard part, delving into the "old magic" of runes seems fairly thematic to me, but I do agree that it could be better implemented as a subclass feature.
I kind of agree with the sorcerer thing, but a Giant Soul/Blood Sorcerer could be born with an innate understanding of "Giant Magic and Runes"
As for Artificer, I think that their infusions could be seen as allowing them to slap runes on things, but I agree that it doesn't really match the inventing or "artificing" aspect of the class.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Not that I have seen
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
This is the main question I know will come up in my games. Does my Greataxe effectively become a hand axe?
Tbh I’m just looking forward to playing it for the fun RP this is going to create with my Dwarf Barbarian. I have a sweepstake going on the first party member to utter
“Nobody is getting tossed by the Dwarf…”