A note about extra runestates: You still get whichever rider you want. For instance, suppose a Hammer of Vengeance uses Rune of Mending and chooses Destruction mode. Because he's entering a runestate, he can decide to enter the Vengeance runestate instead, but he still selected Destruction when using the power, so he gets the Destruction rider. This can be a great way to get a rider you want without entering a runestate that is tactically useless at the moment.
Isn't this wrong? Here's what the Rules Compendium says:
RUNE MASTER
Some of your powers have the runic keyword. When you are going to use a runic power, you first choose one of the runes noted in the power—either the rune of destruction or the rune of protection—and then use the power, applying the chosen rune’s effects. The moment you choose the rune, you enter its rune state. You remain in that rune state until you enter another rune state or until the end of the encounter. Whenever you enter the rune state of the rune of destruction or the rune of protection, you gain an additional benefit. The benefit lasts while you’re in the rune state.
Am I missing anything here?
Clearly, it seems like you can *not* have Destruction or Protection riders without *entering* those states. The handbook seems to be very much in error here..
Uhh, yes it would, at least if you took one of the relevant PPs or other options that provide alternate runestates. You'd get no runic effects from the power you used, which is a heavy nerf to the power and considering that those alternate runestates are expected to be used regularly if you have them, a heavy nerf to the character overall.
You don't have to give up the normal runestate if you find it more useful.
He's not talking about giving up the runestate. He's talking about giving up the RUNE. IE: Word of Exchange no longer gives an AC boost or defense debuff if you choose the Vengeance runestate (making it no better than a basic attack).
Yes, I understand. So if you follow the original poster's intrepretation, you wouldn't do that, unless the effect of the Vengeance runestate would be better for you than the effects of either of the other two runes and their associated runestate.
Edit: this isn't a rules or optimization forum. If the original posted reads the rules that way, he's welcome to play that way. If he finds that paragon path weak as a result, maybe he'll try a different reading. I strongly suspect he won't, however.
The fact that such a character would be expected to use the Vengeance runestate regularly makes it worse, but even as an occasional thing it would be an arbitrary and incorrect nerf.
EDIT: Response to Centauri's edit: He's asking whether the runepriest handbook is wrong by way of a rules interpretation question. Yes, this SHOULD be in the rules forum, but that doesn't excuse giving him a false answer because it's in WaPTD.
That interpretation is not correct, and represents a substantial nerf to the character, because it is denying them the benefit of the Dest/Prot runic rider along with the Vengenace runestate when they are meant to have both.
Not if they're not meant to have both.
The fact that such a character would be expected to use the Vengeance runestate regularly makes it worse, but even as an occasional thing it would be an arbitrary and incorrect nerf.
Why would that be expected? And if it is expected, maybe it's also expected that the Vengeance runestate by itself will regularly be more useful than the other options. Maybe that's not true, but maybe that was the expectation.
EDIT: Response to Centauri's edit: He's asking whether the runepriest handbook is wrong by way of a rules interpretation question. Yes, this SHOULD be in the rules forum, but that doesn't excuse giving him a false answer because it's in WaPTD.
I don't need an excuse for the answers I give, right or wrong.
It is, as you say, perfectly fine if the OP (or the OP's DM) chooses to play by a different interpretation, but to be clear, that would be a houserule.
The Runepriest's powers are all built to function differently depending on whether you choose Destruction or Protection. These alternate functionalities contain all of the effectiveness of the power, which is a very different thing than the bonus riders many other class' powers may have depending on their build choice. The design intent is to give the Runepriest essentially two powers in one, for each of their powers. But then to guarantee that they don't just always pick the same (better) of the two options on any given power, they gave the Runestates persistent effects as well.
The Rune of Vengeance Runestate does not override the rider the Runepriest chose, it merely overrides the effect of the persisting Runestate.
Any other answer is a houserule.
Any other answer is a houserule.
Or an accidental mistake, which happen all the time during play and usually don't affect a thing.
Sure. Though this honest mistake would completely change (and for the worse, and Runepriest's are already kind of mediocre) the functionality of the class.
How many powers or Paragon Paths have additional runestates like that?
Sure. Though this honest mistake would completely change (and for the worse, and Runepriest's are already kind of mediocre) the functionality of the class.
How many powers or Paragon Paths have additional runestates like that?
Four out of the Five Runepriest paragon paths in the compendium have additional runestates.
Anyway, if the Mod's would like to move this thread to the appropriate Rules forum, I'm all for it.
As for my initial question, I must admit that I am still confused.
Let's use an in-game scenario as an example: I move 5 squares and am now adjacent to a Goblin. I decide to attack and use "Symbol of Cowardice," a Standard Action Encounter Power. With that power, I decide to use the Rune of Protection rider and thus, enter the Rune of Protection Rune State.
What is now being claimed is that I can then enter my Paragon Path Rune State, "Cloud Step," BEFORE ending my current turn and presumably before rolling a d20. Thus, on a hit, I get the rider for Protection (Penalty to attack rolls equal to my Wis Mod + the number of my allies adjacent to the enemy) and the benefits of Cloud Step (Adjacent allies can shift 2 squares when you hit an enemy and you can end this effect to fly your speed as a minor action.)
What is confusing about this is that the entering and leaving of a rune state is NEVER clearly defined as an action of any sort: Is it free? Is it a minor? A standard?
Or, does it function how my DM currently interprets the rules, which is to say that entering a rune state is only possible when choosing an attack power. If this is true, that of course prevents a player from obtaining the destruction or protection riders if selecting an alternate Rune State like "Cloud Step," and it prevents the player from leaving their current rune state and changing to another within the same turn when an attack is chosen. FYI: All of this is fine by me, as long as that is within the context of the rules, which leads me to my next point...
Clearly, the conditions for entering and leaving a Rune State need to be better defined.
If anyone is able to do that, I would be grateful.
(For a point of reference, here's an older thread which has the EXACT same premise as my own. Notice that the OP was left without a clear answer: community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...)
Your example is exactly correct. Your DM is wrong. Send him along to Rules Q&A if you;re concerned.
You only leave a rune state as defined by the Runic keyword - when you enter another runestate or when the encounter ends. Some specific runestates will also end when a stated condition is met. (Vengeance is one example; Cloud Step's option to end it as a minor action is another.)