[-]
Main Menu
Portal
Forums
Wiki
Rules
FAQs
Events Calendar
Downloads

[-]
Kreets

[-]
Latest Threads
Where Are You Now?
Last Post: Aethon
09-22-2018 09:00 AM
» Replies: 3
» Views: 62
You are a fond memory. Good night, CoTH...
Last Post: Stealthscout
09-05-2018 03:04 PM
» Replies: 25
» Views: 81892
What is glistening
Last Post: Geoni
07-04-2018 01:24 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 429
"Years of Service" Awards
Last Post: Maulbane
05-26-2018 09:58 PM
» Replies: 100
» Views: 3065
Introduction Memphis
Last Post: Maulbane
05-26-2018 05:09 AM
» Replies: 11
» Views: 3786

[-]
Who's Online
There are currently no members online.

[-]
Google AdStuff

The Runemaster Rework
#1
[Image: Untitled-1_zps21d3e12e.png]


Runemasters have often been a class we feel is misrepresented and too broad to really be a class, thus we brought a few heads in together to define that the class is from the armor type to what sort of skills they would have. These changes have been a long time coming, so we apologize for the delay on getting them out there. So, without further delay:


[Image: What_zpsa8770035.png]


A Runemaster is a physical brawler who utilizes various runes in order to compensate for their lack of arms and armor. Their bodies are augmented with these runes in the forms of tattoos, which can make their flesh as tough as any armor and their fists as deadly as any weapon when the runes are activated. The amount of runes a character can have is reasonably endless so long as you have skin to spare, but only four runes may be active at a time. When you reach the limit you must deactivate one rune in order to utilize another. We hope this keeps them on par with the flexibility of other classes while giving them their own feel.

They are restricted to warrior only as a base class, however come MoP we may allow monks.

Despite being warrior only, Runemasters will be restricted to cloth/leather armor. Chain and plate armor will weigh the Runemaster down far too much, and also will disrupt the flow of power into the runes, rendering them faulty if not entirely useless.


[Image: Approved_zps366a4648.png]


Good Runes Wrote:Rune Of Striking: A rune on (character)'s hands and feet, which increases the force of her blows.

Rune of Stoneskin: A rune on (character)'s chest, allowing her to take heavier blows with only a minimal risk of bones breaking. Does not make the character invulnerable.

Rune of [X] Protection: A rune on (character)'s legs that protects her from [X] attacks and the [X] regions of the world. Only one resistance rune can be up at a time and is used to explain dodges or the ability to survive in harsher regions.

Rune of Regeneration: Helps your body regenerate faster than the natural rate. [Self regeneration ONLY]

The above is just a list of example starting runes that might be good to start with on top of what is available to the warrior skillset. You are free to suggest runes of your own, however the runes must be passed in the Private Discussion before they can be added to a character profile. Any runes outside of the warrior skillset must be passed by the GM team, in short.


[Image: Denied_zps9ba54774.png]


Keep in mind that Runemasters are their own class and not a combination of other classes all into one package, thus runes like the following are examples of things we do not wish to see:

Bad runes Wrote:Rune of Surgery: A rune on (character)'s hands that, when used, heals any wounds the target has on their body, fixes the bones, and removes scars. (Regeneration is okay. A healing spell is not.)

Rune of Lightning: A blue rune on the chest that, when used, summons a lightning bolt to strike down on the enemy. Could also be used to summon a lightning bolt in the Runemaster's hands for him to throw like a javelin or to surround himself with lightning. (Think Zeus in Hercules).

Rune of Shadows: A rune on the legs that allows the Runemaster to blend in with his surrounding.

Now, its no mystery that there are many approved Runemasters that are not like this at all, and as such they are will be 'grandfathered' in. They are not required to reprofile with the update unless they want to, however, should the server undergo any sort of restart [light or heavy], those characters will have to be reprofiled under the new class definition. So, just to make this very clear:

The changes are not retroactive.


[Image: Ley_zps8a263d59.png]


Now, what about Ley walkers?

Ley walkers can either be mages who specialize in teleportation via the ley-lines over the current method with arcane. Nothing mage-side will be changing at all.

As for Runemasters, the process is a bit different. Runemaster - Ley Walkers must go through the special profile process where they will specify any ley-related abilities they have beyond the Runemaster class. This will include anything such as ley-related regeneration, or Ley Walking (Teleportation).

An example on how to list it in a profile would be:

Joe Shmoe [Human Runemaster - Leywalker]

As always, feedback is welcome in the thread or via the Private Discussion if you would rather it be one on one!
Love,
The GM team.
[-] The following 6 users Like Krilari's post:
  • Jonoth, CappnRob, Laucian, Franksta96, MstrCorvus, Reigen
Reply
#2
Do we specifically need to note every rune that replaces warrior abilities in our runemaster profiles? Would it be alright to simply say that the character operates in the same manner as a warrior, plus <insert PD-approved additional runes here if you have any>?

Am I right in thinking that additional runes are unlikely to be approved if they are the feature of another class, such as speed or stealth runes?

How feasible would runes based around a profession be? For instance, in the case of Enchanting, runes to increase effectiveness against demons, undead, beasts, etc.? I'm also curious how utility runes would be, such as a mark to help you find your way through the forest, or to give you a wolf's sense of smell. That sort of thing.

It's a bit of a shame to see hunter, rogue, and shaman runemasters closed, but I admit that it made regulating the class pretty difficult.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Delta's post:
  • Hawk
PM
Reply
#3
(01-12-2014, 03:14 PM)Delta Wrote: Do we specifically need to note every rune that replaces warrior abilities in our runemaster profiles? Would it be alright to simply say that the character operates in the same manner as a warrior, plus <insert PD-approved additional runes here if you have any>?

You don't need to note every, no. You merely need to get approval for what runes that wouldn't normally work with the Warrior class. For example, if you had a rune which gave you bear claws or something of the like.

(01-12-2014, 03:14 PM)Delta Wrote: Am I right in thinking that additional runes are unlikely to be approved if they are the feature of another class, such as speed or stealth runes?

Really it depends on a case-by-case basis. It's unlikely you'll have an ability that is the cornerstone of another class, such a stealth with rogues or the like. Generally if you want to request special runes, they shouldn't really be taking from any other class, though vague concepts like '+Speed', '+Strength', ect... are possible to be approved.

(01-12-2014, 03:14 PM)Delta Wrote: How feasible would runes based around a profession be? For instance, in the case of Enchanting, runes to increase effectiveness against demons, undead, beasts, etc.? I'm also curious how utility runes would be, such as a mark to help you find your way through the forest, or to give you a wolf's sense of smell. That sort of thing.

I would think that both of these sorts of runes would be possible, though they both very well depend upon the situation. In a basic roll fight, we're not going to enforce that a certain ability will do more damage against another, such as Light Vrs Undead. That's something to be left to the DM or whoever you're working with.

(01-12-2014, 03:14 PM)Delta Wrote: It's a bit of a shame to see hunter, rogue, and shaman runemasters closed, but I admit that it made regulating the class pretty difficult.

We did remove some of the diversity to the class, technically yes, however we prefer to have some solid ground for this concept. Before you could just say you're a runemaster and do whatever you want with no real thought to if you were a bit over-powered or not.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Krilari's post:
  • Delta
Reply
#4
Was there anything that prompted this? After all, there are very, very few Runemasters (in fact, I can't think of an active one off the top of my head), and Ley Walkers are the same.
[-] The following 1 user Likes FlyingSquirrel's post:
  • Harmonic
PM
Reply
#5
(01-12-2014, 04:21 PM)FlyingSquirrel Wrote: Was there anything that prompted this? After all, there are very, very few Runemasters (in fact, I can't think of an active one off the top of my head), and Ley Walkers are the same.

The inactivity itself prompted it. The point of this rework is to make runemasters both fair and unique without being all over the place and without foundation as they were. The vague nature and unregimented stature may have made the classes or concepts daunting to some.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Krilari's post:
  • FlyingSquirrel
Reply
#6
I personally think the inactivity was more due to it not being presented in the character creation screen, but I can see your logic. Thanks!
PM
Reply
#7
Also true. If anything this might make some aware that this class is even available to play.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Krilari's post:
  • MstrCorvus
Reply
#8
I also attribute the inactivity to the fact that not too long ago "Runemasters" were something that Grakor said we couldn't do anymore. Because in Pandaria they came up with monks and one of the subsets was basically like a runemaster. Mistwalker, I think.

Thing I don't understand, is that if there's so few that have done this, how is it something that the GM team feels is misrepresented?

Also, how does this fit in with our current classing system/doing away with prestige classes? It confuses me when it gets down into specifics like "Runemasters" and "Dragonsworn", but we don't talk about other things to any extent/let people interpret it how they want.
[Image: desc_head_freemasons.jpg]

△Move along.△


△△
△△△
△△△△

PM
Reply
#9
(01-12-2014, 05:39 PM)Harmonic Wrote: I also attribute the inactivity to the fact that not too long ago "Runemasters" were something that Grakor said we couldn't do anymore. Because in Pandaria they came up with monks and one of the subsets was basically like a runemaster. Mistwalker, I think.

I recall him saying that, though nothing regarding closing Runemasters away. I've seen quite a few of them played, myself included throughout the months so far on Cata.

(01-12-2014, 05:39 PM)Harmonic Wrote: Thing I don't understand, is that if there's so few that have done this, how is it something that the GM team feels is misrepresented?

Some few we have seen ended up standing out oddly, though I don't exactly want to make anyone feel ousted. That's in the past for the moment, all that needs to be noted now is that the runemaster class has been regulated.


(01-12-2014, 05:39 PM)Harmonic Wrote: Also, how does this fit in with our current classing system/doing away with prestige classes? It confuses me when it gets down into specifics like "Runemasters" and "Dragonsworn", but we don't talk about other things to any extent/let people interpret it how they want.


I suppose I'm going to have to ask you to specify this one. I'm not all too sure what you're trying to ask.
Reply
#10
(01-12-2014, 05:39 PM)Harmonic Wrote: I also attribute the inactivity to the fact that not too long ago "Runemasters" were something that Grakor said we couldn't do anymore. Because in Pandaria they came up with monks and one of the subsets was basically like a runemaster. Mistwalker, I think.

Thing I don't understand, is that if there's so few that have done this, how is it something that the GM team feels is misrepresented?

Also, how does this fit in with our current classing system/doing away with prestige classes? It confuses me when it gets down into specifics like "Runemasters" and "Dragonsworn", but we don't talk about other things to any extent/let people interpret it how they want.

I don't recall specifically saying that we couldn't do it anymore, though feel free to prove me wrong if you find a quote. What I essentially recall saying is that with Monks I didn't feel Runemasters were a viable concept and were effectively thrown from canon, so it was my opinion that the concept should be scrapped. I also recall lamenting that the past Runemaster surge was at least partially my fault with the original form of Thragash. However, my opinion does not automatically translate into policy.
Have you hugged an orc today?
- I am not tech support. Please do not contact me regarding technical issues. -
PM
Reply
#11
(01-12-2014, 05:58 PM)Grakor456 Wrote:
(01-12-2014, 05:39 PM)Harmonic Wrote: I also attribute the inactivity to the fact that not too long ago "Runemasters" were something that Grakor said we couldn't do anymore. Because in Pandaria they came up with monks and one of the subsets was basically like a runemaster. Mistwalker, I think.

Thing I don't understand, is that if there's so few that have done this, how is it something that the GM team feels is misrepresented?

Also, how does this fit in with our current classing system/doing away with prestige classes? It confuses me when it gets down into specifics like "Runemasters" and "Dragonsworn", but we don't talk about other things to any extent/let people interpret it how they want.

I don't recall specifically saying that we couldn't do it anymore, though feel free to prove me wrong if you find a quote. What I essentially recall saying is that with Monks I didn't feel Runemasters were a viable concept and were effectively thrown from canon, so it was my opinion that the concept should be scrapped. I also recall lamenting that the past Runemaster surge was at least partially my fault with the original form of Thragash. However, my opinion does not automatically translate into policy.

Here. However, it looks like you crossed out the quotes that got me confused, for whatever reason. But to quote you, I'll put it here.

Quote:As an aside, there's one thing that I want to see stomped on: Runemasters. I know, I know. I was right up there with the rest of you and fanboyed over the concept. However, there's a few problems now. The first is that, with the coming of the Monk in MoP, it's now pretty much certain that RM will never be made canon. Second, these guys are becoming more common than I think most of us would like. Now, I don't have a problem with the use of runes; after all, that's essentially the Inscriptionist profession anyway. Runes are no longer associated with bare-knuckle fighting, and I'd like to think of a way of making that lack of association more clear.

While your words don't necessarily translate into policies, you -are- one of the admins. When you say things like this, it can be pretty discouraging to play something like this after it's known that someone that heads the server doesn't like the concept. It gives you the feel of "This won't be around soon", because -to be honest-, more often then not your opinions translate into into future rules. Saying you don't have influence on this server just simply isn't true. This is -your- server, along with Kretol's.

As for what confuses me on the idea of Prestige/Variant classes... why is it we go into specifics with things like Runemasters and Dragonsworn (Which, makes it more of a prestige) but not on other things, like arcane archer or shadowdancer? Why do we need to say "This is how you play Runemaster!" but not do that with all the other classes?

AND, does that make this a special profile now?
[Image: desc_head_freemasons.jpg]

△Move along.△


△△
△△△
△△△△

[-] The following 1 user Likes Harmonic's post:
  • Thoradin
PM
Reply
#12
It'd be a sad day where I can't voice my opinion on something because someone might take it to mean I'm imposing my will on everyone. I will ask that you don't take my words out of context and use them to imply I said things that I didn't say.
Have you hugged an orc today?
- I am not tech support. Please do not contact me regarding technical issues. -
[-] The following 1 user Likes Grakor456's post:
  • Valicor
PM
Reply
#13
(01-12-2014, 06:26 PM)Grakor456 Wrote: It'd be a sad day where I can't voice my opinion on something because someone might take it to mean I'm imposing my will on everyone. I will ask that you don't take my words out of context and use them to imply I said things that I didn't say.

Grak, you outright said you would like to see it "stomped on". You -are- an admin. I understand that you were sharing an opinion, but sharing an opinion like that does have weight, heh. I'm not taking you out of context, I'm quoting -exactly- what you said, and how I interpreted it and how I'd feel a lot of people would interpret it.

Again, you are an admin. Your opinions aren't made of cement but they sure do influence CoTH. Meaning, many times your opinions have become policies. Many, many, many times. Saying they haven't is... well, kind of wrong. This is your server, heh.

GRANTED, it didn't become one, but that doesn't mean it didn't seem like it was by how you presented it. You wanted to see that class done away with, and sometimes that translates to "it's done with". It's been addressed that you didn't absolutely say it -was- gone, so I don't see how I'm twisting it or saying you're imposing your will.

Know that you have created things on CoTH because it's what -you- wanted. I've done it, so have other GM's. It's just how it goes, heh.
[Image: desc_head_freemasons.jpg]

△Move along.△


△△
△△△
△△△△

[-] The following 1 user Likes Harmonic's post:
  • Thoradin
PM
Reply
#14
Quote:As for what confuses me on the idea of Prestige/Variant classes... why is it we go into specifics with things like Runemasters and Dragonsworn (Which, makes it more of a prestige) but not on other things, like arcane archer or shadowdancer? Why do we need to say "This is how you play Runemaster!" but not do that with all the other classes?

The reason this was done with runemasters is because the Runemasters were so different from each other, the class just became blurred in with other classes. The only different is the fancy emotes the character did for their attack. This defines a class that was pretty undefined before. Why isn't this done for others is because the variants themselves tend not to be a whole different class. Arcane archers are...just archers who use arcane as an explanation for skills that made no sense before. [Multi-shot, for example. How do you get 50 arrows out of one?]

Runemasters are more in the lines with Demon Hunters, sort of their own thing on top of being a variant. Demon hunters get extra abilities on top of their base ones- and so do runemasters if the player can think of runes that would be nifty for the character to have. They just need to be cleared by the private discussion so we don't have runemasters making the very ground they walk on turn to molten lava.

Quote:AND, does that make this a special profile now?

Runemasters as a warrior base are not.

Runemasters that wish to be leywalkers are.

Runes outside of the warrior base must be PrivDiv approved, but that does not make the profile itself special unless you wish the character to start out with the different runes, in which case it would be. [I would recommend getting the base profile approved and adding flavor runes faster so you can still play the char, just without certain abilities until later.]

Edit: Ninja'd Delta. A-ha!
PM
Reply
#15
Many folks' opinions have made CotH what it is. We've all influenced the server, to an extent.

(01-12-2014, 06:12 PM)Harmonic Wrote: As for what confuses me on the idea of Prestige/Variant classes... why is it we go into specifics with things like Runemasters and Dragonsworn (Which, makes it more of a prestige) but not on other things, like arcane archer or shadowdancer? Why do we need to say "This is how you play Runemaster!" but not do that with all the other classes?

AND, does that make this a special profile now?

Detail is gone into with special classes because they differ substantially from the standard skillset. You don't really need to do that with an arcane-using hunter, because you can just say, "I do all the normal hunter stuff, but with arcane!" and that's how it is.

No, s'not a special profile, but you may need to make sure some runes/marks are okay, as I had Kril clarify above.

Edit: Beat by Rei! drat curses
[-] The following 1 user Likes Delta's post:
  • Harmonic
PM
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

youth-backhand
This forum uses Lukasz Tkacz MyBB addons.