Brilliant Gameologists Forum

The Thinktank => Min/Max It! => Topic started by: tuesdayscoming on May 24, 2011, 09:07:21 AM

Title: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: tuesdayscoming on May 24, 2011, 09:07:21 AM
Howdy, everybody! First things first, this is my first thread at BG, and I want to take a moment to thank all of the incredible optimizers working on the game that I love so very well. You guys are amazing, each and every one of you, and I can't express how much your efforts have helped me enjoy DnD.

Anyways, I've been thinking about the Runecaster prestige class from Player's Guide to Faerun (not to be confused with the more frequently used Runesmith from Races of Stone), and it seems like a class with extraordinary potential. And yet my Google-fu turns up nothing on how best to take advantage of its abilities.

Class features of note are the ability to create permanent runes, objects that, when touched, cast a single spell on the object or creature that touched it. Its a bit more complicated and flexible than that, but that's the basic function. Note again, that (at least after level 8, these runes can cast the spell ad infinitum. As an item creation type ability, it is expensive, but totally worth it as far as I can tell. An additional feature is the ability to maximize the effects of spells in the runes you make, without increasing the cost of creating the rune. You can place a rune on any object you like, but can only put a single rune on a given object if it has less than 50 feet of surface area.

Of further note is that you can only do this with divine spells. As such, archivist seems the obvious choice for entry, as it opens up a world of possibilities and (in some cases) lowers the cost of rune creation significantly.

I'll point out just a couple of exploits I've thought of.

As an archivist, make a rune of Arrowsplit (Champions of Ruin), and place the rune on the arrow rest of a bow, so that every arrow the bow fires touches the rune. Because the rune is maximized, every arrow you shoot will split into five, count them five, arrows. This is 2.5x as effective as the Splitting bow enhancement, and (if my hasty calculation is correct) only costs you 15k in gold and ~1k in exp. All of this without driving up the total enhancement bonus of the bow.

Another great one would be Shadow Arrow (also Champions of Ruin). Put it in the same place, and suddenly every arrow you fire is a touch attack that deals six points of strength damage!

Assuming that these spells would stack, you could instead put the Shadow Arrow rune on the glove that draws your arrows, and suddenly you are an incredible ranged power house. Oh, and you're still a full caster :D

So my question is this: how on earth has no one taken extreme advantage of this class before? It seems the type of thing that would take quite a bit of thought to take full advantage of, but that has absolutely extraordinary potential.
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: Sinfire Titan on May 24, 2011, 09:33:10 AM
The correct answer is that Google hates you.

The funny answer is because it's from the Forgotten Realms, thus no one remembers it when posting.

My answer? Probably because crafting magical traps is Core, and much easier to abuse than a PrC from FR that may not be flavor-appropriate for other campaign settings. The Artificer can craft traps very easily, and as such may be a superior option (if more of a headache). In other words, getting access to that PrC is crapshoot, just like every other campaign-specific class or PrC.

Basically, look for how to optimize traps instead of how to optimize the Runecaster itself. The end results will be largely the same.
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: Solo on May 24, 2011, 09:42:11 AM
I applaud your enthusiasm and ingenuity, Tuesday.
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: tuesdayscoming on May 24, 2011, 09:45:26 AM
Hmm, you may have a fair point, Sinfire Titan. I will briefly point out, though, that the Runecaster can create a permanent rune in 10 minutes flat, whereas the more traditional crafter could still be taking months or more for the same effect. This strikes me as a significant advantage, though I suppose it is somewhat campaign dependent.

Do you know of a decent guide to making magical traps of this sort? The interpretation that allows for Arrowsplit or some such to be cast on an arrow on the trigger "an arrow leaves the bow" always struck me as a bit of a dubious one, though I will admit that my knowledge here is less than perfect.

Also, do you know of a way to maximize the spells on such traps? This is one of the main abilities of the Runecaster, and that it can be done without increasing the price or crafting time of the item is, again, pretty big.

edit: why thankee, Solo  :D
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: Sinfire Titan on May 24, 2011, 10:21:23 AM
Hmm, you may have a fair point, Sinfire Titan. I will briefly point out, though, that the Runecaster can create a permanent rune in 10 minutes flat, whereas the more traditional crafter could still be taking months or more for the same effect. This strikes me as a significant advantage, though I suppose it is somewhat campaign dependent.

Do you know of a decent guide to making magical traps of this sort? The interpretation that allows for Arrowsplit or some such to be cast on an arrow on the trigger "an arrow leaves the bow" always struck me as a bit of a dubious one, though I will admit that my knowledge here is less than perfect.

Also, do you know of a way to maximize the spells on such traps? This is one of the main abilities of the Runecaster, and that it can be done without increasing the price or crafting time of the item is, again, pretty big.

edit: why thankee, Solo  :D

Traps are outside my expertise, so I really can't help you. I can tell you that Dungeonscape will/may prove useful for optimizing traps/the Runecaster (respectively). Also, the Glyphstone (IIRC) in the MiC is great for a character like this (more traps/runes).

As for the Runecaster itself, I really have no idea how to go about optimizing one. I don't pay attention to Faerunian material, as I dislike the setting.
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: X-Codes on May 24, 2011, 12:30:46 PM
I made a post that was about a page long detailing how to abuse the creation rules that under-value the XP costs for creating charge per day runes.  Basically, you can make a 5 wishes per day rune for about the same amount of gold as buying a +5 tome and significantly less XP than crafting one.  In 10 minutes.
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: geniussavant on May 24, 2011, 05:17:39 PM
here (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=8717.0) is a build, albeit unfinished that was to (ab)use the runecaster.
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: SorO_Lost on May 24, 2011, 06:38:47 PM
Basically, look for how to optimize traps instead of how to optimize the Runecaster itself. The end results will be largely the same.
Speaking of traps. One of the better ideas I've heard is based off Reverse Gravity. You walk into the area *trigger* you fall to the roof and take fall damage *trigger: dispel/another gravity?* fall to the floor and take fall damage *trigger* oh well you get the point.
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: Nytemare3701 on May 24, 2011, 07:01:22 PM
I'm afb right now, but runecaster sounds like something I would want in the shadowcraft cookie build...

EDIT: afb, not arbitrary. Damn you autocorrect!
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: Rejakor on May 24, 2011, 07:05:13 PM
Being able to make runes in ten minutes is slightly better than making traps in longer, although item creation feats make it a crapshoot.

At will spells is just too easy to break.  There's no work involved, really.  I mean, you could take it out to it's logical extreme, but the Tippyverse already kind of did that. (and stylishly, I might add)
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: Empirate on May 24, 2011, 07:15:49 PM

The funny answer is because it's from the Forgotten Realms, thus no one remembers it when posting.

My answer? Probably because crafting magical traps is Core, and much easier to abuse than a PrC from FR that may not be flavor-appropriate for other campaign settings. The Artificer can craft traps very easily, and as such may be a superior option (if more of a headache). In other words, getting access to that PrC is crapshoot, just like every other campaign-specific class or PrC.

Because nobody ever uses Incantatrix except in FR campaigns...  ;)
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: SorO_Lost on May 24, 2011, 08:38:07 PM

The funny answer is because it's from the Forgotten Realms, thus no one remembers it when posting.

My answer? Probably because crafting magical traps is Core, and much easier to abuse than a PrC from FR that may not be flavor-appropriate for other campaign settings. The Artificer can craft traps very easily, and as such may be a superior option (if more of a headache). In other words, getting access to that PrC is crapshoot, just like every other campaign-specific class or PrC.

Because nobody ever uses Incantatrix except in FR campaigns...  ;)
If FR stuff is off limits Sin, so is Eberron. Steampunk is very much not flavor-appropriate for traditional fantasy. It's even farther than FR's ideas.
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: Sinfire Titan on May 24, 2011, 08:42:25 PM
If FR stuff is off limits Sin, so is Eberron. Steampunk is very much not flavor-appropriate for traditional fantasy. It's even farther than FR's ideas.

But Eberron's my favorite campaign setting...
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: nijineko on May 25, 2011, 12:17:34 AM
stronghold builders guidebook as well as book of challenges has various ideas applicable for a runecaster.
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: tuesdayscoming on May 25, 2011, 01:17:20 AM
stronghold builders guidebook as well as book of challenges has various ideas applicable for a runecaster.

Hmm, don't know either book terribly well. Could you give me a better idea of what you think I might find useful in there?

I made a post that was about a page long detailing how to abuse the creation rules that under-value the XP costs for creating charge per day runes.  Basically, you can make a 5 wishes per day rune for about the same amount of gold as buying a +5 tome and significantly less XP than crafting one.  In 10 minutes.

I would love to see this. Happen to have a link handy?

Speaking of traps. One of the better ideas I've heard is based off Reverse Gravity. You walk into the area *trigger* you fall to the roof and take fall damage *trigger: dispel/another gravity?* fall to the floor and take fall damage *trigger* oh well you get the point.

Yeah, that's real nasty and real tasty  :)

I'm arbitrary right now, but runecaster sounds like something I would want in the shadowcraft cookie build...

Just looked this up and fell in love with the idea. I don't see the Runecaster being particularly useful for it, though, considering that Shadowcraft Mage requires arcane, where this requires divine. Hefty investment on both sides, too; I think you'd be hardpressed to fit all the goodies into a single build. Unless of course you simply mean to create cookies via a permanent rune?
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: nijineko on May 25, 2011, 01:54:04 AM
the book of challenges is basically a listing of traps, likely to be some ideas or variants in there for application.

the stronghold builders guidebook is rules for creating and enchanting buildings and structures space by space (a stronghold space is a unit of measure 20'x20'x20' in size. among the various offerings are listings of spells and items and traps useful in the defense and destruction of strongholds. seems that there would also be useful overlap.

oh, and just a thought, but as far as putting runes on armor goes, don't forget the light armor combined with a dastana and char-aina trick.
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: Nytemare3701 on May 29, 2011, 07:19:49 PM
I'm arbitrary right now, but runecaster sounds like something I would want in the shadowcraft cookie build...

Just looked this up and fell in love with the idea. I don't see the Runecaster being particularly useful for it, though, considering that Shadowcraft Mage requires arcane, where this requires divine. Hefty investment on both sides, too; I think you'd be hardpressed to fit all the goodies into a single build. Unless of course you simply mean to create cookies via a permanent rune?

I meant a Cookie of cookies.  Also, You can make a cleric SCM.
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: BrainCandy on June 04, 2011, 10:18:33 PM
Runecaster is very powerful, totally broken when combined with Thought Bottle cheese. I don't remember my exact build for the one I played, but it was a pretty standard cleric entry. The party fighter had a permanent glyph of of shapechange. I made a crossbow that shot gelatinous cubes, using a similar trick to the Arrowsplit from the OP. I put a ring on the front of the xbow that had a "when passed" polymorph any object rune keyed to the crossbow bolts that were shot through it.

I made exactly 3 permanant glyphs, those 2 and a heal before the DM asked me to retire the toon before I totally smashed his campaign. In retrospect, the Thought Bottle was a big offender but the class is pretty nasty. You can, on the fly, give very powerful self only spells to your party members. If you want to spend the XP, you can still make any of those campaign smashing items I did...or dream up something worse. A properly optimized Archivist build would be nasty.

I wound up converting the toon into a wizard/runesmith/incantrix and it was seen as milder.
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: Lycanthromancer on June 04, 2011, 11:17:30 PM
I wound up converting the toon into a wizard/runesmith/incantrix and it was seen as milder.
Were you playing a game of Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: Nytemare3701 on June 05, 2011, 12:06:15 AM
I wound up converting the toon into a wizard/runesmith/incantrix and it was seen as milder.
Were you playing a game of Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
I take it you don't follow MMO lingo...Toon=character
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: BrainCandy on June 05, 2011, 12:17:10 AM
I take it you don't follow MMO lingo...Toon=character

Guilty, I am a big MMO mark.
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: Lycanthromancer on June 05, 2011, 02:07:47 AM
I wound up converting the toon into a wizard/runesmith/incantrix and it was seen as milder.
Were you playing a game of Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
I take it you don't follow MMO lingo...Toon=character
Hell no.

Or rather, I get it, but I'm returning it as soon as I can find that damned receipt.
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: X-Codes on June 05, 2011, 10:23:05 AM
I wound up converting the toon into a wizard/runesmith/incantrix and it was seen as milder.
Were you playing a game of Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
I take it you don't follow MMO lingo...Toon=character
Hell no.

Or rather, I get it, but I'm returning it as soon as I can find that damned receipt.
I agree with this.  While I don't see anything technically wrong when calling a D&D character a "toon," it still makes me cringe a little when I see it.  Even 4e requires more thought to play than your average MMO.  Maybe not Ultima Online, but just about everything else.
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: Mixster on June 05, 2011, 01:39:14 PM
Sanctum spell seems like a decent choice for this, reducing the level of your spell makes it cheaper to craft.
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: SorO_Lost on June 06, 2011, 02:42:14 PM
I wound up converting the toon into a wizard/runesmith/incantrix and it was seen as milder.
Were you playing a game of Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
I take it you don't follow MMO lingo...Toon=character
Hell no.

Or rather, I get it, but I'm returning it as soon as I can find that damned receipt.
I agree with this.  While I don't see anything technically wrong when calling a D&D character a "toon," it still makes me cringe a little when I see it.  Even 4e requires more thought to play than your average MMO.  Maybe not Ultima Online, but just about everything else.
UO Reference, wow.
Hey, I put a lot of thought into those scripts :p

If I had to guess, blame WOW. Toon is easier to type that character and certain (most) idiots can't spell character to begin with. As for the choice of toon over say, char, I'm pointing fingers at WOW's cartoon style animation.
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: MalcolmSprye on June 06, 2011, 05:20:13 PM
I wound up converting the toon into a wizard/runesmith/incantrix and it was seen as milder.
Were you playing a game of Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
I take it you don't follow MMO lingo...Toon=character
Hell no.

Or rather, I get it, but I'm returning it as soon as I can find that damned receipt.
I agree with this.  While I don't see anything technically wrong when calling a D&D character a "toon," it still makes me cringe a little when I see it.  Even 4e requires more thought to play than your average MMO.  Maybe not Ultima Online, but just about everything else.
UO Reference, wow.
Hey, I put a lot of thought into those scripts :p

If I had to guess, blame WOW. Toon is easier to type that character and certain (most) idiots can't spell character to begin with. As for the choice of toon over say, char, I'm pointing fingers at WOW's cartoon style animation.

You know, I had always assumed that MMO's borrowed the term from RTS's (I wouldn't actually know since I hate RTS's and don't pay them).  I though it was short for the word "platoon".  Basically, I assumed at one point it was referring to a squad, but people being lazy just used it to refer to a single unit.  I could be totally wrong.
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: McPoyo on June 07, 2011, 08:27:14 PM
City of heroes used that term for your character when it first released. I blame coh for its rampant presence nowadays.
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: BrainCandy on June 07, 2011, 09:10:51 PM
City of heroes used that term for your character when it first released. I blame coh for its rampant presence nowadays.

I originally picked it up from Asheron's Call. I think it goes all the way back to UO though, but I can't really say for certain.


Also, this thread sure got hijacked LOL.
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: Widow on October 28, 2011, 02:31:05 AM
Runecaster is very powerful, totally broken when combined with Thought Bottle cheese. I don't remember my exact build for the one I played, but it was a pretty standard cleric entry. The party fighter had a permanent glyph of of shapechange. I made a crossbow that shot gelatinous cubes, using a similar trick to the Arrowsplit from the OP. I put a ring on the front of the xbow that had a "when passed" polymorph any object rune keyed to the crossbow bolts that were shot through it.

I made exactly 3 permanant glyphs, those 2 and a heal before the DM asked me to retire the toon before I totally smashed his campaign. In retrospect, the Thought Bottle was a big offender but the class is pretty nasty. You can, on the fly, give very powerful self only spells to your party members. If you want to spend the XP, you can still make any of those campaign smashing items I did...or dream up something worse. A properly optimized Archivist build would be nasty.

I wound up converting the toon into a wizard/runesmith/incantrix and it was seen as milder.

I was going to suggest Ur-Priest with entry into the runecaster.  The Ur-priest can cast 9th level spells with a caster level of 9.  That means a permanent 9th level rune could be put up for 9x9x2000gp= 162,000gp.  If you are following the epic rules, anything over 200,000gp gets the 10x multiplier (although not all items seem to follow that).  I would think a 20x9x2000gp rune of permanent shapechage might fall into that category.  Regardless it makes the item cheaper to create, especially for spells that don't need the caster level.

One interesting thing I thought I would point out is the epic destiny webenchancement that wizards put out (and later pulled after 4th was official released, no freebies).  The artificer epic destiny (not eberron class related) gets an ability at level 24 that lets him negate any effects that would make a magic item he owns become non-magical.  Permanment runes are really permanment then.

Only copy left.
http://www.guildportal.com/Guild.aspx?GuildID=47452&TabID=416925&ForumID=267629&TopicID=6868475
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: BruceLeeroy on October 28, 2011, 05:16:31 AM
City of heroes used that term for your character when it first released. I blame coh for its rampant presence nowadays.

I originally picked it up from Asheron's Call. I think it goes all the way back to UO though, but I can't really say for certain.


Also, this thread sure got hijacked LOL.

I don't think "toon" was used in UO. At least, not when I was playing on Baja in '98-'99.
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: Bard on October 28, 2011, 05:38:11 AM
I don't think "toon" was used in UO. At least, not when I was playing on Baja in '98-'99.
Never heard it in UO either, I heard it in CoH too, especially in the US servers where it was the "standard" way to call a character (EU server not so much). I heard someone using in Ragnarok Online too but it was the exception.

Back on the thread... our clerics often use it to fill up empty levels, especially healbots, but we never used it in an offensive capacity. The main uses were:
1. Runes of Revivify, since they can be used without UMD by everyone and the price isn't that higher than a scroll.
2. BUFFING ARMBANDS, basically a line of runes that worked times/day strapped to our character arms/scabbards/whatever, each with a buff in it so we could full buff as a part of a move action.
XP costs were ofc split among the party (who wants a rune pays the xp and money to the crafter) using the spells in PHB2 Web Enhancement.

It also gets suggested on the boards, as a matter of fact someone suggested it to me no more than 2 days ago on my Archer Cleric thread.
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: Unbeliever on October 28, 2011, 07:29:03 AM
on topic: 

Since this class has come up a couple of times I took a fresh look at it.  Besides, I love the flavor of runes.  I do think there are some neat, if cruel things to be done with runes, especially of the Permanent variety. 

BUT, I don't see why you'd need to take levels in this class to take advantage of them.  Couldn't you just buy a bow ensorcelled with these runes, and save your class levels for something more valuable?  Am I missing something? 
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: Bard on October 28, 2011, 08:04:12 AM
on topic:  

Since this class has come up a couple of times I took a fresh look at it.  Besides, I love the flavor of runes.  I do think there are some neat, if cruel things to be done with runes, especially of the Permanent variety.  

BUT, I don't see why you'd need to take levels in this class to take advantage of them.  Couldn't you just buy a bow ensorcelled with these runes, and save your class levels for something more valuable?  Am I missing something?  

IIRC the runes you can craft without the class are single use only, they're basically scrolls that don't require UMD.
With the class you can create permanent runes that work like custom magic items that cast a spell x/day or persistent ones.
But unlike custom objects they:
1. Don't occupy slots, you can scribe them wherever (without the additional price that custom objects have).
2. You can set conditions for it to trigger, so it doesn't require any action to activate them.
3. You can build reusable traps with them and any kind of stupid object (like runes that */day when tossed against something blast a fireball like a dwarven granade :P)

They really really become versatile and awesome. Makes Inscribe Rune hands down the best crafting feat EVER.
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: Unbeliever on October 28, 2011, 08:10:56 AM
You're missing the point of my question.

Isn't it the case that you don't have to BE the Runecaster to take advantage of all those abilities?  You just need to KNOW a Runecaster.  These runes have a cost, and really you just need to find a Runecaster to make them for you.  Rather than 8+ levels in a prestige class, you could just throw gold (and perhaps some effort finding/befriending the right guy) at it.  

I don't usually condone that sort of thing due to gentleman's agreements, but there's nothing that requires you to be a Runecaster to use all those funky runes, right?  
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: nijineko on October 28, 2011, 08:21:29 AM
Only copy left.
http://www.guildportal.com/Guild.aspx?GuildID=47452&TabID=416925&ForumID=267629&TopicID=6868475

not so, my 3.x wotc archive has a copy too... might be copies of it out there still, and torrents too.
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: Bard on October 28, 2011, 08:45:16 AM
You're missing the point of my question.

Isn't it the case that you don't have to BE the Runecaster to take advantage of all those abilities?  You just need to KNOW a Runecaster.  These runes have a cost, and really you just need to find a Runecaster to make them for you.  Rather than 8+ levels in a prestige class, you could just throw gold (and perhaps some effort finding/befriending the right guy) at it.  

I don't usually condone that sort of thing due to gentleman's agreements, but there's nothing that requires you to be a Runecaster to use all those funky runes, right?  
No actually the fact that everyone can use them is a point in favor of the runes.

It really depends on the campaign and the DM I guess... much like any other Crafting talent.
The only reason I can think of is that it's a PrC with easy prerequisites and no restrictions (aligment, deity, race, etc) that has cleric bab, 2 good saves and full caster level, it's a nice filler for the level when you don't need anything specific if you started out with 3 levels of Cloistered Cleric for the bonus domain (so you can't go back to base class or you lose bab and hp). That's how we usually use it, and also how I found it (I was looking around for something just like that to finish of the build and at first the runes where just a plus)

Still having a runecaster in the party (or at least someone with Inscribe Rune) is nice since scribing a rune is really fast (10 minutes) and you can get a couple of situational "rune potions" and "rune buffs" ready for an encounter in one hour or so.
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: X-Codes on October 28, 2011, 05:15:04 PM
I don't think "toon" was used in UO. At least, not when I was playing on Baja in '98-'99.
Never heard it in UO either, I heard it in CoH too, especially in the US servers where it was the "standard" way to call a character (EU server not so much). I heard someone using in Ragnarok Online too but it was the exception.
I believe I heard it first on Everquest.
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: PhaedrusXY on October 28, 2011, 05:20:03 PM
You're missing the point of my question.

Isn't it the case that you don't have to BE the Runecaster to take advantage of all those abilities?  You just need to KNOW a Runecaster.  These runes have a cost, and really you just need to find a Runecaster to make them for you.  Rather than 8+ levels in a prestige class, you could just throw gold (and perhaps some effort finding/befriending the right guy) at it.  

I don't usually condone that sort of thing due to gentleman's agreements, but there's nothing that requires you to be a Runecaster to use all those funky runes, right?  
No actually the fact that everyone can use them is a point in favor of the runes.

It really depends on the campaign and the DM I guess... much like any other Crafting talent.
The only reason I can think of is that it's a PrC with easy prerequisites and no restrictions (aligment, deity, race, etc) that has cleric bab, 2 good saves and full caster level, it's a nice filler for the level when you don't need anything specific if you started out with 3 levels of Cloistered Cleric for the bonus domain (so you can't go back to base class or you lose bab and hp). That's how we usually use it, and also how I found it (I was looking around for something just like that to finish of the build and at first the runes where just a plus)

Still having a runecaster in the party (or at least someone with Inscribe Rune) is nice since scribing a rune is really fast (10 minutes) and you can get a couple of situational "rune potions" and "rune buffs" ready for an encounter in one hour or so.
The runes are also quite expensive, so being able to make them yourself lets you reduce the cost just via self-crafting and also you could dedicate feats towards it, if you really wanted to get into cost reduction. Also, as mentioned earlier an Ur-Priest runecaster can really cut the price...
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: Bard on October 28, 2011, 09:57:56 PM
The runes are also quite expensive, so being able to make them yourself lets you reduce the cost just via self-crafting and also you could dedicate feats towards it, if you really wanted to get into cost reduction. Also, as mentioned earlier an Ur-Priest runecaster can really cut the price...
I'm a bit confused on the Ur-Priest thing...
Even assuming you get no other caster levels between UrPriest and Runecaster (so 3+8 levels for persistent runes), wouldn't that end up giving you a CL of 15 anyway? Or do you consider anyway the minimum caster level for an Ur-Priest that is the same as the spell level?
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: PhaedrusXY on October 28, 2011, 10:00:06 PM
The runes are also quite expensive, so being able to make them yourself lets you reduce the cost just via self-crafting and also you could dedicate feats towards it, if you really wanted to get into cost reduction. Also, as mentioned earlier an Ur-Priest runecaster can really cut the price...
I'm a bit confused on the Ur-Priest thing...
Even assuming you get no other caster levels between UrPriest and Runecaster (so 3+8 levels for persistent runes), wouldn't that end up giving you a CL of 15 anyway? Or do you consider anyway the minimum caster level for an Ur-Priest that is the same as the spell level?
The latter is technically true. An Ur-Priest's minimum CL is equal to the spell level. Whether a given DM will let you get away with that is of course another thing entirely... but I've been in two separate games where they actually did. If they'll let you play an ur-priest in the first place, in my experience odds are pretty good at getting away with it...
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: Arturick on October 28, 2011, 10:26:41 PM
I rolled up a Gold Dwarf Cleric/Runecaster for an online game that sadly fell apart.  I was going for Divine Power/Righteous Might with a x/day Rune of Cause Serious Wounds inscribed on the face of a warhammer.

When I read about the PAO ring on the end of a crossbow, the first thing that popped into my mind was "Pirahna Gun!  Oooooh yeah!"
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: SorO_Lost on October 28, 2011, 11:05:30 PM
I don't think "toon" was used in UO. At least, not when I was playing on Baja in '98-'99.
Never heard it in UO either, I heard it in CoH too, especially in the US servers where it was the "standard" way to call a character (EU server not so much). I heard someone using in Ragnarok Online too but it was the exception.
I believe I heard it first on Everquest.
WoW for me. As I mentioned before, I just blamed the artwork for it.

Speaking of fan names. I got hung up on "Harry" in DDO. I was expecting a "hairy" monster or something. Instead I got this
(http://ddowiki.com/images/thumb/Arraetrikos.png/300px-Arraetrikos.png)
Arraetrikos
The voice over pronounces his name like "Air-rah-tree-kos". So I refer to him as Arra, and guess what? People try to correct me. >.>
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: Bard on October 29, 2011, 01:42:18 AM
The latter is technically true. An Ur-Priest's minimum CL is equal to the spell level. Whether a given DM will let you get away with that is of course another thing entirely... but I've been in two separate games where they actually did. If they'll let you play an ur-priest in the first place, in my experience odds are pretty good at getting away with it...
Well, I've always been sorta struggling between my hate of houserules and homebrew and the complete lack of any freely usable and tradable "consumable" items that can make a mundane class do useful stuff (both in and out of combat) without affecting WBL and XP too much. Artificier partly solves the issue and I like it for that but it's not quite enough (also I don't like some of the concept and the mechanics of the artificier even if I appreciate the original idea and its power). The Urunesmith another step in that direction I suppose... And while I wish there was something better, I'd allow it in my games for sure (maybe with the ur-priest adaptation using some forgotten/invented dwarven god of runecrafting)
Title: Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
Post by: Widow on October 29, 2011, 04:38:38 PM
Like PhaedrusXY said, if the Ur-Priest is allowed you can probably get away with lower caster crafting levels on items.  And why not, if the DM bars you from making lower caster level items then he should wave the caster level requirements on craft staff and such.  The Ur-priest is certainly a hard road to take in Faruen though, you will end up in the living wall or serving in that city for sure.  Following the dead deity technique probably wont get you out of it, but it might allow 5x/Ur-priest 2/Runecaster 8/Heirophant 5

The same can be said for the Sublime chord.  It is quite possible to build a bard 1/Wizard 9/Sublime chord and pick bard as you arcane class to add to your caster level.  That means you can make level 4 and 5 spells with a caster level of 2.  And if you allow stuff like southern magician to produce arcane spells, you could go divine bard 10 dropping those sublime chord caster levels to 1.  Knowing this any sublime chord should be able to cast level 4 and 5 spells with a caster level of 1 or 2.

The only problem you run into is acid test rules.  You can make items that give bonuses cheaper than the DMG guideline prices such as the continous use True Strike example.  Continous level 2 +4 ability score spells would cost 2x2x2000=8,000gp, half the price of a standard +4 item and slotless to boot.  Of course you can argue that the rune is also much more vulnerable than a standard item.  So you might want to stear clear of any standard type bonuses that are too cheap if your DM will care.

So is there much of a reason to take levels 9 and 10 in the class?  Level 9's +1 against dispeling is not bad, but level 10 +1 caster level does not seem like a must have.  Only seems really useful if you are going with epic progression on the class, and probably not then either.  I am partial to Savage Bard 4/1x/Ur-Priest 2/Runecaster 8/ heirophant 5 if you can get over heirophant and ur-priests wording working together.  I would think two levels of spell power would work better if you really want those bonuses.  Practiced spell caster could also help that along with a bead of karma to boost your caster level when you make runes.  They just so happen to both last 10 minutes.  Magic Artisian is a given.

I wonder if you got a spellblade for erase and all the dispel spells, would it work on your equipment?  Targeting your equipment probably does not count as targeting you, but it would be funny if the spellblade weapon enchantment made all your runes safe baring disjunction.

I also wonder how runemaster would work with Craft rune circle.  You can make a small rune circle that has the same effects as any magic item at 1/8 the cost.  One hell of a cheap trap.

Costs:
1) Ur-priest caster level can half cost if you are not worried about spell level.
2) Persistent Rune does not have the standard spell duration multiplier the DMG states for custom items (rounds/level 4x cost)
3) Rune circle costs magic item's price times 1/4.
4) Small 5 foot square cuts costs 1/2

So you figure 1/8th the price for a 5 foot squre trap, not including the price mode if it is persistent and with a short duration.  Then you factor in 1/2 cost to craft and possibly master artisian, you end up with a really cheap trap.