Rune Mark Inconsistencies?

C&C discussion. Fantasy roleplaying.
New products, general questions, the rules, laws, and the chaos.
Post Reply
User avatar
moriarty777
Renegade Mage
Posts: 3739
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Montreal, Canada

Rune Mark Inconsistencies?

Post by moriarty777 »

Ok folks,

Recently had a character die horribly in the present campaign... the rogue tried a crazy stunt at 1 hit point facing off against the Witch Queen in the 'Wicked Cauldron' adventure (A3).

New character is needed and we were looking at the Rune Mark from TLG's Rune Lore.

First off, the Hit Dice. D8 vs D6.

I've read a few things here and there on these forums regarding this. There is a popular suggestion that it is both, as in d8 for first level and d6 thereafter. These seems very strange for me given that there was an acknowledgment that this was a typo before the book saw print? Since this is unlike any other class in C&C (be it core or supplement), you would think there would be text clarifying this in the book. If there is, I haven't found it. The table shows d6 for all levels (including level one and up to level 10). However, the hitpoint progression after level 10 is +3 per level. This leads me to think that maybe it *should* be d8 to match the cleric as far as HD and HP progression is concerned. It becomes +1 from 20th onwards which makes

But then, we get those inconsistencies... +3 becomes a +1 from 20th level onwards much like the cleric does in the CKG.

So, in my mind, all of this makes relative sense so far (HD seems like it should be d8 all the way for those first 10 levels). Where the class / level progression loses me is the progression of the BtH.

After level 1, the Rune Mark has a +1 BtH for every 3 levels. So, at levels 4,5, and 6, the BtH of a Rune Mark is +2 and it becomes +3 for the three levels after that. Makes sense. Not as bad as the Wizard's and just as good as the Rogue's. At level 11, then the class gets a +4 BtH, this sticks with him until level 16! Twice as long as any level and worse the the wizards. The BtH pacing changes again at 16th level and progresses as a Wizard would (an additional +1 BtH per 4 levels).

Why the wonky progression??

The EPP also seems a bit weird from level 9 to 10 to 11 to 12 and doesn't seem to follow a predictable pattern at these levels (but only these levels).

Any thoughts?

M
Image

tylermo
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 2579
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:00 am

Re: Rune Mark Inconsistencies?

Post by tylermo »

I don't have my book in front of me...Also, I have skimmed the material and used some of the adventures for con demos. Otherwise, I'm clueless. As for bth better than the rogue, a few folks have argued that the rogue gets hosed on bth at higher levels (in various D&D-type fantasy games). Not sure if that has anything to do why the runemark comes out ahead or not.

User avatar
Snoring Rock
Lore Drake
Posts: 1003
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:00 am
Location: St. James, Missouri

Re: Rune Mark Inconsistencies?

Post by Snoring Rock »

This is typical Trolls sometimes. I have a player running a rune mark now to see how it works. I hate house ruling stuff, so if it does not work, it will be the last. At first level he is pretty cool. I am not sure that fighting progression is all that important to a caster anyway. I do not feel the need for rogue to do as much damage as fighters or to have the wizard occupied every round. So I have an old-school perspective on this. On the other hand, the Trolls are inconsistent when it come to rules like this. Make it what you envision.

User avatar
Omote
Battle Stag
Posts: 11560
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:00 am
Location: The fairest view in the park, Ohio.
Contact:

Re: Rune Mark Inconsistencies?

Post by Omote »

Snoring Rock, if as CK you do not like to issue rulings, the Rune Mark may be a very difficult class for your to administer. The Rune Mark's abilities are fairly straight forward, but the runes that they can cast (IMO) require a whole bunch of CK adjudication. I really like the Rune Mark class, and think it's one of the more interesting classes in traditional fantasy RPGs. But, I think that the CK needs to have a large roll in that character's activities to make play smooth. But that is just me.

~O
@-Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society-@
VAE VICTUS!
>> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <<

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Re: Rune Mark Inconsistencies?

Post by Treebore »

It is too "fiddly" for me. Obviously a lot of players like that, but I moved to C&C to keep my brain from melting, so I am sticking with my house document version that I converted from the D20 write up. Basically its a Wizard with a very different "flavor", which works for me. The last thing I want is an additional subsystem. Which is why I am not a fan of the new Runemark or the Book of Familiars as a whole, but there are tons and tons of ideas to steal from both. So I am not unhappy with buying them. In fact, I like both a lot, I'm just not going to fully utilize what they offer.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1442
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: Rune Mark Inconsistencies?

Post by Fizz »

I agree with Treebore. I find the Runemark to be too fiddly for my liking.

My favorite "runemark" is the Runecaster class from the AD&D 2nd Edition Vikings Historical Reference. It converts to C&C very easily, has great flavor, and is not complicated in the least.

I would love to see the Trolls do something similar for Codex Nordica.


-Fizz

User avatar
Omote
Battle Stag
Posts: 11560
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:00 am
Location: The fairest view in the park, Ohio.
Contact:

Re: Rune Mark Inconsistencies?

Post by Omote »

But you know, I think the Rune Mark class can take you games in interesting, and different directions. And really, it's only one new class to add to your games. if you are the CK and inclined to try something a bit different, I highly suggest adding the Rune Mark into your Aihrde games, in particular.

~O
@-Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society-@
VAE VICTUS!
>> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <<

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Re: Rune Mark Inconsistencies?

Post by Treebore »

Omote wrote:But you know, I think the Rune Mark class can take you games in interesting, and different directions. And really, it's only one new class to add to your games. if you are the CK and inclined to try something a bit different, I highly suggest adding the Rune Mark into your Aihrde games, in particular.

~O

I really like the Runemark I've used for the last 6 or 7 years. The book does have a lot of cool new ideas to bring to the table, even for my version. I just don't want to track a new magic system. Which is what is in the book. I don't want to worry about giving a Rune too soon, or being too stingy. I know the spell lists in the PH, cold. So I much prefer changing the cosmetics of the class to be different and separate, while the mechanics of the class remain pretty much the same.

So while I am sure players and a number of CK's will be happy to fiddle with the new system, I am simply not one of them. I play entirely different RPG's when I feel that need.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

User avatar
Omote
Battle Stag
Posts: 11560
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:00 am
Location: The fairest view in the park, Ohio.
Contact:

Re: Rune Mark Inconsistencies?

Post by Omote »

For me, I do not play many different RPGs. C&C is far and above the most of what I play right now. I've been running the same types of games for so long now, that I feel comfortable in running entire campaigns not even taking notes anymore. Whether or not that is a good thing, is not fully known, but I keep getting 8+ players at my table 3 times a month. I don't want to run another system per se, but I am tired of being comfortable. I want to push on deeper into some new things. I want to keep my games fresh for some of the players that have been playing with me for 20+ years. When C&C releases new stuff, in particular classes like the Rune Mark, I get excited for the exact reasons you give Treeb. I want the opportunity to make a mistake, and when it's corrected and the game goes in new directions (without changing the core system), I get excited. To feel a little uncomfortable is a good thing in my opinion. The Rune Mark is new and exciting for me and I want to drive that dangerous vehicle!

Let's roll!

~O
@-Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society-@
VAE VICTUS!
>> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <<

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Re: Rune Mark Inconsistencies?

Post by Treebore »

Yeah, its different for me. I play in C&C every week, or run it every other week, for 7 players, but I also play other RPG's pretty much every week, such as Savage Worlds on Thursday, or starting soon, I am running Traveller for them, and for my weekend face to face group, I alternate running either Traveller or Legend of the 5 Rings, and once those conclude, we will be switching to games like Cthulhu Tech, Eclipse Phase, Aces and Eights, and eventually, even more. So I get plenty of opportunity to "make mistakes" and try new things, since most of these systems I am far from mastering.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

User avatar
Snoring Rock
Lore Drake
Posts: 1003
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:00 am
Location: St. James, Missouri

Re: Rune Mark Inconsistencies?

Post by Snoring Rock »

Omote wrote:Snoring Rock, if as CK you do not like to issue rulings, the Rune Mark may be a very difficult class for your to administer. The Rune Mark's abilities are fairly straight forward, but the runes that they can cast (IMO) require a whole bunch of CK adjudication. I really like the Rune Mark class, and think it's one of the more interesting classes in traditional fantasy RPGs. But, I think that the CK needs to have a large roll in that character's activities to make play smooth. But that is just me.

~O
Ah Omote, my good friend! It is not the difficulty in administration that gets under my skin. It is the inconsistency in the attack matrix (BtH progression) set down for the class. It should be uniform. Starting HD at 8? Then 6 thereafter? Hmmm...smells like typos to me. That said, I like everything else. The spells are great the way they are written and they do leave it up to the CK. I have no problem at all with that or administering the results.

User avatar
gabriellyon
Hlobane Orc
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:38 pm

Re: Rune Mark Inconsistencies?

Post by gabriellyon »

So do we have any official ruling on whether HD is d6 or d8 for the Rune Mark?
Thank you

User avatar
Omote
Battle Stag
Posts: 11560
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:00 am
Location: The fairest view in the park, Ohio.
Contact:

Re: Rune Mark Inconsistencies?

Post by Omote »

Officially, rules as written, are the Rune Mark starts with a d8 hit points and increases by d6 every additional level beyond one. TLG has not stated otherwise since the book's release. Personally, I'd keep it exactly as it is written and never increase it to 1d8 per level (that would be too awesome IMO).

~O
@-Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society-@
VAE VICTUS!
>> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <<

User avatar
Rigon
Clang lives!
Posts: 7352
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Conneaut Lake, PA

Re: Rune Mark Inconsistencies?

Post by Rigon »

Not to contradict Big O, but I remember Steve saying in another thread somewhere about the rune mark, that officially the class had d8 for hit die at 1st level and d6s for levels 2-10.

Personally, I'd pick either d6 or d8 at 1st level and just use it throughout. And I'd more than likely go with the d6 progression.

R-
Castles & Crusades: What 3rd Edition AD&D should have been.
TLG Forum Moderator
House Rules & Whatnots
My Game Threads
Monday Night Online Group Member since 2007

User avatar
Omote
Battle Stag
Posts: 11560
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:00 am
Location: The fairest view in the park, Ohio.
Contact:

Re: Rune Mark Inconsistencies?

Post by Omote »

Please contradict away. Y'all guys remember these Steve posts much better than I do!

~O
@-Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society-@
VAE VICTUS!
>> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <<

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Re: Rune Mark Inconsistencies?

Post by Treebore »

Yeah, I just answered this questions a few weeks ago, on Google, and found the same thread with Steve's answer.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

User avatar
moriarty777
Renegade Mage
Posts: 3739
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Montreal, Canada

Re: Rune Mark Inconsistencies?

Post by moriarty777 »

Well, as written, the book clearly contradicts itself. If it was to be that way, then both the summary before the class table shouldn't just indicate d8 and the advancement table should show d8 for 1st and d6 for levels 2 through 10 or whatever that is.

This was pointed out before the book went to print and he (sort of) ackowleded it as a typo. There is no text anywhere in the book to confirm this is a mixed HD class which would really be messy if multiclassing with it. ;)

If there is a link where he states d8 at first level and d6 afterwards, I would love to see it. Then I would love the fixed (at least the PDF) to correct the d6 to d8 in the first line of the advancement table.

Personally, I don't mind a d8 straight. It is access to the Runes which make the class powerful and that can be mitigated easily enough. Alternatively, d6 might also work and, if I am not mistaken, the d20 version was originally d6 but I could be mistaken on that.

EDIT - Scratch that... It was d4
Image

User avatar
Rigon
Clang lives!
Posts: 7352
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Conneaut Lake, PA

Re: Rune Mark Inconsistencies?

Post by Rigon »

moriarty777 wrote:Well, as written, the book clearly contradicts itself. If it was to be that way, then both the summary before the class table shouldn't just indicate d8 and the advancement table should show d8 for 1st and d6 for levels 2 through 10 or whatever that is.

This was pointed out before the book went to print and he (sort of) ackowleded it as a typo. There is no text anywhere in the book to confirm this is a mixed HD class which would really be messy if multiclassing with it. ;)

If there is a link where he states d8 at first level and d6 afterwards, I would love to see it. Then I would love the fixed (at least the PDF) to correct the d6 to d8 in the first line of the advancement table.

Personally, I don't mind a d8 straight. It is access to the Runes which make the class powerful and that can be mitigated easily enough. Alternatively, d6 might also work and, if I am not mistaken, the d20 version was originally d6 but I could be mistaken on that.

EDIT - Scratch that... It was d4
Ilooked for the thread that Steve said d8 and d6, but I couldn't find it.

R-
Castles & Crusades: What 3rd Edition AD&D should have been.
TLG Forum Moderator
House Rules & Whatnots
My Game Threads
Monday Night Online Group Member since 2007

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Re: Rune Mark Inconsistencies?

Post by Treebore »

Yeah, I just went back 14 pages and didn't see it either. I know it was a thread involving Dracyian (sp?), I think they were even the one who brought it up, because he plays a Rune Lord in John's game.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

User avatar
moriarty777
Renegade Mage
Posts: 3739
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Montreal, Canada

Re: Rune Mark Inconsistencies?

Post by moriarty777 »

Heh, I have looked some more and still nothing. At best, I see someone else mention the D8 for first and D6 there after bit nothing from Steve.

So failing that, if the access to the runes are controlled, is D8 through out really all that much of an edge? Slow BtH advancement and restricted armor plus a slighter slower paced advancement seem to help balance out the class.

Please discuss...

M
Image

User avatar
Snoring Rock
Lore Drake
Posts: 1003
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:00 am
Location: St. James, Missouri

Re: Rune Mark Inconsistencies?

Post by Snoring Rock »

I am having a hard time understand how many spells a Rune Mark can have going at one time. Anyone?

User avatar
Snoring Rock
Lore Drake
Posts: 1003
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:00 am
Location: St. James, Missouri

Re: Rune Mark Inconsistencies?

Post by Snoring Rock »

I had a Rune Mark cast Deflect in game last night. As we read it, it should deflect all missile weapons for the duration. The duration not given, we assume until the Rune Mark stops concentrating. Ideas?

I was thinking that seems powerful. I was thinking perhaps +1 per level deflection bonus would be fair. 100% deflection......I don't know.

Post Reply