I don't like Rune Knight

[Witty Username]

On class compression, I wouldn't mind some 'scout style' subclasses where it is a class mixed with the theme of another to increase variety.

Cutting classes just removes something a chunk of the player base likes, I am not in favor of that. Even with sorcerer which I actively dislike.

[Sorinth]

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.

Yeah for sure there's no problem with making a Fighter subclass that borrows from Barbarian like those other multiclass/subclasses do. But that in no way should replace the Barbarian as a class in itself. It's like Scout Rogue and Ranger, having Scout isn't a replacement for the Ranger class even if it can take the same role.

Having more ways to build the "same" character is good.

[Ignimortis]

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.
- 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?
- 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"?

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. 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.

3) Niche infringement. This harkens back to the theming argument, but Skill focus is a Rogue/Bard thing, so why is it in a Fighter subclass? Rage is a Barbarian thing, so why is it in a Fighter subclass? Miscellaneous magical abilities and functions are kind of a Warlock thing, so why are they in a Fighter subclass? I often see Rune Knight heralded as a poster child for why X Class or subclass isn't good or lacks lustre, but if Rune Knight is the exception rather than the norm, isn't it also the problem?

I just can't take the subclass seriously. It's a jumble of mis-matched theme, abilities and power that really doesn't gel for me. It consistently seems to be called out as an outlier, both in terms of power balance and roleplaying, for good and ill, so much so that I can't help but wonder why anyone would want to play it. I don't see the appeal outside of bland theory-craft or high-op play and even then, I really struggle to fit it into a greater whole that makes the game more fun for everyone at the table.

Can someone who actually likes this subclass explain why?

While I am not a fan of Rune Knight, here's answers to your points:
1) Because if we were to exclude Fighters from anything that another class does better, Fighters would have NO niche left. Swinging big weapons? Barbarian is better. Sword and shield, tanky? Paladin. Ranged combat? Ranger, duh. Magic, any flavour? Every single caster. Skills? Rogue.
Let Fighters actually have powers other than "I basic attack, but like, a lot". If anything, we need more of that, not less.
2) 1/SR redirect isn't anything to write home about. Nobody bats an eye when Wizard gets at-will Silvery Barbs or Shield at level 18. If anything, Rune Knight active abilities aren't great overall, but serviceable, and passive benefits kind of even it out.
3) Again, if Fighter never intrudes on other people's niches, it doesn't do anything anymore. It's already one of the worst classes of the edition.

Let Fighters be cool. Let Fighters be mystical and weird. Let Fighters be actually powerful.

[RSP]

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.

I figured they came out with rune using giants, but I think it’s still fair to say the main idea one associates with giants is their MM versions (the generic Hill, Stone, Fire, Frost, Cloud and Storm, particularly).

My point was more, if you encounter a Cloud Giant, 99% of the time it’s the generic one from the MM which uses spells. If rune magic is the magic of giants, they did a very, very poor job of getting that into the game.

So now the idea of “a fighter who uses giant magic” leads me to “oh they have Cloud or Storm Giant type-spells”, not “oh, the magic of the giants probably just makes people larger for a short period of time”.

(I’ve never heard of such, but if Giants were originally created by taking medium humanoids and using rune magic to grow them to huge, I’m fine that being a power of the rune knight.)

[Skrum]

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

How much variety do the barb subclasses actually have? Like isn't that one of the main criticisms of barb, they're a one trick pony that has almost nothing to offer besides being kinda tough and hitting things in melee? None of the subclasses change that. Ergo, we're really talking about the color of the paint, not meaningfully different options.

A fighter that got rage and reckless at 3rd, fast movement and a skill proficiency at 6th, brutal critical, danger sense, and feral instincts at 10th, and relentless rage and indomitable might at 14th, like that's a barb. Plus they'd get a fighting style, second wind, action surge, an extra ASI, indomitable, scaling extra attack...that's just better than any barb option currently available. "A barb that can turn his hand into a claw" or "a barb that's easy to bring back from the dead" doesn't add anything to the barb mythos, IMO. They use rage, they hit stuff. That's about it.

[Sorinth]

How much variety do the barb subclasses actually have? Like isn't that one of the main criticisms of barb, they're a one trick pony that has almost nothing to offer besides being kinda tough and hitting things in melee? None of the subclasses change that. Ergo, we're really talking about the color of the paint, not meaningfully different options.

A fighter that got rage and reckless at 3rd, fast movement and a skill proficiency at 6th, brutal critical, danger sense, and feral instincts at 10th, and relentless rage and indomitable might at 14th, like that's a barb. Plus they'd get a fighting style, second wind, action surge, an extra ASI, indomitable, scaling extra attack...that's just better than any barb option currently available. "A barb that can turn his hand into a claw" or "a barb that's easy to bring back from the dead" doesn't add anything to the barb mythos, IMO. They use rage, they hit stuff. That's about it.

Look not every class or subclass is going to appeal to every person and that's perfectly fine. The OP doesn't like Rune Knight, lots of others love it. If you think all a barb is is rage and hit stuff then honestly I don't think it's a class that's aimed at you. But to answer your question yes I do find there's a lot of good variety in the subclasses

[Dr.Samurai]

People act like we can’t be reductive about the caster classes either.

Player: I’m playing a wizard. *hooks cable into the port in his back* I am now connected to the internet hivemind. I will choose all the best spells. I will dip all the best classes. I will engage in the same exact precise and perfect combo of actions every encounter.

/robot voice

[Kish]

Rune Knight doesn't like you either.

[Skrum]

Look not every class or subclass is going to appeal to every person and that's perfectly fine. The OP doesn't like Rune Knight, lots of others love it. If you think all a barb is is rage and hit stuff then honestly I don't think it's a class that's aimed at you. But to answer your question yes I do find there's a lot of good variety in the subclasses

I'm literally playing a barb right now, and I rarely play classes that aren't melee of some sort. It's exactly my type of class. But I'm under no illusions about 1) how good it is in the scheme of the game, and 2) how varied the play is.

Different domains of cleric? They feel and play quite differently. Warlock patrons? Same. Monk schools? Quite different, round to round. Artificer specialties? Probably the most amount of variance of any class. But a barb...? Idk. They hit stuff. They all share the same weaknesses. Out of combat is non-existent. What are any of the subclasses bringing that a fighter (barb) wouldn't?

[Sorinth]

I'm literally playing a barb right now, and I rarely play classes that aren't melee of some sort. It's exactly my type of class. But I'm under no illusions about 1) how good it is in the scheme of the game, and 2) how varied the play is.

Different domains of cleric? They feel and play quite differently. Warlock patrons? Same. Monk schools? Quite different, round to round. Artificer specialties? Probably the most amount of variance of any class. But a barb...? Idk. They hit stuff. They all share the same weaknesses. Out of combat is non-existent. What are any of the subclasses bringing that a fighter (barb) wouldn't?

Totem is great when you want to have a more scouting/ranger vibe and role. Speak with Animals gets slept on a lot but it can bring a ton of useful information, and allows Beast Sense which is pretty good scouting wise. It's often better then Find Familiar since the animal has local knowledge but is less flexible. Even in combat Bear, Elk, Wolf are likely going to play different. Even when your role is tank, Ancestral Guardians pushes you to do it in one manner, Bear Totem pushes towards another, and Battlerager is pushes to a 3rd.

And we can present the same arguments for pretty much every class. Who needs Ranger class when a Nature themed Fighter Subclass and the Rogue Scout subclass exists. Who needs Paladin when you could have Eldritch Knight but with Cleric spell list or just a War Cleric. Who needs Monk when you can just be a fighter with Unarmed Fighting Style, who needs Sorcerer when Wizard is there, why have any wizard subclasses when every meaningful difference is about spell selection.

[Skrum]

Totem is great when you want to have a more scouting/ranger vibe and role. Speak with Animals gets slept on a lot but it can bring a ton of useful information, and allows Beast Sense which is pretty good scouting wise. It's often better then Find Familiar since the animal has local knowledge but is less flexible. Even in combat Bear, Elk, Wolf are likely going to play different. Even when your role is tank, Ancestral Guardians pushes you to do it in one manner, Bear Totem pushes towards another, and Battlerager is pushes to a 3rd.

Maybe?

And we can present the same arguments for pretty much every class. Who needs Ranger class when a Nature themed Fighter Subclass and the Rogue Scout subclass exists. Who needs Paladin when you could have Eldritch Knight but with Cleric spell list or just a War Cleric. Who needs Monk when you can just be a fighter with Unarmed Fighting Style, who needs Sorcerer when Wizard is there, why have any wizard subclasses when every meaningful difference is about spell selection.

From page 2

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)

More serious answer, I would prefer "blander" base classes with a ton of customization options in the form of tech trees, feat and skill options, spell lists, etc. A more modular system.

[Kane0]

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)

2) Cultural and Language consideration.

On these two, 1) I like that and i'm going to take that and run with it and 2) fun fact the Giant language in its written form (I think its called Dethek?) is the same script used by dwarven, gnomish, goblin, and terran so you could get a lot of potential mileage out of some linguistics there.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm literally playing a barb right now, and I rarely play classes that aren't melee of some sort. It's exactly my type of class. But I'm under no illusions about 1) how good it is in the scheme of the game, and 2) how varied the play is.

Different domains of cleric? They feel and play quite differently. Warlock patrons? Same. Monk schools? Quite different, round to round. Artificer specialties? Probably the most amount of variance of any class. But a barb...? Idk. They hit stuff. They all share the same weaknesses. Out of combat is non-existent. What are any of the subclasses bringing that a fighter (barb) wouldn't?

Have you played a Path of Giants Barbarian? Their size opens up grapple/shove options, they have increased reach, and at level 10 they can toss allies/enemies around the battlefield. Plays very differently to any other martial really (though admittedly that's level 10).

I'm not quite sure what the standard is you're looking for; I don't see much of a major variance between getting THP on a kill with the Fiend warlock, and getting a bonus action attack with the Fathom warlock. Yes, they are different. About as different as any barbarian subclasses are to each other. But certainly Totem, Wild Magic, Ancestral, Berserker/Battlerager, Beast, and Giants offer some different considerations in combat.

But more importantly... screw the fighter. The fighter gets... Action Surge... and Extra Attack. And we're tacking the barbarian onto that? Nah, let's tack on Extra Attack and Action Surge onto the barbarian please. Let me keep my d12 HD, increased mobility options/Initiative, immunity to Surprise, extra speed, Adv on Dex saves, and other goodies. Just add the 1 or 2 features that fighters get as an entire class onto the barbarian. Heck... you can probably just tack them on the base barbarian class and still let the barbarian take a subclass.

[tokek]

Rune Knight is my favourite fighter subclass. If I was not on vacation I’d happily write an essay length response. But let me address the flavour thing:

Firstly flavour is free. I re-flavoured it all as feywild power and trickery on a feywild hobgoblin (puck the trickster spirit of folklore is a hobgoblin)

But the core flavour makes sense. Fighters are students of martial prowess, giants are exemplars of martial prowess. The runes of the ordning are very much not arcane magic - they are an entirely different system somewhat alien to arcane casters.

Arcane casters are best at arcane magic, not at other systems of magic.

[Witty Username]

But more importantly... screw the fighter. The fighter gets... Action Surge... and Extra Attack. And we're tacking the barbarian onto that? Nah, let's tack on Extra Attack and Action Surge onto the barbarian please. Let me keep my d12 HD, increased mobility options/Initiative, immunity to Surprise, extra speed, Adv on Dex saves, and other goodies. Just add the 1 or 2 features that fighters get as an entire class onto the barbarian. Heck... you can probably just tack them on the base barbarian class and still let the barbarian take a subclass.

Well, heavy armor, fighting styles, second wind, action surge, rerolls to any save, extra attack, extra attack again, extra attack again again if that ever matters, and other goodies.

[Sigreid]

More serious answer, I would prefer "blander" base classes with a ton of customization options in the form of tech trees, feat and skill options, spell lists, etc. A more modular system.

If I were guiding design, there'd be 4 classes and each tier a choice would be made that branches out. So at tier 4 2 fighters, for example could be wildly different from each other based on choices made, but springing from the same root.

[Unoriginal]

Well, heavy armor, fighting styles, second wind, action surge, rerolls to any save, extra attack, extra attack again, extra attack again again if that ever matters, and other goodies.

Extra ASIs are pretty great.

[Amnestic]

Here's Fighter as a Barbarian subclass.

3rd: Well of Strength
1/SR Second Wind, but also activates Rage for free if you didn't have it active.

6th: Primal Surge
1/SR Action Surge, but also activates Rage for free if you didn't have it active.

10th: Indomitable Rage
1/Rage: Reroll failed saving throw, add any Brutal Critical dice to roll (so eventually 1d20+mods+3d6 from 17th level)

14th: Extra Attack (3)
Extra Attack...again.

[KorvinStarmast]

While I am not a fan of Rune Knight, here's answers to your points:

Spoiler: details

Show

1) Because if we were to exclude Fighters from anything that another class does better, Fighters would have NO niche left. Swinging big weapons? Barbarian is better. Sword and shield, tanky? Paladin. Ranged combat? Ranger, duh. Magic, any flavour? Every single caster. Skills? Rogue.
Let Fighters actually have powers other than "I basic attack, but like, a lot". If anything, we need more of that, not less.
2) 1/SR redirect isn't anything to write home about. Nobody bats an eye when Wizard gets at-will Silvery Barbs or Shield at level 18. If anything, Rune Knight active abilities aren't great overall, but serviceable, and passive benefits kind of even it out.
3) Again, if Fighter never intrudes on other people's niches, it doesn't do anything anymore. It's already one of the worst classes of the edition.

Let Fighters be cool. Let Fighters be mystical and weird. Let Fighters be actually powerful.

Said more concisely than I did. +1

Look not every class or subclass is going to appeal to every person and that's perfectly fine. The OP doesn't like Rune Knight, lots of others love it. If you think all a barb is is rage and hit stuff then honestly I don't think it's a class that's aimed at you. But to answer your question yes I do find there's a lot of good variety in the subclasses

+1

Rune Knight doesn't like you either.

Laughed, I did.

Totem is great when you want to have a more scouting/ranger vibe and role. Speak with Animals gets slept on a lot but it can bring a ton of useful information, and allows Beast Sense which is pretty good scouting wise. It's often better then Find Familiar since the animal has local knowledge but is less flexible. Even in combat Bear, Elk, Wolf are likely going to play different. Even when your role is tank, Ancestral Guardians pushes you to do it in one manner, Bear Totem pushes towards another, and Battlerager is pushes to a 3rd.

I have noticed that a good player gets a lot more out of a barbarian. (My Salt Marsh Totem barbarian is one such good player).

On these two, 1) I like that and i'm going to take that and run with it and 2) fun fact the Giant language in its written form (I think its called Dethek?) is the same script used by dwarven, gnomish, goblin, and terran so you could get a lot of potential mileage out of some linguistics there.

That's something that PhoenixPhyre has tapped into in his game world, in terms of how runes fit into things. For my own reasons I chose Arcana as one of my skill proficiencies, and have leaned into this a bit.

Firstly flavour is free. I re-flavoured it all as feywild power and trickery on a feywild hobgoblin (puck the trickster spirit of folklore is a hobgoblin)

But the core flavour makes sense. Fighters are students of martial prowess, giants are exemplars of martial prowess. The runes of the ordning are very much not arcane magic - they are an entirely different system somewhat alien to arcane casters.

Arcane casters are best at arcane magic, not at other systems of magic.

*golf clap*

Extra ASIs are pretty great.

And/or feats, depending on the table.

As an aside:
I noticed that Tanarii isn't visiting with us much these days. Guess 5e has lost its shine for him. (Which is a pity, I value the input).

[Guy Lombard-O]

Rune Knight is my favourite fighter subclass. If I was not on vacation IÂ’d happily write an essay length response. But let me address the flavour thing:

Firstly flavour is free. I re-flavoured it all as feywild power and trickery on a feywild hobgoblin (puck the trickster spirit of folklore is a hobgoblin)

Arcane casters are best at arcane magic, not at other systems of magic.

Gotta say, RK is my favorite as well. The only subclass that actually interested me in fighter enough to play one.

I reflavored mine into "Dragon Runes" (which probably has less support in the lore, but makes the magical nature of many of the runes make more sense, at least IMHO). I used it to create a dragonborn who was trying to study his way into eventually actually becoming a real dragon. The FS of Blind Fighting seemed on point. Using a gem dragonborn's 30' telepathy to piggy-back Stone Rune's 30' charm effect into a telepathic serpent's charm dovetailed nicely. Getting uncommonly skillful at things like deception and Insight seemed thematic. Doing more damage which large/huge...yeah, I managed to convince my DM to divide my extra damage to each hit (1-3 extra damage) made the illusion of being big/strong more convincing. Overall, flavor IS free, and RK gives you some pretty good bones to do things in the game which otherwise just wouldn't really work.

I do think some of the runes are a bit janky and need a bit of fixing for a smooth power progression. I personally held off on taking Cloud Rune until 15th level, as it feels both more magical and more powerful than some of the others, more like a high-level feature of a PC increasingly in tune with the magic of the runes. So I agree that they could have/should have level-locked things a bit better.

I also agree that the 18th level huge capstone abilities were unimaginative and lacking. I'd have argued that instead, they should have allowed the PC to use a charge of Giant's Might 1/LR to actually transform into a CR-appropriate version of a giant for a minute, possibly using a stat block a la the new Summon spells to make the various giant types all valid and appealing (including actually switching creature type), or possibly including a new suite of buffs related to the giant type you change into. You know...something that actually felt impactful, powerful, and thematically satisfying as a transformation?

I'd also suggest that using the fighter chassis as the basis for the RK subclass was partially appropriate if for no other reason than that the martial classes are largely dragging at higher levels and therefore allow a much greater budget for some new, additional abilities to be added by the subclass. To me, RK's level of power-creep is substantial when compared to other subclasses, but also gives a breadth of new abilities in the non-combat theater, gives a good way to use some non-physical ability points (to better utilize the skill advantages of the features), and allows for enough BC options to give the basic fighter a number of other things to focus upon (grapple, much?) than just pumping out the DPR.

[KorvinStarmast]

Gotta say, RK is my favorite as well. The only subclass that actually interested me in fighter enough to play one.

Spoiler: nice post

Show

I reflavored mine into "Dragon Runes" (which probably has less support in the lore, but makes the magical nature of many of the runes make more sense, at least IMHO). I used it to create a dragonborn who was trying to study his way into eventually actually becoming a real dragon. The FS of Blind Fighting seemed on point. Using a gem dragonborn's 30' telepathy to piggy-back Stone Rune's 30' charm effect into a telepathic serpent's charm dovetailed nicely. Getting uncommonly skillful at things like deception and Insight seemed thematic. Doing more damage which large/huge...yeah, I managed to convince my DM to divide my extra damage to each hit (1-3 extra damage) made the illusion of being big/strong more convincing. Overall, flavor IS free, and RK gives you some pretty good bones to do things in the game which otherwise just wouldn't really work.

I do think some of the runes are a bit janky and need a bit of fixing for a smooth power progression. I personally held off on taking Cloud Rune until 15th level, as it feels both more magical and more powerful than some of the others, more like a high-level feature of a PC increasingly in tune with the magic of the runes. So I agree that they could have/should have level-locked things a bit better.

I also agree that the 18th level huge capstone abilities were unimaginative and lacking. I'd have argued that instead, they should have allowed the PC to use a charge of Giant's Might 1/LR to actually transform into a CR-appropriate version of a giant 1/LR for a minute, possibly using a stat block a la the new Summon spells to make the various giant types all valid and appealing (including actually switching creature type), or possibly including a new suite of buffs related to the giant type you change into. You know...something that actually felt impactful, powerful, and thematically satisfying as a transformation?

1. I think the longer reach should come on line sooner. Rather than "just got taller" the reach ought to increase to 10'. (My two cents).
2. I agree with your idea on the level 18 feature.
3. Cloud rune ought to be "within reach" for melee attacks and "within 30' for ranged attacks"...it would feel less janky that way.

One of the reasons that I boosted my Con to 18 rather than take Tough feat was to get the rune save DCs up.
Using Fire Rune on round 1, and having it succeed, and then following with attacks that have advantage is nice, in terms of doing the nova damage thing on a restrained creature. Also lets you or an ally back off without an OA if need be.

[Dr.Samurai]

Gotta say, RK is my favorite as well. The only subclass that actually interested me in fighter enough to play one.

I reflavored mine into "Dragon Runes" (which probably has less support in the lore, but makes the magical nature of many of the runes make more sense, at least IMHO). I used it to create a dragonborn who was trying to study his way into eventually actually becoming a real dragon. The FS of Blind Fighting seemed on point. Using a gem dragonborn's 30' telepathy to piggy-back Stone Rune's 30' charm effect into a telepathic serpent's charm dovetailed nicely. Getting uncommonly skillful at things like deception and Insight seemed thematic. Doing more damage which large/huge...yeah, I managed to convince my DM to divide my extra damage to each hit (1-3 extra damage) made the illusion of being big/strong more convincing. Overall, flavor IS free, and RK gives you some pretty good bones to do things in the game which otherwise just wouldn't really work.

Pretty much agree with all of this.

I played a battle master for a birthday one shot a friend ran for us, and it was... okay. Rune Knight is the only fighter subclass that actually made me interested in playing a fighter long term, and it was because it had features that I could actually theme to my character. Any power level compared to other subclasses was secondary, it was just that it had features to play around with in realizing the character concept.

[Evaar]

I have long struggled with the theme of the Rune Knight, because "generic giant" doesn't really feel like enough of a theme. The whole thing about giants is that they are extremely varied, how can one possibly revere the mischievous Cloud Giants, the contemplative Storm Giants, and the dull and ravenous Hill Giants? What, are you just a fan of big bois? You just see a chungus and you're like "yeah, that's my kinda guy."

But there's a take that does work, which is based in the older lore of Giants from when they were a unified kingdom called Ostoria or whatever it is in the setting you're playing with. Xen'drik in Eberron, etc, most settings seem to have an ancient super-advanced giant empire. The evidence of this is in the Giant language, which remains consistent among all the various types of giants. Somehow, they kept the same language. What the Fighter is tapping into is the virtues of that ancient empire, and it's WHY this is on a Fighter. You don't represent the rage of Frost or Hill giants, or the introspection of Stone or Storm giants, or the cunning of Cloud giants, or the rigid discipline of Fire giants. You represent all of it, or you aspire to. And that's why the runes work for you and no one else - it's your ability to embody these virtues that empowers the runes and causes them to empower you in return, not just the fact that you have carved it on a piece of gear. Where appropriate to the setting, you're tapping into a system of order set in place by gods. The actual subclass description does nothing to help get you to this, and certainly could have been written better, but it doesn't contradict this at least.

All that said, I have certainly taken time to reflavor the subclass and looked for other themes where it makes sense. Because of the variety of rune effects, there are actually a lot of options. Usually the tricky part is explaining the "also I grow big" part. So far the one that I think works best is flavoring it after Hags, because Hags also often hide prodigious strength and size. In order of Cloud, Fire, Frost, Hill, Stone, Storm, the names I use are Green Hag's Silver Tongue, Night Hag's Feverish Touch, Bheur Hag's Icy Heart, Annis Hag's Iron Flesh, Sea Hag's Evil Eye, Dusk Hag's Second Sight. Note that Dusk Hags are an Eberron invention, but whatever just bring them into your setting and make them super rare and reclusive. Their deal is cursed prophecies.
But other themes that work are channeling archdemons (same order: Fraz-Urbluu, Oublivae, Baphomet, Orcus, Grazzt, Demogorgon), archfey (make 'em up according to the theme, take story archetypes that would have these abilities like a Blind Oracle, a Foolish Prince, a Forgemaster), the elements/body humours (same order: blood/air, yellow bile/fire, phlegm/water, spirit, black bile/earth, mind), etc. If you put in some creativity, you can match a bunch of different themes. Pantheons, too.

As for the rest of it, I agree there are wonky balance issues like Cloud Rune is crazy good by comparison to most other options. I would not say it's an overpowered feature because its use is too limited for that, but it is basically a compulsory pick. Getting an extra +1 damage and being Huge is a pretty mild capstone bonus, I agree, but an extra 5 feet of reach is nice. But we're talking about level 18, it kinda doesn't matter what the feature is here unless it's completely game breaking or literally useless. You don't want something here that feels defining to the subclass, because that means the first 17 levels don't have that.

[Amnestic]

What, are you just a fan of big bois? You just see a chungus and you're like "yeah, that's my kinda guy."

Works for warlocks with their patrons...

[Dalinar]

For me, when I played RK, I actually wanted to do an Unarmed Fighting fighter foremost. That PC was made for a T1 adventure that was supposed to be around 5 sessions, scope crept to nearly triple that, and the guy has now probably been in upwards of 25 sessions considering later games in the same setting. He was intended as a joke character inspired by Captain Falcon as well as fighting-game grapplers such as Zangief and Potemkin, so I wanted his main form of combat to be punching things really hard and/or grappling and shoving.

Rune Knight was a natural fit for the size increase, since a part of the joke was that this guy was a massive, muscular dude anyway, and I knew I'd probably want the damage bump too since I wouldn't be able to benefit from the likes of GWM. So the question was: how do I explain Rune Carver? The given Rune Knight lore is very Forgotten Realms-specific, and we're playing in a setting that has nothing to do with FR, so I felt it was pretty important to come up with something.

Since I hadn't been planning particularly far ahead, I looked at the situation he'd gotten himself in by the time he got to level 3. One of the leaders of a friendly local faction was a fairly talented forger of weapons, and she was particularly known for a type of magical handaxe that dealt extra fire damage and returned to hand after thrown. My PC got it into his head that he wanted to learn how to make those himself, so during some downtime he enlisted a couple of her apprentices to teach him what they could. He wasn't able to complete the magic weapon properly, but he did figure out some of the components its magic used. He thus learned two runes and applied them to his gauntlets, which now have Fire Rune (inspired by the heat of the forge and the fire of the handaxes; it manifests as a fiery gauntlet reaching from the ground) and the Cloud Rune (redirects attacks, inspired by how the handaxe redirects its momentum to return to the thrower).

I think that was about the point he stopped being a joke character.

By the time I grabbed Skill Expert at level 4, he had noticed that despite his overwhelming physical strength, he was limited by his very narrow access to magic. (The martial/caster divide is a topic that's been discussed to death here and in other places, so I thought, "why not use it for storytelling purposes?") While the main point of Skill Expert had been to bump STR to 18 and also grab Athletics expertise, I also gave him Arcana proficiency to reflect his initial efforts at expanding his horizons.

Much later, he hit level 7. Storm Rune was inspired by a druid buddy who was into tarot reading--I describe it as a charmed necklace he'd made with her assistance. The passive Arcana advantage played further into the "insecure about the martial/caster divide" angle.

He also picked up Magic Initiate (Druid) at around this time, so I flavored Runic Shield as an extension of that and of Storm Rune--causing plants to abruptly grow and impede attacks. Last we left him, he'd just hit level 9, so no thoughts on Great Stature or the next rune quite yet.

---

Anyway, the point of this rambling story of how this PC came about is this: I really like playing this guy. It's already fun to play into things like physically punching walls down, tearing apart metal objects bare-handed, and the like, but you could do that on a Barb arguably more easily. The story Rune Knight specifically helps me tell is that of a guy who, due to his physically imposing look, lack of formal education, and quiet personality, sometimes feels pigeonholed into the "dumb muscle" stereotype. This works out nicely when it's people trying to kill him who underestimate him (I got to do the "use Giant's Might while under the effects of Reduce" interaction and it felt awesome), but it's enough of an insecurity for him that he went out of his way to prove he can do some magic too.

You could tell a similar story with EK, but that has more of a formal-education feel to it due to using slots and the wizard list. Likewise Psi Warrior, where the abilities afforded feel like they have a slightly more coherent mechanical theme (short-range psionic telekinesis)--the greater variety in Rune Knight's effects is a feature for this character, not a bug.

And I think that's my explanation for why I like RK--one, because I like the character I play who happens to be RK, and two, because it gave me some hints on a way I could flesh that character out more as it became clear he was going to stick around a while.

I actually don't think every class or subclass needs to have its abilities be mechanically self-similar for the sake of coherence. It's the same argument I make when people claim Hexadin is a narratively suspicious multiclass (well, in that case I do it by pointing them at Stormlight Archive): if a class or subclass or any other set of powers feels disjointed to you, that's an opportunity for you to tell stories about how the character came into those powers, not necessarily a sign of bad design.

[Elenian]

Rune Knights inscribe magical sigils that grant them:

- Knowledge of the arcane and of the future
- Resistance to physical harm
- The ability to see in darkness and to plunge others into dream-filled trance
- More resistance to physical harm
- Expertise with tools and the ability to bind foes with tendrils of solid fire
- Sneakiness and the ability to make blows that strike you inflict wounds on those nearby

Like if you told me this class was called "Knower of the Elder Signs" and came from Halaster's Grimoire of the Mythos, I could maybe fathom the flavor...

[Kane0]

Some that come to mind;
- Invisibility, Flight, Gaseous Form (Oni)
- Enhanced Perception/Awareness (Ettin)
- Regeneration (Troll)

Oni:
Passive: Darkvision (including thru magical darkness)
1/SR: Bonus action turn invisible until start of next turn

Ettin:
Passive: Dont need to sleep
1/SR: Reaction to ignore an instance of being blinded, charmed, frightened or confused

Troll:
Passive: Immune to effects that reduce your Max HP
1/SR: Action, for 1 min heal prof bonus HP at the start of each turn unless you take fire or acid damage

[Skrum]

But more importantly... screw the fighter. The fighter gets... Action Surge... and Extra Attack. And we're tacking the barbarian onto that? Nah, let's tack on Extra Attack and Action Surge onto the barbarian please. Let me keep my d12 HD, increased mobility options/Initiative, immunity to Surprise, extra speed, Adv on Dex saves, and other goodies. Just add the 1 or 2 features that fighters get as an entire class onto the barbarian. Heck... you can probably just tack them on the base barbarian class and still let the barbarian take a subclass.

I mean, I like the fighter as the base for the warrior-type because it's both bland and has a good base of abilities. They attack up to 4 times. They get proficiency with all weapons and armor. They get extra ASI's. They can do the really cool and powerful action surge. They get a self-heal. Is it narratively boring? Yes, but that's a good thing IMO. I want the flavor to come from the subclass, or something I make up myself.

I think people missed it up thread, but if I was going to make barb a fighter subclass I'd do something like -

3rd: rage, reckless attack
6th: fast movement, skill proficiency
10th: brutal critical, danger sense, feral instincts
14th: relentless rage, indomitable will

I would play this version of the barb over any options that currently exist (well, at least if I was restricted to straight fighter (barb) or barb (subclass)).

[Witty Username]

I played a battle master for a birthday one shot a friend ran for us, and it was... okay. Rune Knight is the only fighter subclass that actually made me interested in playing a fighter long term, and it was because it had features that I could actually theme to my character. Any power level compared to other subclasses was secondary, it was just that it had features to play around with in realizing the character concept.

On this, I think there is a bit of discard and draw on this.
Some classes have strong themes, and do well in that space, Barbarian is a fine example but I think Paladin is the most indicative of it. But that does create friction with ideas outside that space. Fighter on the other end has this as an advantage ( I also note wizard on this) since they are light on inherent themes they are easier to fit a character to rather than the reverse.

Some direct examples, say I want to make a patient hunter type, as barbarian I could do this but I now have to get into the rage and reckless attack and what that means for this character. That can result in a fun and interesting character, but part of that is due to the inherent tension. On the other, fighter doesn't bring its own strong theme which allows for more design space for the sublcass but also a character. It can allow for things like species or background to get more focus as well.

I can definitely understand people having a preference but for me personally it depends a lot on my mood. Sometimes Monk or Ranger is just what the doctor ordered, other times Fighter is the ice cream base for the banana split to shine. One isn't worse or better than the other from a design point.