# Runepriest in Action?



## TarionzCousin (May 12, 2010)

Has anyone played or seen a Runepriest in action? They are one of the non-psionic classes from PHB 3, in case you have been asleep for months.

Our current DM is rotating out of his spot soon and doesn't want to play his bard. He's looking for another "leader." I have been suggesting Artificer, but Runepriest looks like fun.

Also, check out the review of the PHB 3 at rpg.net.



			
				rpg.net said:
			
		

> Runepriest is one of two non-psionic additions, in this case a divine Leader. A Str user, Runepriest either takes on a more offense-oriented approach with the Con secondary (Wrathful) or more defense-oriented with the Wis secondary (Defiant). At any point the Runepriest is in either the Destruction or Protection runic state. Destruction offers allies a +1 attack bonus against enemies adjacent to the Runepriest while Protection offers adjacent allies 2/4/6 damage reduction. The Runepriest can switch his state whenever he uses a power with the runic keyword (all of them) and each power has a different secondary effect depending on which runic state the Runepriest is in.
> 
> The difference between Wrathful and Defiant is only slight, with Wrathful gaining Con mod bonus damage against an enemy that strikes him while Defiant gains Wis mod damage against an enemy that misses. This is a melee heavy Leader option that generally does a bit more damage than other Leader builds but lacks certain defensive options. It is at its best in a melee-focused party, as many of the defensive powers are only useful when adjacent to the target.
> 
> In play we found the Runepriest to be quite fun, so much so that several members of my group want to play the Class in our next campaign. That each power has different secondary effects at will, combined with the melee focus, resulted in a class that had a lot of options at the table and, at least in the Heroic Tier did a surprising amount of damage for a Leader. What's more, the Class has an excellent thematic feel and fits into most campaigns with little trouble.


----------



## ppaladin123 (May 12, 2010)

I'm playing one right now. It's very effective and I love the flavor. On the other hand, it generates a ton of small fleeting buffs/bonuses/debuffs to keep track of. Check out this thread (to which I contributed) someone made on the WotC boards:

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/23375885/I_hate_Runepriests_now


----------



## Antronach (May 12, 2010)

Runepriests themselves do very little damage. However with the buffs he gave that party he was indispensable.

I think in the last fight he had a sustain minor giving allies near him +2 ac. And a stance giving adjacent allies +1 to hit. While having those two up he prevented at least 100 damage, and enabled his party members do to do another 100 (level 6). I admit he got pretty lucky, lots of people that should have been missing by 1 and lots of me barely hitting.


----------



## fba827 (May 12, 2010)

i was considering a runepriest as my next pc.  but after reading it over closer, there just seem to be too many "fiddly bits" and (based on past experience) that would cause trouble at my table with the mix of players currently there (we just don't do good with lots of fiddly bits: it'll frustrate someone if people are constantly being reminded of what affects them or not, or another player who will constantly forget what bonuses/effects were just told to him, or another player whose brain pretty much shuts down when you toss out additional numbers he/she needs to add that aren't already pre-added for him/her on the PC sheet).
that's not to say it's a bad class, but i don't think it would work well in my particular group if played to full versatile effect. so figure out how good your group is with fiddly bits and make an assessment from there.  beyond that, it looks as good and flavorful as other leader classes, with enough distinctive tone so that you don't feel like any of the other leaders with a different label.


----------



## Deverash (May 12, 2010)

ppaladin123 said:


> I'm playing one right now. It's very effective and I love the flavor. On the other hand, it generates a ton of small fleeting buffs/bonuses/debuffs to keep track of. Check out this thread (to which I contributed) someone made on the WotC boards:
> 
> Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible




I love the flavor of the class as well, and have a great time playing him.  But it's a bit rough as the only leader in a party of 6, since the runepriest has the worst healing ability of any of the leaders.  On the bright side, they do give out a ton of bonuses to defenses(if you want to go that way) and can basically give everyone adjacent to them Resist 2 All indefinately.  As long as the other players realize that they'll be using their second wind, it should work out, though.

And it fun to set up "pinatas" with your at wills ("Next person to hit this guy gets X temporary hits/bonus to defenses/bonuses to damage!")


----------



## Mengu (May 12, 2010)

I like mine so far.

I have yet to get Wrathful Hammer damage. My buddies keep killing whatever hits me, so I never get to attack them back. I guess it's not a bad problem to have.

Between +1 attack and the +4/+5'ish damage boost I can line up twice per encounter, stuff dies fast. And in a pinch between Rune of Endless Fire, Flames of Purity, and Rune of Mending, I can dole out some healing.

In a party without a defender, I was able to take on the role of the punching bag as well, though most of that comes from being a Goliath and starting with Toughness.


----------



## TarionzCousin (May 12, 2010)

This is all good stuff. Thanks. I'm out of XP for the day now.


----------



## Insight (May 12, 2010)

I played a Runepriest for D&D Encounters and never even got to bloodied once, due mostly to the bonuses I was giving to things adjacent to me.  I was the only leader in the group and never really had a big problem with healing.

I my current, regular gaming group, we are starting a new campaign and I am one of 2 leaders in a group of five.  I don't anticipate the Runepriest's healing ability, or lack thereof, to be a big deal.

BTW, the way I deal with the "fiddly bits" is the creation of "flip cards", one for each power, with the rune state effects for "Destruction" and "Protection" on either side.  And no one but me needs worry about how long they last; as soon as my next turn is up, or I switch to another rune state, I either flip the cards or put one of them away (I always have either the basic "Rune of Destruction" or "Rune of Protection" card up).


----------



## Prestidigitalis (May 12, 2010)

Slightly off-topic: 

I really have a hard time, conceptually, with the Runepriest as Strength-primary.  What would you think of swapping Strength for Wisdom everywhere in the class definition?  That is, making it Wisdom-primary and Str/Con-secondary, and then adjusting all powers and feats accordingly.

Obviously, it would be a lot of work, but in theory?


----------



## Mr. Teapot (May 12, 2010)

Prestidigitalis said:


> Slightly off-topic:
> 
> I really have a hard time, conceptually, with the Runepriest as Strength-primary.  What would you think of swapping Strength for Wisdom everywhere in the class definition?  That is, making it Wisdom-primary and Str/Con-secondary, and then adjusting all powers and feats accordingly.
> 
> Obviously, it would be a lot of work, but in theory?




Off the top of my head, it makes the Con secondary option slightly more appealing because you won't have the Primary and Secondary stats both on the same NAD.  (Con-secondary would also get a worse basic attack, but I don't know if that balances things any.)


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui (May 13, 2010)

It will also affect what classes make effective hybrid/multiclass characters with Runepriest... whether or not that matters is another issue, but it might.

It also affects what races make the most effective rune priests - that said, you may well like (for example) the fact that dwarves now have a boost to both the primary and a secondary and that warforged no longer do.

Finally, it may change what feats are attractive to a rune priest character.

Now, some of these may actually come out in favour of you house ruling a swap, and some may speak against it, but they are worth looking into if only to give you a better idea of the effects of the swap.

Perhaps the biggest issue in my mind (other than making the con secondary build more attractive due to no longer boosting the same defence) is that simploy swapping strength for wisdom (ie - all powers that had will based boosters now are boosted by strength instead) may no longer match the "feel" of the power - for example, for some it may feel strange if this means that str mostly boosts protection powers rather than destruction powers (admittedly, I haven't looked to see if this is the case).


----------



## Victim (May 13, 2010)

It makes it harder for Runepriests, who use weapons, to take weapon based feats.


----------



## DracoSuave (May 13, 2010)

Victim said:


> It makes it harder for Runepriests, who use weapons, to take weapon based feats.




This.

Wrathful Hammer, which has as a feature 'Give El Wray the hammers, give him all the hammers' and Str/Con which is 'Have all the hammer feats' suddenly loses a LOT of its upside.


----------



## Marshall (May 13, 2010)

RunePriests are NOT leaders. WotC did a bang-up job of finally creating a Melee Controller tho. 

I've been playing a Runepriest thru Encounters and a little LFR up to third level. Healing from the class isnt much more than incedental, there are a LOT of 'fiddly' bits and NOTHING about the class says "Divine". 
Its a playable class...tanks like a Defender, Hits like a Striker(Wrathful Hammer + Maul), heals/buffs like a Leader, debuffs like a Controller...its just, not really 'Weak', but below par in all of them.

..and if they are gonna call it 'Divine' it needs some sort of CD feature, a healing buff would make sense if they really think its a 'Leader'


----------



## TarionzCousin (May 15, 2010)

Marshall said:


> Healing from the class isnt much more than incedental....



But is it *enough *healing? Two per encounter would be sufficient for our group.


----------



## Mengu (May 15, 2010)

Ability to spend a healing surge twice per encounter is usually enough healing (depending on the size and composition of the group).

It's always a good idea for someone else in the group to grab an emergency healing option.

If you are looking for it, there is more healing available for the Runepriest. Even at first level, I was able to heal 3 party members in one turn for reasonable amount of healing, with Rune of Endless Fire, Action point, Flames of Purity (to heal 7 HP on two targets, which happened to be both their healing surge values), and minor action to heal another character for healing surge+4 with Rune of Mending (and gave +1 all defenses, and a resist all 2 for the avenger next to me). Oh and, I also happened to bloody one of the enemies and take out a minion while doing all that.

And the flexibility of the Runepriest is such that with Flames of Purity, in most normal encounters (that we're not getting blasted away by some super artillery), I can dole out the damage bonuses.

Along with the Warlord, the Runepriest is currently one of my top two favorite leader classes.


----------



## Marshall (May 15, 2010)

You needed to spend a daily to get up to what a cleric does with at-wills. I think thats weak.

Having a Runepriest as the partys only Healer doesnt work well, IME. However, a Runepriest is the best fifth-wheel class in the game, able to passably stand in for most classes temporarily.


----------



## keterys (May 15, 2010)

They lose 1d6 healing to give out close burst 5 (you + allies) either +1 defenses or +2 damage. That's a solid trade. 3 hp is very rarely the difference between success and failure, especially not if you compare it to possibly being missed (defenses) or killing an enemy a round earlier (damage).


----------



## Mengu (May 15, 2010)

Marshall said:


> You needed to spend a daily to get up to what a cleric does with at-wills. I think thats weak.




Any healer compared to the cleric is weak, and you're comparing the worst healer with the best healer. All I was saying is that in a pinch, they can do what's necessary to keep a few people up. Fortunately, you're not always in a pinch. I just feel the Runepriest does so much more than just heal, and has so much more flexibility. And after having tried out a few parties without leaders, I think Runepriest as the only leader in a party is perfectly fine.

I play a Warlord as the only leader in a party of 6, and would *gladly* give up a d6 of healing from my inspiring word to grant a +2/4/6 damage bonus in a close burst 5/10/15.


----------



## Marshall (May 15, 2010)

Mengu said:


> Any healer compared to the cleric is weak, and you're comparing the worst healer with the best healer. All I was saying is that in a pinch, they can do what's necessary to keep a few people up. Fortunately, you're not always in a pinch. I just feel the Runepriest does so much more than just heal, and has so much more flexibility.




EXACTLY! 
As long as you consider a Runepriest a Melee Controller instead of a Leader you will be fine.



> And after having tried out a few parties without leaders, I think Runepriest as the only leader in a party is perfectly fine.




If you are getting by in a party(ies?) without a leader than an RP is an improvement over nothing, just like a Paladins healing is. 



> I play a Warlord as the only leader in a party of 6, and would *gladly* give up a d6 of healing from my inspiring word to grant a +2/4/6 damage bonus in a close burst 5/10/15.




The difference here is that the Warlord gets to choose between buffing and healing. The Runepriest has to spend his healing incidentally to giving out his best buffs.


----------



## TarionzCousin (May 15, 2010)

Marshall said:


> The Runepriest has to spend his healing incidentally to giving out his best buffs.



Um, what? 

I don't have the PHB3, so this statement has confused me.

Does the Runepriest only heal when he buffs?


----------



## kaomera (May 16, 2010)

TarionzCousin said:


> Um, what?
> 
> I don't have the PHB3, so this statement has confused me.
> 
> Does the Runepriest only heal when he buffs?



In a way, yes: Rune of Mending (the Runepriest 2x / Encounter spend-a-surge power) also hands out a buff, at the cost of +1d6 healing compared to the Cleric. I'm playing a Bard right now, I can slide the target of my Majestic Word power. There's tons of times when sliding an ally with a minor action could be really cool, but because it's entwined with my healing ability I can't just toss it off whenever...


----------



## Marshall (May 16, 2010)

kaomera said:


> In a way, yes: Rune of Mending (the Runepriest 2x / Encounter spend-a-surge power) also hands out a buff, at the cost of +1d6 healing compared to the Cleric. I'm playing a Bard right now, I can slide the target of my Majestic Word power. There's tons of times when sliding an ally with a minor action could be really cool, but because it's entwined with my healing ability I can't just toss it off whenever...




Having actually used my Sorcerers _Daily_ Majestic Word to slide a _full health_ ally out of the way of my own spells, yeah its nice. But, thats kind of the point, the Runepriest has to choose between buffing at the most opportune time or using his healing.


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 16, 2010)

Nice thread everyone. I avoided PHBIII after I saw how wonky Psionics was. I might have to try out a Runepriest or Seeker, though.


----------



## darjr (May 16, 2010)

Yea, this thread has inspired me to try a runepriest next. I, for some reason, get to play the healers, and this one sounds like fun.


----------



## TarionzCousin (May 16, 2010)

darjr said:


> Yea, this thread has inspired me to try a runepriest next. I, for some reason, get to play the healers, and this one sounds like fun.



Runepriests do seem like fun. 

If the guy who "doesn't want to play a bard anymore but wants to play a Leader" in our group doesn't play a Runepriest I'm going to be very disappointed.


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui (May 16, 2010)

I agree that playing a rune priest sounds like fun - I have a warforged runepriest/barbarian I did up on CB that I wouldn't mind trying out.

That said, I'm also wary of how fiddly it might be - we also have an invoker in that group, and keeping track of which situational bonus we have at any given time is kind of a pain, and the runepriest looks way worse.

I do admit that may just be an issue with my group - part of the problem is that some of my players play via Skype, and its more difficult for them to track what's going on.  But, as one of the players on the same side of the camera as the map, even I find it a bit challenging.  So, if I ever do try a runepriest, I will definitely have to ensure that I am well organised and have made out lots of visual aids for all the other players.


----------



## Jhaelen (May 17, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> Nice thread everyone. I avoided PHBIII after I saw how wonky Psionics was. I might have to try out a Runepriest or Seeker, though.



Monks are neat, too. Though they technically use the psionic power source they don't use the 'wonky' psionic system.

Seeker and Monk were my favorites from the book. The Seeker is actually the first controller class that really appealed to me.


----------



## Mr. Teapot (May 17, 2010)

Dr_Ruminahui said:


> I do admit that may just be an issue with my group - part of the problem is that some of my players play via Skype, and its more difficult for them to track what's going on.




I'd think that you could use that computer to provide some support somehow.  Have the Runepriest player sit by the computer, and have a text chat window open as well as any voice/video chat.  Runepriest types in all the bonuses he grants to people, displayed such that all participants on both ends can see it.

I don't know your specific group or setup, so you'd have to find a solution that worked for you.  But I think that if you already had some technology involved in your gaming, you could find a technological solution to tracking bonuses like that.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (May 17, 2010)

What do you think of the various Runepriest feats that give "x bonus for each Rune feat you have"?  Collect them all?


----------



## Mengu (May 17, 2010)

Prestidigitalis said:


> What do you think of the various Runepriest feats that give "x bonus for each Rune feat you have"?  Collect them all?




I try not to think of them as garbage. I try very very hard. I fail.

There are so many other feats that are either more vital or interesting that the rune feats seem like a pipe dream that just doesn't come to fruition for a very long time.

Edit: Rune of Battle is an exception, and is good by itself without the other feats, but it's not till level 21.


----------



## Obryn (May 17, 2010)

I was messing around with a Runepriest the other day.  When I was building him, I couldn't shake the feeling that he was a bit more MAD than most other new classes.  I might have just been looking at it the wrong way, but there's something about the Rune States that messes with my brain - maybe it's that none of the rune state buffs are based on the attack stat, and that all are based on one of the secondaries.

Is this in any way accurate?  It's all just a hunch based on building a character, and not based on any actual play.

-O


----------



## Mengu (May 17, 2010)

Obryn said:


> I was messing around with a Runepriest the other day.  When I was building him, I couldn't shake the feeling that he was a bit more MAD than most other new classes.  I might have just been looking at it the wrong way, but there's something about the Rune States that messes with my brain - maybe it's that none of the rune state buffs are based on the attack stat, and that all are based on one of the secondaries.
> 
> Is this in any way accurate?  It's all just a hunch based on building a character, and not based on any actual play.




It's not unlike any other class really. If you're playing an artful dodger rogue, you go for the charisma secondary powers, if you're playing a brutal scoundrel, you go with the strength secondary. Same thing with the Runepriest. For any given power, both rune states are either Wisdom based or Con based (never one of each). So you stick with one secondary stat, and you're fine.


----------



## Marshall (May 17, 2010)

Mengu said:


> I try not to think of them as garbage. I try very very hard. I fail.
> 
> There are so many other feats that are either more vital or interesting that the rune feats seem like a pipe dream that just doesn't come to fruition for a very long time.
> 
> Edit: Rune of Battle is an exception, and is good by itself without the other feats, but it's not till level 21.




What he said. They are almost all garbage until you get at least 3. At which time they become exactly as useful as non-rune feats. Problem being that, if you take 3 or more, their benefits are so diverse that it just makes you even more mediocre at _everything_ than the base class does. 
As of right now, the class has no way to 'pick one thing, and get really good at it.'


----------



## mneme (May 17, 2010)

To be fair, Rune of Hope is something that more or less every Runepriest will get.  So if there's another baseline "Rune" feat, then the scaling feats become much more worthwhile.


----------



## BobTheNob (May 17, 2010)

With Rune Feats, also remember we have but one source book available to us ith a sampling of rune feats. Just wait for "Runepriest essentials" and Divine Power 3. When these come out, more rune feats will become available, and as they do you will find more purpose specific feats to make them more tantilizing.

You may even find 3 or so that a pretty useful its even worth taking really marginal ones just to boost the more useful ones.

Basically said, Rune feat power will accelerate with source releases. I believe they are only poor at the momnet due to the meager initial offerings, this will change.


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 18, 2010)

BobTheNob said:


> Basically said, Rune feat power will accelerate with source releases. I believe they are only poor at the momnet due to the meager initial offerings, this will change.




That is most liekly true for all PHBIII classes, but DP2 and PP2 are not out till next year at the earliest.


----------



## lukelightning (May 18, 2010)

*Paragon paths and rune states*

Some of the paragon paths give you new rune states that you can enter instead of protection or destruction... I like the idea of new rune states, but doesn't that mean you don't get the special protection/destruction riders for all your powers?


----------



## Kingreaper (May 18, 2010)

lukelightning said:


> Some of the paragon paths give you new rune states that you can enter instead of protection or destruction... I like the idea of new rune states, but doesn't that mean you don't get the special protection/destruction riders for all your powers?




If I'm reading it right, you pick a rider. Then, when you would enter the state associated with that rider, you instead enter your PP rune state.

So you should still be getting the rider, and in fact can pick the rider more freely (no worrying about whether the state is more important the the rider)

Going to be playing a runepriest (possibly hybrid barbarian) soon, so I hope I'm getting that right.


----------



## Mengu (May 18, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> If I'm reading it right, you pick a rider. Then, when you would enter the state associated with that rider, you instead enter your PP rune state.
> 
> So you should still be getting the rider, and in fact can pick the rider more freely (no worrying about whether the state is more important the the rider)
> 
> Going to be playing a runepriest (possibly hybrid barbarian) soon, so I hope I'm getting that right.




I think you're right, but it's a bit fuzzy.

step1. Choose rune noted in the power
step2. Use power and apply the chosen rune's effects

The moment you choose the rune, you enter the rune state. When you enter a rune state, you may instead enter your PP rune state. It's a bit unclear if you would still get to apply the rune's effects. To give an example, here is how I'm interpreting it.

step1. Choose rune noted in the power (say Rune of Destruction)
step1.5. Instead of entering state of destruction, I enter state of vengeance.
step2. Use power and apply the chosen rune's effects (chosen rune is still Rune of Destruction).

I'm hoping this is the intended way.


----------



## firesnakearies (May 18, 2010)

Yes, I believe that's how it works.


----------



## mysticknight232 (May 19, 2010)

How do you guys feel about the powers mainly helping allies you're adjacent too only?  I feel that this class tries to keep you from flanking because most of the powers grant healing/buffs/debuffs to allies adjacent to you and my party loves to flank.  That leads me to believe that this class isn't nearly as good as it seems to be.


----------



## DracoSuave (May 19, 2010)

Mengu said:


> I think you're right, but it's a bit fuzzy.
> 
> step1. Choose rune noted in the power
> step2. Use power and apply the chosen rune's effects
> ...




According to the Runic Keyword, that is how it works, you choose the rune option, and then enter the rune state.  And the PP abilities are a replacement for the rune state.  -Any- time you enter a rune state, you get to choose that new state. 

If you're hybrid/multiclassed, entering the rune state doesn't have an effect but the power's rune option does.  With the PP, you can actually get an effect from the rune state without the Rune Master feature.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (May 20, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> According to the Runic Keyword, that is how it works, you choose the rune option, and then enter the rune state.  And the PP abilities are a replacement for the rune state.  -Any- time you enter a rune state, you get to choose that new state.




I would suggest using the phrase "additional choice" instead of "replacement" in the previous sentence if it's truly "get to" and not "must"


----------



## DracoSuave (May 20, 2010)

Prestidigitalis said:


> I would suggest using the phrase "additional choice" instead of "replacement" in the previous sentence if it's truly "get to" and not "must"




They aren't an additional choice at that point, however... because at that point you don't normally HAVE a choice. (Accurately speaking:  You've already -made- the choice.)

See, by that point you've already chosen a rune option for the power.  Now you enter that rune state.  There is no 'may' enter that rune state, you simply do, regardless of whether you wanted to keep your old rune state.  Entering the new rune state is NOT optional, it is mandatory.   Even if you chose the same rune option as you did the last time you used a Runic Power, you're still 'entering a rune state'.

However, the paragon paths allow you a replacement for the rune state you would have gone into.  And as the paragon paths are quite explicit that they are optional, there's no need for me to mention that in discussion the rules situation where you are chosing to use them.  What they don't do is replace your original rune option choice.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (May 21, 2010)

DracoSuave: I guess I was being overly pedantic.


----------



## bganon (May 21, 2010)

mysticknight232 said:


> How do you guys feel about the powers mainly helping allies you're adjacent too only?  I feel that this class tries to keep you from flanking because most of the powers grant healing/buffs/debuffs to allies adjacent to you and my party loves to flank.  That leads me to believe that this class isn't nearly as good as it seems to be.




I think that the powers don't *mainly* only help allies you're adjacent to.  I mean, you can pick a runestate and powers that do (mostly Protection), but the Destruction benefit is a bonus to *all* allied attacks against *enemies* adjacent to you, and most powers have at least an option to grant some buff to non-adj allies.  Plenty of powers are buffs to allies adjacent to your target, so you're good to go.

So if your party loves flanking... just stay in the Destruction state most of the time, and put a little thought into power selection.  There are still lots of options.


----------



## mysticknight232 (May 21, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> That is most liekly true for all PHBIII classes, but DP2 and PP2 are not out till next year at the earliest.





That's not true.  Psion Powers is scheduled to be released in August this year.  Not sure on Divine Power 2 however.


----------



## chitzk0i (May 21, 2010)

mysticknight232 said:


> How do you guys feel about the powers mainly helping allies you're adjacent too only?




Back when all we had was PHB1, everybody flanked.  Warlords handed Commander's Strikes to their flanking buddies, and everything was good.  But if every class works fine with flanking, then it can become an uber-strategy that nothing can compete with.  It's probably why the ardent's Ire Strike can bestow vulnerable all damage: you can't give the MBA to your flank buddy.  

Which is why I like my Infernal Strategist resourceful-lord.  Flanking forever!


----------



## DracoSuave (May 21, 2010)

bganon said:


> I think that the powers don't *mainly* only help allies you're adjacent to.  I mean, you can pick a runestate and powers that do (mostly Protection), but the Destruction benefit is a bonus to *all* allied attacks against *enemies* adjacent to you, and most powers have at least an option to grant some buff to non-adj allies.  Plenty of powers are buffs to allies adjacent to your target, so you're good to go.
> 
> So if your party loves flanking... just stay in the Destruction state most of the time, and put a little thought into power selection.  There are still lots of options.




Find other ways to get combat advantage?  Flanking's one way, but there are many others.


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui (May 24, 2010)

To stray a little from the topic at hand, am I correct in thinking that if you multiclass into Runepriest and use the Rune of Mending that feat gives you, that one doesn't get the Runestate bonuses from it as one doesn't get the Runestate class feature?


----------



## kaomera (May 24, 2010)

Dr_Ruminahui said:


> To stray a little from the topic at hand, am I correct in thinking that if you multiclass into Runepriest and use the Rune of Mending that feat gives you, that one doesn't get the Runestate bonuses from it as one doesn't get the Runestate class feature?



Runestate isn't a class feature, tho. It's part of the Runic keyword, in the glossary section at the back of PHB3.


----------



## bganon (May 24, 2010)

Or in the sidebar right in the class description.

The only thing you don't get from the hybrid version is "Rune Master", which grants an *additional* benefit when you enter a rune state.  Anybody, even another class mutliclassed into Runepriest or a half-elf who picks up an at-will through Dilettante, who picks a power with the "runic" keyword can enter rune states.


----------



## fulcrum (Sep 13, 2010)

I have a question about the runepriest's powers and rune state

Ok, so I get that a runepriest at the creation of his character gets Defiant Word or the Wrathful Hammer Rune Artistry ability.

I get that when he choose to use a desctructive or protective runestate (dependent on the power) he gives another set of bonus' to the group

my question is.  for these powers, do they need to actually hit the target in order for the power to give the extra effects?

for example
Word of Shielding - Hit(W) +str modifier damage
rune of destruction - first time target gets hit, target takes extra damage equal to (runepriest's) constitution
rune of protection - first time target hits or misses you, you or ally gains temporary hitpoints equal to your consititution.

does this mean if i actually my target I get to utilize one of the benefits (as the runestate ive chosen prior to the roll) or can i miss with the attack and still get the extra benefit?


----------



## Mengu (Sep 13, 2010)

Since the rune state effect is indented underneath the hit line, that means you must hit in order for that line to apply.

Take a look at "Reading A Power" section in PHB2 pg 218.


----------

