Author Topic: Why no love for the Runecaster?  (Read 15704 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BrainCandy

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 79
    • Email
Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
« Reply #20 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.

Lycanthromancer

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4003
    • Email
Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
« Reply #21 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.
[spoiler]Masculine men like masculine things. Masculine men are masculine. Therefore, liking masculine men is masculine.

I dare anyone to find a hole in that logic.
______________________________________
[/spoiler]I'm a writer. These are my stories. Some are even SFW! (Warning: Mostly Gay.)
My awesome poster collection. (Warning, some are NSFW.)
Agita's awesome poster collection.
[spoiler]
+1 Lycanthromancer
Which book is Lycanthromancer in?
Lyca ... is in the book. Yes he is.
 :D
shit.. concerning psionics optimization, lycan IS the book
[/spoiler]

X-Codes

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3941
Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
« Reply #22 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.

Mixster

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1642
Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
« Reply #23 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.
Monks are pretty much the best designed class ever.

JaronK

Meep Meep - Mixster out

SorO_Lost

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • I'll kill you before you're born.
Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
« Reply #24 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.
Tiers explained in 8 sentences. With examples!
[spoiler]Tiers break down into who has spellcasting more than anything else due to spells being better than anything else in the game.
6: Skill based. Commoner, Expert, Samurai.
5: Mundane warrior. Barbarian, Fighter, Monk.
4: Partial casters. Adapt, Hexblade, Paladin, Ranger, Spelltheif.
3: Focused casters. Bard, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Martial Adapts, Warmage.
2: Full casters. Favored Soul, Psion, Sorcerer, Wu Jen.
1: Elitists. Artificer, Cleric, Druid, Wizard.
0: Gods. StP Erudite, Illthid Savant, Pun-Pun, Rocks fall & you die.
[/spoiler]

MalcolmSprye

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
« Reply #25 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.

McPoyo

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3783
    • Email
Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
« Reply #26 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.
[Spoiler]
A gygaxian dungeon is like the world's most messed up game show.

Behind door number one: INSTANT DEATH!
Behind door number 2: A magic crown!
Behind door number 3: 4d6 giant bees, and THREE HUNDRED POUNDS OF HONEY!
They don't/haven't, was the point. 3.5 is as dead as people not liking nice tits.

Sometimes, their tits (3.5) get enhancements (houserules), but that doesn't mean people don't like nice tits.

Though sometimes, the surgeon (DM) botches them pretty bad...
Best metaphor I have seen in a long time.  I give you much fu.
Three Errata for the Mage-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Barbarian-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Monks doomed to die,
One for the Wizard on his dark throne
In the Land of Charop where the Shadows lie.
[/spoiler]

BrainCandy

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 79
    • Email
Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
« Reply #27 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.

Widow

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 469
Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
« Reply #28 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

BruceLeeroy

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 307
Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
« Reply #29 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.

Bard

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 198
Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
« Reply #30 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.
[Spoiler]
His old DM was on crack. He could take levels in freaking Dread Necromancer if he wanted to and no rule in the universe would keep him from doing so.
Rule 0?
Which, I guess, would be 'no rule,' since none = 0.
What's funny is he always brings up Rule 0. I actually had to ask him what that was, and without blinking an eye he gave me the most detailed explanation I'd ever heard for a rule. It was like he was in a trance when he spoke. Looking it up, it just said "The unspoken DM gets final say/veto anything he wants rule."
You're such a kind man, for taking in abused unfortunates and rehabilitating them.
[/spoiler]

Unbeliever

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
« Reply #31 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? 

Bard

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 198
Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
« Reply #32 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.
[Spoiler]
His old DM was on crack. He could take levels in freaking Dread Necromancer if he wanted to and no rule in the universe would keep him from doing so.
Rule 0?
Which, I guess, would be 'no rule,' since none = 0.
What's funny is he always brings up Rule 0. I actually had to ask him what that was, and without blinking an eye he gave me the most detailed explanation I'd ever heard for a rule. It was like he was in a trance when he spoke. Looking it up, it just said "The unspoken DM gets final say/veto anything he wants rule."
You're such a kind man, for taking in abused unfortunates and rehabilitating them.
[/spoiler]

Unbeliever

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
« Reply #33 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?  

nijineko

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 887
  • two strange quarks short of a graviton...
Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
« Reply #34 on: October 28, 2011, 08:21:29 AM »
arukibito ga michi wo erabu no ka, michi ga arukibito wo erabu no deshou ka?
Never game alone again!
KadoKado! Game for gifts!
The Ultimate Dice Rolling Engine

Bard

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 198
Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
« Reply #35 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.
[Spoiler]
His old DM was on crack. He could take levels in freaking Dread Necromancer if he wanted to and no rule in the universe would keep him from doing so.
Rule 0?
Which, I guess, would be 'no rule,' since none = 0.
What's funny is he always brings up Rule 0. I actually had to ask him what that was, and without blinking an eye he gave me the most detailed explanation I'd ever heard for a rule. It was like he was in a trance when he spoke. Looking it up, it just said "The unspoken DM gets final say/veto anything he wants rule."
You're such a kind man, for taking in abused unfortunates and rehabilitating them.
[/spoiler]

X-Codes

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3941
Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
« Reply #36 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.

PhaedrusXY

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8022
  • Advanced Spambot
Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
« Reply #37 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...
[spoiler]
A couple of water benders, a dike, a flaming arrow, and a few barrels of blasting jelly?

Sounds like the makings of a gay porn film.
...thanks
[/spoiler]

Bard

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 198
Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
« Reply #38 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?
[Spoiler]
His old DM was on crack. He could take levels in freaking Dread Necromancer if he wanted to and no rule in the universe would keep him from doing so.
Rule 0?
Which, I guess, would be 'no rule,' since none = 0.
What's funny is he always brings up Rule 0. I actually had to ask him what that was, and without blinking an eye he gave me the most detailed explanation I'd ever heard for a rule. It was like he was in a trance when he spoke. Looking it up, it just said "The unspoken DM gets final say/veto anything he wants rule."
You're such a kind man, for taking in abused unfortunates and rehabilitating them.
[/spoiler]

PhaedrusXY

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8022
  • Advanced Spambot
Re: Why no love for the Runecaster?
« Reply #39 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...
[spoiler]
A couple of water benders, a dike, a flaming arrow, and a few barrels of blasting jelly?

Sounds like the makings of a gay porn film.
...thanks
[/spoiler]