I don't like Rune Knight

[Waazraath]

... B) I'm not really seeing the highlighted "number of builds" thing. Yes, RK adds a desired versatility to the Fighter, but by the end of the Class, you're choosing the one option you're not having that day, rather than the several you are. The pool of runes is very small and for a class that on the surface is offering a choice, it feels more restrictive than it perhaps actually is. Counterpoint it against the Totem Warrior Barbarian, even just the options from the PHB; there's 27 variations within the choices on offer over the course of the Class and while you only get to pick one of those suites of abilities and it's locked in once made, it's a great deal more variety of build than RK offers. Especially given how janky RK is. Let's face it, at level 3, I'd be willing to bet that most players are going to choose Cloud and Fire Runes and never look back on them because who doesn't want extra damage and one free Hammer Time per short rest? At 7th, most will choose Hill because they wanted to be a Barbarian. 10th Storm because Lore Bards and Diviners can't have all the fun messing with other peoples dice rolls and at 15th throw in Stone as "last picked" because Frost sucks by the time you're bothering to get it. Where's the build choice? ...

The build choice is not in the choice of runes (mainly) but in the options the subclass gives combined with other flexible parts (feats, race, multiclass).

For instance:
- go for heavy armor master, Hill rune (asap), and a source of temporary hp: combining these three features gives you a wicked tank, and something a barbarian can't do cause they can't use HAM.
- Pick a some stuff that improve grapple like the feat expertise: athletics, an option to start a grapple as a bonus action (Symic Hybrid or tavern brawler), or maybe a race that has fly so you can grapple and then drop enemies, and be an awesome grappler.
- max charisma, pick asap frost and cloud rune, maybe spend a feat on expertise, a suitable race like changeling, and be great face with advantage on deception and intimidation (in addition to being a fighter with a bunch of additional combat tricks).

I feel you can take the subclass in a number of different directions, where there is enough room to become really good at something (or focus on a non conventional niche) without your character suffering overtly on other dimensions of effectivity.

[stoutstien]

Weeeell, giving someone the ol' laaazy eye and sending them into a sleepy stupor definitely feels more like a singular case of eyebrow wiggling and swirly eyes than if it were a good old fashioned bonk on the head and compared to swinging your axe around and it being somewhat more flamey than a regular axe, being tougher and/or stronger than usual for a bit, or even passivley chaneling the foresight granted by a mystic rune you've had carved in your forehead helmet all day...the Stone Rune definitely feels more like a spell than the others to me.

Eh. Maybe everything and it's mother shouldn't be a spell so this wouldn't be an issue.
Creating magical flames that can shackle a foe is cool because the closest thing is probably ensnaring strike. The damage is ok but the ability to do something besides more damage is what makes RK stand out.

[Blatant Beast]

One day they'll be ready to hear me when I say rangers, barbarians, paladins and monks should all be fighters.

Chris Perkins has stated in interviews that he thinks the Barbarian could be a subclass of Fighter.
That stated, Warlocks, Sorcerers, and Barbarians have stand alone classes for around thirty years now.

Barbarians in 5e sorta fill the role of preternatural warrior, but so do Fighters, (Echo Knights, Psi Warriors, and Rune Knights). Paladins and Rangers fill the role of preternatural warriors that also use spells....but arguably so do Eldritch Knights, Arcane Tricksters and Sword Bards.

Monks are sufficiently different from medieval knights that a separate class seems warranted. If a Fighter can serve as a Monk, the character design system is going to be very, very different from D&D classes, and be more a point buy menu system.

[Amnestic]

One day they'll be ready to hear me when I say rangers, barbarians, paladins and monks should all be fighters.

I made a Paladin subclass for fighter and while it does its job well enough the necessity of making it a subclass means it's missing out on some key aspects (no Aura of Courage and no Find Steed, for instance). There's simply not enough of a subclass power budget to add everything in that people like as part of a 'Paladin', not without either taking away existing fighter features (what few they have) or by increasing the relative power of all other Fighter subclasses - which of course bleeds over into general class balance at that point.

While I'm here I'll shill my Barbarian Redux, which trades out standard Rage for a bunch of Vengeance skills, which you use by expending Vengeance Points, that in turn you earn by dealing and taking damage. Some are shamelessly stolen from other sources, like Find Potion/Item which I cribbed from the Diablo 2 barbarian. While there are explicitly magical Vengance skills like Phoenix Leap or Aspect of the Hells/Heavens, you could still build a completely 'mundane' barbarian that can, as a bonus action, throw a creature up to three sizes larger 60ft away from you.

It commits the same 'crime' as Rune Knight does though, with a bunch of bespoke little features that are relevant to it alone, rather than a wider subsystem, but that's fine. That just means it's definitely unique and can't be turned into a fighter subclass.

[Kane0]

I really appreciate these sorts of threads, kt does wonders for honing in on pain points when homebrewing

[sithlordnergal]

Title says it all really, but here's why.

1) Theme. The theme just feels a bit tacked on, very much as if it's a class designed from the abilities it offers and upward, rather than starting with the theme and working down.
- Why is studying the runecraft of giants a Fighter thing? Inscribing runes feels more like an Artificer thing. Study feels like a Wizard or Bard thing. Creature-feature themes feel more Druidic or Sorcerous and invoking Giants and/or their power and learning, spiritually or magically feels way more Barbarian or Warlock, generally speaking, than Fighter. Skill focus, which every rune offers, is more Rogue and Bard. Just about any Class but the Cleric or Monk would be a better fit, thematically, than Fighter.

So, I can see where you're coming from. It does feel like this could easily slip into an Artificer or Wizard subclass very easily. But here's my counterpoint, while the Rune Knight is learning some Magic, they are not mastering it like a Wizard might, and they aren't becoming an expert in the creation of Rune powered objects like an Artificer is. They're dipping their toes into a specific type of magic, similar to the Eldritch Knight.

Additionally, we have fighter Subclasses that use a minor amount of Magic, such as the Psi Warrior, Eldritch Knight, and Echo Knight. So a Fighter making simple use of magic is pretty on brand for the class.

- Why/how does it study the runes of multiple giant species, from the brutish and crude Hill Giant to the sophisticated and isolationist Storm Giant? Dragonborn and Draconic Sorcerers have to pick a lane and stick to it. Why are Fighter-Giants different, except that whoever designed it didn't put that much effort or care into actually theming their subclass?

I mean, this one is pretty easy, not gonna lie. Dragonborn, Draconic Sorcerers, and really Sorcerers in general, are all based off of things you inherit from birth. Where as Rune Carving is based on a language you can learn. In fact, Draconic Sorcerers are an outlier when compared to classes that let you choose things from a list. Consider the Totem Barbarian. At level 3, I can choose between the Bear, Eagle, Elk, Tiger, and Wolf, and gain different benefits from choosing one of them. However, I am not locked into those choices at later levels. I could choose Bear at level 3, Tiger at level 6, and Eagle at level 14. I'm not forced to choose Bear for levels 6 and 14. Warlock goes even further, being fully customizable with very few restrictions.

- Where do the runes go after a long rest? Just a nit-pick, really, but inscribing a rune feels like something pretty permanent. Painting a rune on, yeah, I can go with that as a temporary thing, but inscribing implies a degree of permanence. After all, how are you supposed to..."[find] the giant's work carved into a hill or cave" if they all disappear after a day? Why does the Rune Knight get to pick and choose which runes to use every day outside of "because magic" or "something something game design"?

This is why I said Rune Knights are simply dipping their toes into Rune Magic. They aren't mastering it the way a Wizard or Artificer would, and as a result their Runes don't last as long as a Wizard or Artificer's might. And they certainly haven't mastered it in the way an actual Giant Rune Carver has. Hence why their runes disappear after a long rest.

As for why they get to pick and choose which runes to use every day, keep in mind they only know a certain number of Runes. They also can't swap out the Runes they know, except when leveling up, similar to Bards and Sorcerers. Its really no different than when a Wizard decides to prepare a spell for the day. They can't just change what they picked every single day.

2) Skewey Balance. It just feels...off. There's some aspects that I could easily point at as blatant power creep or niche infringement on other Classes (if there is such a thing) and then there's other aspects that I look at and wonder why it's even there. For example, offering permanent advantage on 2-4 Skill proficiencies at level 3 is very good. Probably too good. Similarly, Cloud Rune is straight up just OP for 3rd level (and I rarely make that kind of statement). The closest other ability to Cloud Runes attack redirect I can think of is the Rogue Mastermind's Misdirection at 13th level and that comes with a heap of caveats and conditions. How is it redirecting that attack? Why doesn't it have a range limitation? Can it at least have a chance of failure? Too many questions on that one for my liking.

I don't think permanent advantage in a few skills is too good. Is it nice? Sure, but you also get the same effect by having another player help you. And according to page 175 of the PHB, there aren't really any requirements to help someone with a Skill Check. You could be completely untrained in a skill that uses your Dump Stat, and still give someone advantage on their check. The only reason more people don't do it is because they forget about it.


As for the extra abilities each rune grants, keep in mind you can only use them once per Short/Long Rest. You really can't spam them every single encounter, unless your DM is giving you a Short Rest after every encounter. And outside of the Cloud Rune, the abilities you can get are on par with what you'd find from 3rd level Subclass Abilities.

As for the Cloud Rune itself, I could see it being something you get at level 7. But outside of the low level, its actually on par with all of the other redirection abilities I can think of in the game. The Mastermind Rogue, Drunken Master Monk, and Redemption Paladin have attack redirection abilities:

- The Mastermind gets their ability at level 13, they have the weirdest requirement to use it since the creature they're next to has to provide cover, but they can spam it every turn. It doesn't cost them any resources to redirect an attack outside of their Reaction

- The Drunken Master gets their ability at level 6. They just need the attack to be melee and have another creature within 5 feet of them to use their redirect, but it costs 1 Ki Point. Easier to use then the Rogue, and they get it earlier, but they can't just spam it because they will run out of Ki eventually.

- The Redemption Paladin can redirect all damage to themselves taken by a creature within 10 feet of them at level 7, upgraded to 30 feet at level 18. They don't really have any requirements to fulfill if they want to redirect the damage, its just they are the ones taking the damage instead of choosing a different creature to be targeted. One of the easiest redirects in the game, and spammable like the Rogue, only downside is you take the damage. Redemption Paladins also have a sort of Counter in the Channel Divinity.

The Cloud Rune seems like a nice middle ground when you compare all of those. The only thing I can say is that it should be level 6 or 7 when you get it, not level 3. Its the easiest redirect to trigger, sure, and it has the largest range, but at the same time you can only use it once per Short Rest. And there's never a guarantee that you can Short Rest right after an encounter, so you might only be able to use it once every two or three encounters. I'd say that's a fair trade off for being easy to trigger. As for how it redirects, that's left up to how the player wants to describe it.

Then on the flipside, Runic Juggernaut increases your 1/turn damage (it's not even once per anyone's turn, only on your own turn) from 1d8 to 1d10. Yes, you finally get to be Huge too (which if you're interested in being so, spellcasters have been offering with Polymorph since level 7)...but a whole extra point of average damage on one attack per turn for a minute? As your 18th level subclass capstone? Steady the horses of light and dark there, we need some balance back in this subclass! Seriously? Even the Champion Fighter is getting something vaguely exciting at that level.

As for capstones...lets face it, capstones have always been screwy. They're either underwhelming, over powered, or just plain weird. Just look at the Mastermind's capstone. Can you look at Soul of Deceit and honestly tell me with a straight face that its a good ability that should be gained at level 17? Especially if you compare it to other Rogue capstones like Sudden Strike from Scout, Thief's Reflexes from the Thief, Spell Thief from Arcane Trickster, or Death Strike from Assassin. Heck, Moon Druid is often considered one of the best Druid subclasses in the game, but the capstone for Circle of the Moon is being able to cast Alter Self at will. Like...yay, in a subclass focused on turning into powerful Beasts and Elementals, in a class with a TON of powerful concentration spells, I can now cast a Concentration spell that lets me choose between breathing under water and swimming, changing my appearance, and gaining a magical Unarmed Strike that deals 1d6+Strength Mod.

And I'd actually say Runic Juggernaut is pretty decent. Sure, the 1d10 isn't that impressive since its once per turn, but being Huge has other advantages. One, its just really neat. But a far more important advantage is that you can use Huge Sized weapons without any disadvantages, and you can Grapple Gargantuan sized creatures. Given a Huge Weapon deals triple damage dice, that's a pretty darn good buff, wouldn't you say?

As for Polymorph, it does allow you to become a Huge Beast, you're still stuck as a Beast. You lose access to all of your class and racial abilities, and lose access to all of your magic items. This allows you to become Huge without giving up any of your things.

Can someone who actually likes this subclass explain why?

Finally, you ask why, I can give a two reasons: for myself

First, its kind of fun being able to create a character that can enchant their own gear in a way. Its similar to the Forge Cleric or Artificer without actually being a Forge Cleric or Artificer.

Second, being able to turn Large and Huge is just fun. One of my favorite Fighters is a Fairy Rune Knight with the Unarmed Fighting Style, and a focus on Grappling. I go from this Small Sized Fairy to a Large behemoth. Heck, as a Fairy I gain Enlarge/Reduce as a racial spell, so I can skip straight to Huge on turn 1 due to how the spell interacts with the ability, and it is a ton of fun.

[MinimanMidget]

I want to like Rune Knight, but I just can't accept that runes and giants are a single theme. Ok, so let's look at the class features and see how they integrated these two wildly disparate themes. Oh. That's right, they didn't. Giant Might, Great Stature, and "Runic" Juggernaut are giant-themed, and Rune Carver, Runic Shield, and Master of Runes are rune-themed (no matter how many times they pointlessly sprinkle the word giant on the rune features and the word rune on the giant features). They have two completely separate sets of features that don't even interact with each other. That's not just bad theming, it's bad game design.

[Sorinth]

I want to like Rune Knight, but I just can't accept that runes and giants are a single theme. Ok, so let's look at the class features and see how they integrated these two wildly disparate themes. Oh. That's right, they didn't. Giant Might, Great Stature, and "Runic" Juggernaut are giant-themed, and Rune Carver, Runic Shield, and Master of Runes are rune-themed (no matter how many times they pointlessly sprinkle the word giant on the rune features and the word rune on the giant features). They have two completely separate sets of features that don't even interact with each other. That's not just bad theming, it's bad game design.

The theme is Norse-inspired. Both Giants and Runes are prominent in Norse mythology and culture.

[Sigreid]

One day they'll be ready to hear me when I say rangers, barbarians, paladins and monks should all be fighters.

That's so 1 and 2 e of you. Lol

[JNAProductions]

I want to like Rune Knight, but I just can't accept that runes and giants are a single theme. Ok, so let's look at the class features and see how they integrated these two wildly disparate themes. Oh. That's right, they didn't. Giant Might, Great Stature, and "Runic" Juggernaut are giant-themed, and Rune Carver, Runic Shield, and Master of Runes are rune-themed (no matter how many times they pointlessly sprinkle the word giant on the rune features and the word rune on the giant features). They have two completely separate sets of features that don't even interact with each other. That's not just bad theming, it's bad game design.

Yeah. That’s why every class should be like Wizard, where Diviners primarily cast Divinations and Abjurers primarily cast Abjurations!
…
Wait, that’s not it. :P

[Unoriginal]

I want to like Rune Knight, but I just can't accept that runes and giants are a single theme. Ok, so let's look at the class features and see how they integrated these two wildly disparate themes. Oh. That's right, they didn't. Giant Might, Great Stature, and "Runic" Juggernaut are giant-themed, and Rune Carver, Runic Shield, and Master of Runes are rune-themed (no matter how many times they pointlessly sprinkle the word giant on the rune features and the word rune on the giant features). They have two completely separate sets of features that don't even interact with each other. That's not just bad theming, it's bad game design.

The Runes came from the Giants.

It's like saying that you can't accept the Draconic Sorcerer because dragons and magic are wildly disparate themes.

(In fact Dragons and magic are more disparate than Giants and Runes, because there is non-dragon-related magic in the world).

[MinimanMidget]

The Runes came from the Giants.

It's like saying that you can't accept the Draconic Sorcerer because dragons and magic are wildly disparate themes.

If the Draconic Sorcerer was the Draconic/Treasure themed Sorcerer, because dragons are strongly affiliated with treasure, I wouldn't love it, because those are still two separate themes, but I'd understand it, since they're strongly related. If the Draconic Sorcerer was the Draconic/Backgammon themed Sorcerer, because backgammon came from dragons, I'd be like...what? Since when? You (or WotC) can't just tell me "these themes are related because I said so just now" and expect me to accept that. Not to mention, the Monster Manual has a lot about giants, and nothing about runes. So the runes didn't come from the giants until the Rune Knight needed them to in order to not be nonsense.

In general, if you have to explain how two things are thematically related, they're not thematically related. Themes are ingrained in culture, they're not something you can just invent. Why are dragons linked to treasure, or fey linked to nature? I can't explain it without writing a thesis, but it's not "because WotC said so".

[Skrum]

I don't entirely disagree that the theming is a little weird, but no more so than *any* class. Artificer is a mess, and that's a base class (as opposed to subclass). Solution: make your own theming!! My current rune knight is an elf that was cursed so he can't use traditional magic - he gets around it by tattooing spells on himself in the form of runes. While I kept that the runic technique came from giants, I changed the name of each of the runes to be more fitting to him, and more like he's casting a version of a spell when he uses a rune.

Power-wise, take my rune knight from my cold dead hands lol. Yes it's better than other fighter options. Yes it's better than most other martial subclasses. But yah know what it also is? Fun to play, and can legitimately hold its own in a party of full-casting heavy hitters. RK's get a lot of tools, including reactions; they actually get to interact with the entire turn in a way that usually only casters get to. Them being better than other martial classes is evidence that those classes are a little anemic, not that RK should be nerfed. If clerics continue to exist, arguments claiming whatever thing a fighter can do is OP will find no purchase with me.

==============

On the subject of who should be a subclass of who -

Base Classes (subclasses)
Fighter (barbarian, ranger, monk)
Cleric (paladin, druid)
Rogue (bard)
Wizard (artificer, sorcerer, warlock)

[diplomancer]

If the Draconic Sorcerer was the Draconic/Treasure themed Sorcerer, because dragons are strongly affiliated with treasure, I wouldn't love it, because those are still two separate themes, but I'd understand it, since they're strongly related. If the Draconic Sorcerer was the Draconic/Backgammon themed Sorcerer, because backgammon came from dragons, I'd be like...what? Since when? You (or WotC) can't just tell me "these themes are related because I said so just now" and expect me to accept that. Not to mention, the Monster Manual has a lot about giants, and nothing about runes. So the runes didn't come from the giants until the Rune Knight needed them to in order to not be nonsense.

In general, if you have to explain how two things are thematically related, they're not thematically related. Themes are ingrained in culture, they're not something you can just invent. Why are dragons linked to treasure, or fey linked to nature? I can't explain it without writing a thesis, but it's not "because WotC said so".

Giants and Runes had been connected since at least Storm King's Thunder, which predated the Rune Knight by quite a bit. Volo's guide to Monsters, which came out around the same time, repeats the connection.

[Kane0]

Have the 'growth' rune be one you select rather than one you get by default.

[Dr.Samurai]

The weird thing though is that giants don't do any of the stuff a Rune Knight does. They don't grow bigger than they are, they don't redirect attacks, or make you reroll your attack, or manifest chains that restrain you, or resist damages, or incapacitate you with a stare.

So it's kind of weird. If giants had runes that made them grow to Gargantuan size it'd make sense to learn how to carve that rune and gain its magic. I'm willing to guess even the Advantage on skills probably don't line up with giants.

So it is a bit weird. Nothing that can't be overcome, as I said I reskinned my rune knight. But it's more like... you've learned runes that someone created that was inspired by their idea of the giants.

[Mastikator]

If I enchant a magic item in my wizard's tower, it's magic, but if I enchant it in a 'lab' in the exact same way, it's tech?



Sounds like wizards spellbooks are tech then, as are all magic items.

Didn't know every D&D setting was so high tech before, but the more you know...

The difference between tech and magic is perspective. A commoner doesn't understand how a wizard conjures a fire elemental or constructs a tower out of thin air, so to them it's magic. The wizard does understand, to the wizard it's tech. A wizard's tower is a laboratory, it's where the wizard studies the physics of "the weave" (or other forces, depending on setting).
Even in this thread the answer to "what is magic in your setting" is "it's physics". Any sufficiently advanced technology is magic, and as a corollary, any sufficiently understood magic is science.

[JellyPooga]

The weird thing though is that giants don't do any of the stuff a Rune Knight does. They don't grow bigger than they are, they don't redirect attacks, or make you reroll your attack, or manifest chains that restrain you, or resist damages, or incapacitate you with a stare.

So it's kind of weird. If giants had runes that made them grow to Gargantuan size it'd make sense to learn how to carve that rune and gain its magic. I'm willing to guess even the Advantage on skills probably don't line up with giants.

So it is a bit weird. Nothing that can't be overcome, as I said I reskinned my rune knight. But it's more like... you've learned runes that someone created that was inspired by their idea of the giants.

This. Right here. This is my beef with the theming. My favourite part of the entire subclass is the bit where you permanently grow a few inches taller because you've been using "giant magic" for too long not to be irrevocably, physically influenced by it. If I'm going to grow giant because I'm using giant magic, it's not going to be for a minute at a time because giants aren't giant for a minute at a time; they're giant all the time! Likewise, I wouldn't gate runes behind an arbitrary number per day; it would be a "spells known" kind of affair rather than "spell slots per long rest"; if you're studying the runes of the Fire Giants you don't need magical rune power to be good with tools; you've just learned to be good with tools all the time. I might only be able to use the magical effect of adding fire damage or what-have-you a certain number of times a day, but the skill thing? Yeah, I'm not a fan of magical knowledge/proficiencies that come and go like that.

I would see a Rune Knight that grows permanently Large. Wanna be big? Be big. I would see a Rune Knight that really knows their Runes like a Wizard Knows their spells. I would see a Rune Knight that has more variety, based on language rather than giant type; after all, that's what Runes are, after all. Letters and words that have meaning. I would see a Rune Knight that starts off with temporary runes and develops more permanent ones when they've mastered their craft. I would see a Rune Knight that deals with all of giant kind, including bonuses to interacting with giants and their allies because you know their language and culture so intimately as a result of your study and research.

[JellyPooga]

Here's some of what I'd have like to have seen in Rune Knight:

1) More diverse runes, relating to various giant types (not just Giants) that would be useful/attractive to a Fighter specifically or broadly applicable as utilities. Some that come to mind;
- Invisibility, Flight, Gaseous Form (Oni)
- Enhanced Perception/Awareness (Ettin)
- Water Breathing, Weather Control (Storm Giant)
- Regeneration (Troll)
- Elemental Resistances (Fire/Frost/Storm/Cloud)
- Elemental Damage bonus (Fire/Frost/Storm/Cloud)
These would be level gated and a mix of permanent boons and activated "spell-like" abilities, much like Invocations. The pool of features is inherently limited by the Giant theme, so it doesn't have to be insanely big, but a good dozen or more would be decent enough (for reference, the Battlemaster has more than 20 to choose from). These would be selected as "Runes Known", locked in once chosen rather than changed every day (Fighter...not Wizard).

2) Cultural and Language consideration. For a subclass that claims to learn everything it knows from a specific culture, it doesn't do much to really highlight it. Learning Giant language doesn't quite cut it for me! At the very least, offer the same bonuses as Favoured Enemy. I'd go so far as to offer more, linguistically; Primordial feels right, as does Speak with Animals (either as a spell or as a language; perhaps specific animals only e.g. eagles as allies of Storm Giants) and we could probably offer Comprehend Languages and later Tongues as optional Rune effects, if not just features the subclass gains.

3) Size. This needs to be a permanent thing, for me. Yes, there's some giants with shape/size change and/or polymorph abilities, but if I'm playing a giant-themed Fighter, I want to be big and not for a handful of minutes a day. Increased carry/lift and treated as size(s) bigger for grapple are permanent effects that won't break the game at any level. Actually growing to Large size in Tier 2 isn't going to be an issue for game balance either.

4) Intimidation. If I'm giant themed, I'm probably hinging all my social proficiency on taking advantage of my prodigious size. This needs to be more centre stage.

---

What I really don't need in the class is an ally protection ability. As good as it might be for a Fighter, Giants are famously antisocial. Why would they get a teamwork feature like that?

I probably don't necessarily need a damage bonus outside of that offered by wielding larger weapons as a result of, y'know, being larger all the time.

[RSP]

I think it’s a fair point that “Giant Magic” isn’t what any of the giants do (at least not the main giants), they do spells (if any magic). Are the giants unaware of this aspect of their magic, and only a select few warriors, who really just dabble in the runes as they spend most of their time training with weapons and armor, were able to figure out that the language the giants use can do magic?

I think the subclass is fine, but I agree that it doesn’t make sense from the in-game explanation perspective.

[Amnestic]

I'm not against a perma size increase but I'm not surprised WotC turned it away - it's a dungeon delving game at its core, and "one of your party members is permanently the size of a house" would probably cause issues in a bunch of ways.

Sure, by tier 4, you might be in a position to mitigate those, but it's still something they're probably a bit iffy on from a 5e design perspective. It's the sort of thing that flies fine in homebrew but they're less eager for in official content.

[Unoriginal]

I think it’s a fair point that “Giant Magic” isn’t what any of the giants do (at least not the main giants)

All of the main Giants have Rune users, it's just that it took WotC until 2023 to release statblocks for those who can use the Runes in combat.

Still, even if they took their sweet time, the Hill Giant Avalancher, Frost Giant Ice Shaper, Fire Giant Forgecaller, Stone Giant Rockspeaker, Cloud Giant Destiny Gambler and Storm Giant Tempest Caller are in the game now.

I admit it would have been better if the Giant Runes users did have a power matching the relevant Rune Knight's Runes in a 1:1 manner, though.

[stoutstien]

The part I like is they seem to hit the mark as far as balancing each option's frequency, range, and availability. It's a design approach that threads the needle between the build a bear style of spells and the locked in options of stuff like BM maneuvers or other pick from the list features.

This could be modified to fit a lot of different themes and classes. My WIP artificer without spell casting is using something similar to good effect.

[Witty Username]

The Runes came from the Giants.

It's like saying that you can't accept the Draconic Sorcerer because dragons and magic are wildly disparate themes.

(In fact Dragons and magic are more disparate than Giants and Runes, because there is non-dragon-related magic in the world).

At least for me, that is one of my major issues with sorcerer.

It doesn't bother me as much with rune knight as much because I read it as mindsets embodied rather than actual abilities. There is a more of a frustration with rune knight that it seems to have absorbed all fighter discussion, like picking any other subclass is an unforced error. But that is other people not directly the subclasses fault.

[KorvinStarmast]

share a very similar game space

So do wizard and sorcerer. Which one do you suggest we get rid of?
So do druid and cleric. Which one do you suggest we get rid of.

That is a poor argument.

but it doesn't address the fact that Giant's Might and Rage occupy very similar design space,

If that's the hill you want to die on, your objection is rejected as being way down in the noise level. I am not sure if you are carping at the margins or complaining in order to have something to complain about. Maybe both.

Have you played one?

On and on the list can go.

Is this kinda like "Ranger steps all over Fighter, and renders Arcane Archer pointless." Am I reading you right?

Chris Perkins has stated in interviews that he thinks the Barbarian could be a subclass of Fighter.

Yes. Whomever suggested that Rune Knight would be a good fit for Barbarian is probably on to a good idea.

I want to like Rune Knight, but I just can't accept that runes and giants are a single theme.

?? Norse mythology gives us giants, fire giants, frost giants, and runes. Theme wise, it's a great fit.

The theme is Norse-inspired. Both Giants and Runes are prominent in Norse mythology and culture.

Oh, I see that's been covered. But in Faerun, I guess giants aren't norse?

That's so 1 and 2 e of you. Lol

*Snigger*

The Runes came from the Giants.
It's like saying that you can't accept the Draconic Sorcerer because dragons and magic are wildly disparate themes.

Nicely said.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

That's so 1 and 2 e of you. Lol

I'm not ashamed. Retvrn to tradition, says I.

[Sorinth]

If you make Barbarian a Fighter subclass then I doubt you get more then 1 version of the Barbarian so you lose a lot of the diversity that the Barb subclasses bring. I can't think of any subclasses that share a major feature like rage within the same base class. There's features that get shared when the base class changes like Eldritch Knight/Arcane Trickster or Psi Warrior/Soulknife, but it seems extremely unlikely that we'd get a 2nd Fighter subclass that also uses Psi Dice but does different things compared to Psi Warrior.

And although some of the Barb subclasses don't really interest me personally, going from 9 subclasses to 1 sounds crappy.

[stoutstien]

If you make Barbarian a Fighter subclass then I doubt you get more then 1 version of the Barbarian so you lose a lot of the diversity that the Barb subclasses bring. I can't think of any subclasses that share a major feature like rage within the same base class. There's features that get shared when the base class changes like Eldritch Knight/Arcane Trickster or Psi Warrior/Soulknife, but it seems extremely unlikely that we'd get a 2nd Fighter subclass that also uses Psi Dice but does different things compared to Psi Warrior.

And although some of the Barb subclasses don't really interest me personally, going from 9 subclasses to 1 sounds crappy.

Not saying that barbarian deserves to be its own class or subclass or not but IMO you could get a lot done with the double subclass approach like warlocks have.

This would allow you to have a ton of potential options while also locking out combination as to prevent unwanted interactions as well.

[Tendril]

Having more modularity in general would be really nice. Too many classes are stuck with fairly narrow themes and mechanics and could really do with some more choices baked into the class. For example, why are all the best martial artists these super dextrous wise masters that have no need for physical strength? Monks could very easily have a choice somewhere to provide options for Strength-based brawlers, and other styles of martial arts, but instead we get the very narrow theme and mechanics of the current monk.

Fighters aren't as narrow, but there as well I wish you just got more choices in how to define your fighter. For a start, I'd love it if fighting styles actually had big impactful effects rather than numerical bonuses like "+2 damage".

[Amnestic]

There's plenty of "multiclass" subclasses you can make. We already have some in game - Eldritch Knight, Sword's Bard, Bladesinger, Divine Soul Sorcerer and Arcane Trickster are some of the more obvious ones.

You could certainly make a "Primal Warrior" fighter subclass.

At 3rd level you'd get...Rage+Unarmoured Defense?
At 7th Reckless Attack?
Maybe 10th would give you Danger Sense.
15th could give you Fast Movement.
18th Relentless or Persistent Rage.

And it'd be a serviceable fighter subclass.

Would you be a "better" barbarian than the barbarian? Mileage may vary, I guess. Those extra two ASIs really help with the unarmoured stuff, but you're also losing two skills from Primal Knowledge, Instinctive Pounce, Brutal Critical (hey, it's still a thing), Indomitable Might, Primal Champion, whichever of Relentless/Persistent you didn't choose, and all your subclass features, not to mention delaying stuff like Reckless Attack.

Just as how Giants Barb and Rune Knight Fighter can coexist, so too could Primal Warrior Fighter and Barbarian in general. That'd be fine.