PDA

View Full Version : Magic(s)?



Admiral Squish
2009-09-20, 06:23 PM
I recently got my hands on a metric butt-load of D&D books. Now, a think I'm noticing is there are just so very many kinds of magic, each with their own systems, rules, spells, limiters, and themes. I mean, we have psionics, incarnum, warlocks, wu jen, divine magic, arcane magic, artificers, and let's not even start on all the homebrew stuff.

The kicker is, I have a job that takes up a lot of my day. And I don't have a whole lot of time to read all the different kinds, and maintian my less-than-standard social life at the same time. So, here's the question. What systems of magic do you reccomend? Which are the most fun, the best balanced, the most verasile, just give me some reccomendations.

Starsinger
2009-09-20, 06:31 PM
Wu Jen are actually the same as wizards with a more narrow spell list. Arcane and Divine magic are also nigh identical (again separate spell lists).

Psionics (Expanded Psionic Handbook in particular) are much more balanced than any other system out there, and are a good choice if you can get around the (admittedly in poor taste) scientific naming convention for a lot of powers.

Starbuck_II
2009-09-20, 06:56 PM
Wu Jen are actually the same as wizards with a more narrow spell list. Arcane and Divine magic are also nigh identical (again separate spell lists).

Psionics (Expanded Psionic Handbook in particular) are much more balanced than any other system out there, and are a good choice if you can get around the (admittedly in poor taste) scientific naming convention for a lot of powers.

Wu Jen have 60% of spell list unique though, but yeah basically same as a Druid is to Cleric.

Bang
2009-09-20, 07:07 PM
Arcane=Divine=Artificer. This is by far the most versatile system. High level members of any of these classes can essentially do anything they want in the game.

Psionics are probably the most elegant and the easiest to learn and use. Its effects are typically more limited and less powerful than Arcane/Divine and all of its users draw from a limited pool of powers (except the Erudite, but we'll ignore that variant because it's silly).

The rules are simple:
--You can manifest any power you know until you no longer have the PP to use it.
--You can invest more PP into a power if you want it to be more powerful.
--You can't spend more PP than you have manifester levels.

Warlocks (And Dragonfire Adepts) are the simplest: They have a short list of magic effects and they can use them as often as they like. These are the best balanced with noncasters (meaning they aren't particularly versatile, they don't have any particularly powerful abilities unless thye jump through hoops and they typically have to revert to one schtick to have a prayer against level-appropriate casters).

Don't worry about Magic of Incarnum. Its fluff is bad enough that nobody will wade through the convoluted mass of jargon that is its crunch.

And of course there are exceptions, which I'm sure will be brought up against me as arguments against anything I might have said.
I only see the big picture. ;)

lsfreak
2009-09-20, 07:22 PM
Don't worry about Magic of Incarnum. Its fluff is bad enough that nobody will wade through the convoluted mass of jargon that is its crunch.

Er... yea. Quite a lot of us here think MoI is hands-down the best book written for 3.5. The fluff is great, the crunch is excellent as long as you forget the Soulborn is in there. It's a shame it didn't get much support, as it beats the hell out of everything else except maybe ToB and binders.

(That said, it's still the most difficult to grasp of all the systems. Except maybe binders.)

Foryn Gilnith
2009-09-20, 07:44 PM
Hands-down the best book? I'll assume that, or at least the underlined part, is hyperbole. It has its merits, yes, but it's the second-most-complex system in 3.5 and the book uses too wide a variety of words.

Bang
2009-09-20, 08:07 PM
Er... yea. Quite a lot of us here think MoI is hands-down the best book written for 3.5. The fluff is great, the crunch is excellent as long as you forget the Soulborn is in there. It's a shame it didn't get much support, as it beats the hell out of everything else except maybe ToB and binders.
No matter how much you like the fluff, or how nicely the Totemist works for some characters, you have to admit that it's one of the worst-written books for 3.5.

The layers of jargon make the rules incomprehensible for a player trying to get a run-down in the half-hour before a game.

The book is useless in play without a player either totally memorizing the Soulmelds section or spending 2-4 hours to write out a coherent table saying: "These soulmelds can be bound to these chakras by members of this class with this alignment to give these bonuses of this type when this amount of essentia is invested."

Compared this to Psionics, Shadowcasting, Tome of Battle, which take maybe 15 minutes to learn. Even the Binder is easier: the writing is coherent and players start with only 4 vestiges to familiarize themselves with, not the 40-50 an Incarnate or Totemist player has to know. (And I mean know. These aren't like spells which have a handy index with blurbs explaining their functions.)

DragoonWraith
2009-09-20, 08:12 PM
Since it's core, you pretty much have to learn "spellcasting", that is, Divine and Arcane, Prepared and Spontaneous. Just read the Wizard, Cleric, and Sorcerer, and you'll know what you need to know about them, generally (Druid is the same as Cleric with a different list, as are the Ranger and Paladin; the Bard uses the Sorcerer's mechanics, though again different spell list). Most casters are of this type, even outside of Core - Wu Jen, Warmage, Dread Necromancer, Beguiler, Healer, Archivist, Favored Soul, etc etc. There's quite a few. They all are just various combinations of Prepared or Spontaneous, Arcane or Divine, with different primary Abilities and different spell lists.

Prepared casters generally "know" all of the spells on their list (or can learn all of them, though they may have to go out of their way to learn them), but can only choose a certain number each day, chosen at the beginning of the day. They can only then use the spells they have prepared, in the numbers they have prepared them.

Spontaneous casters generally select a very limited number of spells as they level up, and only know these spells (cannot learn more), but can cast them whenever they want. There are some exceptions.

Divine spells sometimes have alignment restrictions on them, where a Divine spellcaster cannot cast spells of the opposite alignment.

Arcane spells are subject to Arcane Spell Failure, a chance that a spell will fail if you try to cast it while wearing armor. Divine spells don't have this problem. Some arcane spellcasters can ignore this. Arcane spells that don't have somatic (hand gesture) components also are not subject to this, but not many fit in that category.

To learn a spell, you need 10+Spell Level in a certain ability score - usually Wisdom for Divine casters, Intelligence or Charisma for Arcane spellcasters (exceptions exist). The save DC against spells is 10+Spell Level+Ability modifier - this is usually, but not always, the same as the Ability that determines whether you can learn a given spell. You also gain extra spells based on one of your Ability modifiers - I'm pretty sure this is always the same as the Ability you need to learn the spells in the first place.

That's pretty much it. The rest is just the specific spells.


Psionics is generally even simpler - instead of spells per day, you get power points per day. You can manifest any power you know (spontaneously) by expending the appropriate number of power points. You can spend more points than the minimum for the spell in order to power it up, but you can't spend more points than your manifester level (this is very important). Otherwise, it's pretty much identical to spontaneous spellcasting.


Infusions (Artificers) are basically the same as spells in every way, but they're neither Arcane nor Divine. They also tend to have very long casting times, which is important because it forces the Artificer to cast his spells before a battle, rather than during one.


Invocations (Warlocks and Dragonfire Adepts) are similar to spontaneous arcane spellcasting, except they are not limited by spells per day - an invocation can be used as often as an invoker wants. They're generally much weaker, as a result, and the two classes that have them learn very few of them (12 for Warlock, 8 for Dragonfire Adept). Also, notably, they do not have any minimum ability score to learn an invocation, and since many do not actually have saving throws (because most affect you yourself), the primary Ability score is not nearly as important for invokers.


Binding (the Binder, only) are sort of like prepared casters in that they select their Pacts in the morning, but rather than gain specific spells, they enter into a Pact with a Vestige, which grants some powers that can generally be used all day (often with a recharge time) or are just constantly active (stat boosts and the like). They're pretty simple.


Shadow Magic is actually Arcane and/or Divine (qualifies as both for Prestige Classes), though it is always subject to Arcane Spell Failure. It's spontaneous, but you are very limited in your spell selections, because you have to learn spells in groups called Paths. I don't honestly know a lot about them; they're kind of tough to use, because they get so few spells per day.


Truename Magic is... complicated, and very weak. Unlike what many think, it can be used to good effect, but it's tricky to do. Read the Tome of Magic if you really want to know.


Martial Maneuvers (Crusader, Swordsage, and Warblade) are not necessarily magic, per se, but the mechanics are somewhat similar. You gain Maneuvers Known as you level, and you can then use them in combat. Which Maneuvers you can use depend on your Maneuvers Readied/Granted (and the mechanic for this varies), and when used they become unusable until they are Recovered (again, the mechanic for Recovery varies from class to class).


Incarnum is very different. Meldshapers get Soulmelds, which they can "equip" like items, using the normal item slots. Doing so does not usually "occupy" the same item slot, so you can have an item and a soulmeld in each slot (but not two of either). You can also "bind" a soulmeld to a slot, which makes it much more powerful, but then does prevent you from equipping a magic item in the same slot. Which slots you can bind depends on your level. All of this is determined in the morning, like a prepared caster. However, the meldshaper also gains Essentia, which they can use to empower their soulmelds, and how much Essentia is invested in each soulmeld can be changed freely on the meldshapers turn, so they can have it invested in "exploration" soulmelds, and then when a battle starts they can move it all into "combat" soulmelds. Or whatever. It's a really cool system.


Don't worry about Magic of Incarnum. Its fluff is bad enough that nobody will wade through the convoluted mass of jargon that is its crunch.
Strong disagreement. Incarnum is complicated, and definitely should be learned last, but the fluff is cool, IMO, and the mechanics are awesome.

taltamir
2009-09-20, 08:14 PM
step 1: find a group
step 2: ask the DM what magic systems are allowed, it is extremely unlikely that it will be "all books with no modifications or houserules", and if it is, don't play with him, find a more sensible DM.
step 3: read the houserules, read the allowed systems, and choose amongst them.

Also, it matters a lot which version of DnD your DM wants to play with.

Zaq
2009-09-20, 09:10 PM
No matter how much you like the fluff, or how nicely the Totemist works for some characters, you have to admit that it's one of the worst-written books for 3.5.
(Emphasis added.)

Book of Exalted Deeds.
Dragon Magic.
Races of the Wild.
Drow of the Underdark.
Weapons of Legacy.
Draconomicon.
Miniatures Handbook.

Magic of Incarnum is nowhere near "worst-written."

taltamir
2009-09-20, 09:17 PM
don't forget to dredge the sewers... book of erotic fantasy is the worst book written IMAO.

Bang
2009-09-20, 09:25 PM
I maintain my statement.
(Though I've never actually seen the BoEF)

Though, strangely enough, the Incarnum section of Dragon Magic which breaks the patterns set by MoI put it in the running.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-09-20, 09:49 PM
No matter how much you like the fluff, or how nicely the Totemist works for some characters, you have to admit that it's one of the worst-written books for 3.5.

The layers of jargon make the rules incomprehensible for a player trying to get a run-down in the half-hour before a game.

--You can shape X "soulmelds," which are like temporary magic items.
--You have Y "essentia," which you can move around your soulmelds ("invest" it) as a swift action (you don't lose essentia, just reallocate it).
--Each soulmeld has a max essentia capacity, around 1/5 level.
--You have "chakras," which match the magic item slots, where you can "bind" soulmelds; this gives them more abilities, but you can't access all chakras from level 1.

That's pretty much all you need to know. Compare to psionics:

--You can learn X "powers," each of which can be of any level up to (level gained + 1)/2
--You have Y "power points," which you spend to activate powers.
--You can "augment" powers by spending more power points for a greater effect; you can't spend more power points on a single power than your "manifester level," which is like CL for psionics.
--"Metapsionic feats," metamagic feats for psionics, use a "psionic focus," as do several other feats.
--Your psionic focus can be gained with a DC 20 Concentration check, and can be expended to "take 15" on a Concentration check; some abilities only work while you're "psionically focused" i.e. have a focus.
--Powers come in 6 "disciplines," similar to schools of magic; each psion focuses on one and gets to learn discipline-specific powers in exchange.


The book is useless in play without a player either totally memorizing the Soulmelds section or spending 2-4 hours to write out a coherent table saying: "These soulmelds can be bound to these chakras by members of this class with this alignment to give these bonuses of this type when this amount of essentia is invested."

You shape melds at the beginning of the day, so they can do that while the Vancian casters pore over spells; picking which melds to shape isn't really any more time-consuming than picking wild shape forms or summoned creatures.

Bang
2009-09-20, 11:28 PM
That's pretty much all you need to know.
I've got no beef with the system. The system great and simple to use, if you're only tracking one character.

But if someone like the OP wants to learn to use Incarnum, he'd do much better to look at internet posts like yours than to read the book itself. It creates more new terminology than any other system*, it's poorly organized* and it doesn't have a usable index of Soulmelds (that's the one that makes the system nigh-unplayable without quite a bit of time investment).

I should say that the Soulmelds section does have an index. It is just horribly incomplete.

Before I go on, it's probably worth explaining that every soulmeld has three or more seperate effects: 1) the effect a soulmeld has when it's shaped, 2) the effect a point of essentia will create when invested in a soulmeld and 3) the effect a soulmeld will have when it's bound.
Totemist Soulmelds have two more: 4) the effect they have when Totem bound and 5) the effect essentia has on a Soulmeld that's Totem bound.

The index only explains number 1 and it doesn't even do that satisfactorily. Its entries say things like "+4 bonus on Spot checks," but this isn't sufficient even to explain the effect that shaping the Soulmeld has.

See, the Incarnum system is a tangled web of skill bonuses. Most Incarnate bonuses are Insight bonuses, most Totemist bonuses are Competence bonuses. But then there are exceptions -- the odd Enhancement bonus here, Untyped bonus there, Morale or Luck bonus somewhere else. The one thing that makes Incarnates distinct is their ability to stack these bonuses. It's what the Incarnate does, but the Index doesn't help players sift through the 40-odd Soulmelds each class can use to see what they do.

And in the end, the fluff is a rehash of the Cleric (specifically an alignment-dedicated Cleric), the Paladin and the Druid. The mechanics are just a roundabout means to achieving a Cloistered Cleric, a Spell-less Paladin (CC variant) and an SpC Ranger without a limit on his spells per day.

Even though I've heard four seperate groups say the system is "too much work," I've never seen a player use MoI in a game. That's why I say you probably won't need to know it.

I used it once as DM before I realized it did need too much work to be worthwhile for mooks (though if you were only tracking one set of essentia allocations, it probably wouldn't be so bad).


*MoI often neglects to define or differentiate terms -- the distinction between 'shaping' and 'binding' probably isn't immediately apparent to a reader. The book doesn't make it clear that its Chakra Bind section is talking about something different than shaping a soulmeld. When it gets to the part where the effects of binding contradict the effects of shaping (a bound soulmeld taking up an item slot), it's not hard to become confused.

**For example, information on how much essentia a character can invest in a soulmeld is unrelated to class. A first level character can invest 1, a 6th level character 2, a 12th level character 3 and an 18th level character 4. Different classes don't have different progressions; the exceptions are class abilities. For some reason, the chart detailing progression of essentia capacity is found in the Classes section of the book rather than in the Soulmelds section with the other generalized Incarnum information.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-20, 11:39 PM
don't forget to dredge the sewers... book of erotic fantasy is the worst book written IMAO.

Normally, Id love to play devil's advocate, but this is just impossible to argue. That book truly was terrible.

Magic of Incarnum may not be one of the top books of all time, but it's far better than that, and it at least manages to avoid the level of confusingness, lameness, or sheer brokenness attained by some other books.

I've often complained about the lack of indices in the books. For example, arcane copendicum lists spells alphabetically. This is fine, if you're looking up a specific spell. However, it's nigh worthless when you just want to browse for a new spell, in which case, your priorities are most likely 1. level and 2. school. Some books have such an index, plenty didn't bother.

Temet Nosce
2009-09-20, 11:40 PM
don't forget to dredge the sewers... book of erotic fantasy is the worst book written IMAO.

I can't disagree. I read it out of curiosity, but just... wow. I bow down in awe of the sheer quantity of material which failed in that book.

Anyways, @OP... First off, don't memorize it all at once. Pick one type of character at a time and familiarize yourself over the course of a campaign. I'd suggest starting with two books, because they are among the most . Namely, the XPH (Psionics) and the ToB (Manuevers).

Kylarra
2009-09-20, 11:48 PM
Normally, Id love to play devil's advocate, but this is just impossible to argue. That book truly was terrible.
I will play devil's advocate and point out that if we start counting off bad third party, we're never going to stop, so you cannot use them as a reference point here.

sonofzeal
2009-09-21, 12:48 AM
Actually, I really love BoEF, even though I never play in "erotic" campaigns. It's got a metric tone of excellent sociological work on various cultures, and a whole lot of the spells printed really should have been official (for example, a 3rd level healing spell that does less than Cure Serious but can be used at range). Honestly, IMO if you're not cherrypicking from BoEF then you're missing out.

As to magic systems, having used just about all of them......



Arcane - straight up most powerful in and of itself. Almost all the best spells are arcane, and arcanists can usually (with a couple exceptions) use them far better than anyone else. Vancian system, which I hate, but is considered standard for most D&D editions.

Divine - more healing/support than arcane, less of the really awesome stuff. On the other hand, divine casters usually get better BAB/saves/HD, and sufficient application of the right buffs can lead to amazing results. Same Vancian system as arcane.

Psionics - content is pretty similar to arcane, but better balanced. Blasting is easier, save-or-dies are rarer/harder, there's some things they do better, there's some things they do worse, they lose some old tricks, they gain some new ones, and overall it's much more reasonable and far less likely to break your campaign. System is the sort of mana-based stuff you'll see in Final Fantasy, except you get to choose how much mana to spend on a power as you cast it; the result is pretty easy and awesome fun.

Infusions (Artificer) - the Artificer class is massively overpowered in some of its other crafting abilities, but the Infusion system is actually pretty nice. Vancian again, and pretty much entirely revolves around temporarily changing how an item works. You could make a cloth shirt give a bonus to AC temporarily, or change Gloves of Dex from an "enhancement" bonus to a "luck" bonus for a while. Kind of cool, can lead to interesting things, but isn't that special by itself.

Invocations (Warlock, Dragonfire Adept) - basically, your ties to powerful entities give you a limited array of weaker spells you can pull off at-will. There's a few things it can do earlier and easier than most other characters (flight being a big one), but it's not so much "powerful" as just "comfortable". They're reliable, generally do consistent but mediocre damage, generally nice to have around without overshadowing anybody much.

Incarnum - magical in nature but not properly a "mage" system. Incarnum generally results in something much closer to the Rogue in terms of party rolls, with a whole lot of utility and some decent damage potential, rather than the flashy arcane/psi stuff or the divine buffs. The system is... massively complicated and rather obfuscated by really odd terminology (for a long time, I didn't understand the whole "placing a soulmeld in a chackra without actually binding it" thing). Still, it's not at all broken and quite reasonable by the standard of Rogues, if not Wizards.

Pact Magic - only the Binder class gets this, and it's also massively complicated and kind of counterintuitive. Basically, each day you choose what powers you'll have for the rest of the day, based on what "vistages" you can "bind". The result is rather fun and endlessly flavourful, but not really powerful and more complicated than it needs to be.

Shadow Magic - don't have much experience here; it's really odd, gets some decent stuff, but doesn't get nearly enough of it. Generally considered seriously weak.

Truenaming - your ability to use your magic is based on skillcheck DCs, which scale ludicrously fast. Critically underpowered, to the point of being considered one of the worst classes ever. Sufficient effort to pump your skillcheck can make it salvageable though.

Martial Adepts (Tome of Battle) - I'll probably get flak for adding this, as it's not magical in nature (and some people get horribly offended when it's compared to magic), but it fits on this list anyway. Basically, it's a system that gives melee characters special combat tricks they can do that are roughly analogous to less-powerful but less-restricted spells, that mostly involve the "hitting things with other things" paradigm melee characters know and love. It's a huge power boost over traditional melee, to the point of being overpowered in the levels 1-5 range (in my experience at least), but totally fair levels 6-10, and absolutely essential for that type of character to remain competitive levels 11-20.

Draz74
2009-09-21, 12:56 AM
Psionics is definitely the best "main" magic system to base a campaign on. (Even if you have to do a little bit of homebrewing to make up new powers when an important Arcane/Divine spell doesn't really have a good psionic equivalent, like Align Weapon or Web.)

I also strongly recommend Invocations (Warlocks and Dragonfire Adepts). They're well-balanced, and are easier to learn and to play than most other systems.

If non-magical "systems" count, Tome of Battle is superb.

Really, you can run an excellent campaign -- plenty of variety, relatively balanced -- with just these three systems, plus a few skillmonkey classes.

Incarnum is kind of a "final garnish." It's got a lot of good points and can do little harm, but overall it doesn't add a huge new dimension to a campaign IMHO, so it may not be worth learning -- at least not at the same time that you're working on learning the three above systems. Add it in later, if you need more variety.

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-21, 09:02 AM
Wu Jen are actually the same as wizards with a more narrow spell list. Arcane and Divine magic are also nigh identical (again separate spell lists).

Psionics (Expanded Psionic Handbook in particular) are much more balanced than any other system out there, and are a good choice if you can get around the (admittedly in poor taste) scientific naming convention for a lot of powers.

I contest the second claim. The Bo9S and MoI both are more balanced than the XPH (not to say the XPH is overpowered).



You shape melds at the beginning of the day, so they can do that while the Vancian casters pore over spells; picking which melds to shape isn't really any more time-consuming than picking wild shape forms or summoned creatures.

Or just pick a handful and stick with them. The only time you need to change soulmelds shaped is when you seriously need the effects of a different meld, or if the party needs someone to cover a specific role for 24 hours.


I keep seeing people talk bad about the MoI. The only major things wrong with it are:

Time investment. It takes a good 4 or 5 hours to learn, though a shortcut is to try making a meldshaper character.

Lack of support: The major issue with a lot of books.

Only two good base classes: Because you cannot deny that the Soulborn is horrible.

Excess fluff: I find this complaint odd. The fluff is campaign-neutral, and people generally dislike it when a book is too generic. The fluff itself can be altered easily. Its actually fairly easy to ignore, you just need to identify recurring words (Essentia, Soulmelds, Chakras, Meldshaper Level, Chakra Binds, and so forth).

That's it.

Morty
2009-09-21, 09:12 AM
As far as I'm concerned:
Fluff-wise, the core Arcane & Divine magic is the best, hands down. Vancian casting is superb for arcane casters, for divine ones not so much. Balance-wise, though... yeah. Batman and CoDzilla say hello.
Warlocks are neat if you want someone who has his powers either due to lineage or an otherworldy pact and it's an average clas power-wise. It's also the simples to use.
Psionics I find bland and uninteresting both fluff-wise and mechanics-wise.
Wu Jen and Shugenja I haven't given much thought, but they work like core casters with different spell lists from what I remember.
Artificers with their infusions look interesting enough, but apparently are broken even worse than wizards.
Tome of Magic and Incarnum I don't know much about.
So all in all, I'd recommend using core casters alongside with warlocks and calling it a day, but be mindful about unbalanced spells.

Person_Man
2009-09-21, 11:40 AM
So, here's the question. What systems of magic do you reccomend? Which are the most fun, the best balanced, the most verasile, just give me some reccomendations.

Fun: Probably Tome of Battle. Chock full of crazy awesome. However, introducing it to your game puts melee builds on par with full casters. I really like this, but some DMs don't, primarily because they think casters are a lot weaker then they actually are.

Balance: This depends heavily on your group. Standard Vancian casting (limited spells per day) are actually the hardest to balance, because it depends on the DM running 4+ encounters per game day, and the PCs have to choose not to rest after they use their best spells, or be forced into a beat the clock system. Psionics is better on this front, as everything draws from a single power point pool. Tome of Battle (and to a lesser extent, the Binder) is better still, in that everything is balanced on a Per Encounter basis. But a savvy player can easily work their way around this. In my opinion, the most balanced are those systems that use an "all day" model - classes that can basically use all of their class abilities whenever they want. That would be the Warlock, Dragonfire Adept, and Incarnum classes.

Versatile: Any class that can pick its class abilities each morning with few limits. So most divine casters, plus the Binder and Incarnum classes.


Also, you can put me into the pro-Incarnum camp. I agree that you have to read it through a couple of times to understand it, and that it lacks support in other supplements. But once you've figured it out, it's actually a very easy and rewarding to use. You get a small number of soulmelds. You bind a smaller number to your chakra to gain powers. And you get a pool of essentia that you can shift between soulmelds to boost them. The Soulborn does in fact suck, as they completely nerfed it's soulmeld progression. So I hombrewed a fix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119121) that works quite well, for those who might be interested.

Godskook
2009-09-21, 12:24 PM
Fun: Probably Tome of Battle. Chock full of crazy awesome. However, introducing it to your game puts melee builds on par with full casters. I really like this, but some DMs don't, primarily because they think casters are a lot weaker then they actually are.

I've never heard someone claim that ToB was on par with full casters before, and in fact, I've heard quite a few claim that ToB is still nothing more than tier 3(the 'standard' full casters sit quite comfortably in tiers 1/2).

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-09-21, 01:04 PM
I've got no beef with the system. The system great and simple to use, if you're only tracking one character.

But if someone like the OP wants to learn to use Incarnum, he'd do much better to look at internet posts like yours than to read the book itself. It creates more new terminology than any other system*, it's poorly organized* and it doesn't have a usable index of Soulmelds (that's the one that makes the system nigh-unplayable without quite a bit of time investment).

I completely agree that the book itself is horribly edited and organized--but then again, that's par for the course for WotC books, isn't it? :smallwink: I suppose the delimiter is the amount of time you're willing to put in; if you are willing to skim the classes and melds a few times, you can pick it up fairly quickly, but if you want something clear and easy to understand on the first read-through, it's quite lacking. I do definitely agree that it's one of a handful of systems that you really can't pick up the first time around.


I've never heard someone claim that ToB was on par with full casters before, and in fact, I've heard quite a few claim that ToB is still nothing more than tier 3(the 'standard' full casters sit quite comfortably in tiers 1/2).

I'd agree with the Tier 3 placement. They come noticeably closer to the casters than core melee, and can defend themselves much better against casters in a 1-on-1 match, but if you compare the classes/systems on their own merits the Vancian classes still come out on top.

sonofzeal
2009-09-21, 02:04 PM
ToB is Tier 3 for flexibility, but can entirely keep up with CoDzilla (Tier 1) for pwnage even at level 20. That's one of the weaknesses of the current Tier systems, in that they generally conflate "number of ways to solve problems" with "skill within each way of solving problems", and also totally ignores classes that progress along different curves as they go.


Anyway, top three in each category, IMO:


Powerful: Arcane, Divine, Psionics

Fun: Martial Adepts (ToB), Psionics, Incarnum

Flexible: Binders, Incarnum, Arcane

Flavourful: Binder, Truenamer, Invokers.

Balanced: Psionics, Incarnum, Invokers

Simplicity: Invokers, Psionics, Martial Adepts (ToB)

Godskook
2009-09-21, 02:32 PM
ToB is Tier 3 for flexibility, but can entirely keep up with CoDzilla (Tier 1) for pwnage even at level 20.

Yours is not an universally* held position:


...ToB improves melee flexibility and enjoyment, not melee power. ...
-----------------------------



*Argh, that's the most confusing a/an I've ever had to write, and I still don't know which it was!

Eloel
2009-09-21, 02:34 PM
I'm a fan of Invokers - they're easy to use, balanced, and are generally fun. Unlike many, I hate arcane & divine, it gets too much hassle to choose the 'best' spells from the gazillions of options there are. Psionics are fun, but they tend to be better suited for novaing in arena games, instead of playing in a normal game.

My 2 cents.

Stegyre
2009-09-21, 03:37 PM
Yours is not an universally* held position:

*Argh, that's the most confusing a/an I've ever had to write, and I still don't know which it was!
And sadly, you guessed wrong (http://www.dailywritingtips.com/using-a-and-an-before-words/), which invalidates your entire argument. :smallwink:

(Finally, a RAW question in an area where I'm competent!)

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-09-21, 03:42 PM
Fun: Martial Adepts (ToB), Psionics, Incarnum

Balanced: Psionics, Incarnum, Invokers

I'd actually say Binders are more fun than the Incarnum classes, if only because "I channel my soul for magical power!" << "I channel someone else's soul for magical power!" in many cases; also, Invokers aren't overpowered, but they're not necessarily very balanced, since they tend to fall behind towards higher levels, so I'd put ToB there instead. Otherwise, I basically agree with your assessment.

sonofzeal
2009-09-21, 03:43 PM
Yours is not an universally* held position:
Granted. Just about anything that comes out of my mouth, someone somewhere will disagree with (including this, probably). Suffice it to say, I've ran a heavily optimized lvl 20 duel between a (mostly) Warblade and a (mostly) Druid, in which both were optimizing for melee pwnage and disregarding obvious brokenness like Shapechange abuse or silly uses of Iron Heart Surge. Warblade won, hands down, even though the Druid could have mopped the floor with most traditional melee opponents. This may have due to better optimizing on the Warblade's part, but the Druid was pretty darn twinked out too with Draconic Wildshape and grapple ski||z, and the victory was still pretty emphatic.

Now, Druids are still "better". They get massively broken stuff like Shapechange eventually, have far more flexibility and utility, and just all around rock. But in a fight, and baring cheese, my money's on the ToB-er. Not just duels either; I'd count on the ToBer to be better in a traditional encounter setting, especially since a lot of maneuvers/stances give bonuses depending on allies, while the Druid is pretty selfcontained. The Druid's still a higher tier because it does get that cheese, and because it has other things it can do besides Druidzilla, and because it can bypass the limitations of melee combat (which ToB is still generally bound by). But don't underrate ToB for sheer force.

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-21, 03:45 PM
I'd actually say Binders are more fun than the Incarnum classes, if only because "I channel my soul for magical power!" << "I channel someone else's soul for magical power!" in many cases; also, Invokers aren't overpowered, but they're not necessarily very balanced, since they tend to fall behind towards higher levels, so I'd put ToB there instead. Otherwise, I basically agree with your assessment.

Fun fact: Binders and Meldshapers use a similar power source: Other people's souls. Binder's just use a specific being's soul, Meldshapers use anyone's and even the ones that don't exist yet (or anymore, for that matter). The difference is one uses names, the other doesn't.

sonofzeal
2009-09-21, 03:52 PM
I'd actually say Binders are more fun than the Incarnum classes, if only because "I channel my soul for magical power!" << "I channel someone else's soul for magical power!" in many cases; also, Invokers aren't overpowered, but they're not necessarily very balanced, since they tend to fall behind towards higher levels, so I'd put ToB there instead. Otherwise, I basically agree with your assessment.
Binders are indeed a lot of fun, but in my experience it's mostly fun because of the awesome roleplay, which is why I put them highly under "flavour". That said, they're cool and unique and distinctive and I love them. I just wish they weren't so complicated.


Invokers... I've played with Invokers in a decently high-level campaign, and even a very poorly-optimized Warlock was easily the most consistent member of the party. Vitrolic Blast means she was always doing at least something effective every round, which is more than could be said for most of the rest of the party. In a higher-optimization campaign, yeah I could see them lagging. But it doesn't feel so bad to be doing less than others, if you're still always contributing. It's the people who can't contribute sometimes who really feel underpowered.

We also may be using the word "balanced" in different ways; you may mean "can keep pace with a reasonable party at all levels", but I generally mean "is hard to make either brokenly-good or brokenly-bad". ToB deserves a mention in that category as well, btw.

Starbuck_II
2009-09-21, 03:56 PM
Fun fact: Binders and Meldshapers use a similar power source: Other people's souls. Binder's just use a specific being's soul, Meldshapers use anyone's and even the ones that don't exist yet (or anymore, for that matter). The difference is one uses names, the other doesn't.

Binders use soul of one who can't exist any longer (beyond Divine power to save them).
Meldshapers use future, past, and present souls. Yes, they are using your future child to kick your butt.

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-21, 03:59 PM
Binders use soul of one who can't exist any longer (beyond Divine power to save them).
Meldshapers use future, past, and present souls. Yes, they are using your future child to kick your butt.

Details details. The point is the spirit is in the idea.


I know, not punny.

Blackfang108
2009-09-21, 04:09 PM
Details details. The point is the spirit is in the idea.


I know, not punny.

Literally, in this case.

EDIT: Yes. It is.

tyckspoon
2009-09-21, 05:39 PM
Granted. Just about anything that comes out of my mouth, someone somewhere will disagree with (including this, probably). Suffice it to say, I've ran a heavily optimized lvl 20 duel between a (mostly) Warblade and a (mostly) Druid, in which both were optimizing for melee pwnage and disregarding obvious brokenness like Shapechange abuse or silly uses of Iron Heart Surge. Warblade won, hands down, even though the Druid could have mopped the floor with most traditional melee opponents. This may have due to better optimizing on the Warblade's part, but the Druid was pretty darn twinked out too with Draconic Wildshape and grapple ski||z, and the victory was still pretty emphatic.


I probably would have gone Frozen Wildshape for a (Cryo)Hydra instead, possibly making use of a Jack B. Quick-style AoO-counter build (attack once, get bitten 48 times in return! 'tho White Raven has ways to completely shut that down.) Dragon-type monsters almost universally have far too many HD to be useful for Wildshaping, especially at levels where 'cast a spell' isn't the default best answer to everything.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-09-21, 05:51 PM
We also may be using the word "balanced" in different ways; you may mean "can keep pace with a reasonable party at all levels", but I generally mean "is hard to make either brokenly-good or brokenly-bad". ToB deserves a mention in that category as well, btw.

I believe we were; if you're talking about difficulty in making over- or underpowered, then they'd definitely fit there. I was talking about keeping up with everyone else, in which case they do tend to fall behind, though not into brokenly-bad territory.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-09-21, 06:07 PM
I suppose the delimiter is the amount of time you're willing to put in; if you are willing to skim the classes and melds a few times, you can pick it up fairly quickly, but if you want something clear and easy to understand on the first read-through, it's quite lacking. I do definitely agree that it's one of a handful of systems that you really can't pick up the first time around.

I played a character with a dash of incarnum (a dip in Incarnate) in a gestalt game. It took a few skims to understand the system. The first skim went completely over my head. However, if I had any chakra binds to worry about, or if I had to rely on it for all my abilities...

IMO Magic of Incarnum easily has the steepest learning curve of all the D&D 3.5 books, and learning it was an ordeal comparable only to magic item selection (I always have trouble with that. I once dropped a high-level campaign entirely because of it).

Godskook
2009-09-21, 06:13 PM
Granted. Just about anything that comes out of my mouth, someone somewhere will disagree with (including this, probably). Suffice it to say, I've ran a heavily optimized lvl 20 duel between a (mostly) Warblade and a (mostly) Druid, in which both were optimizing for melee pwnage and disregarding obvious brokenness like Shapechange abuse or silly uses of Iron Heart Surge. Warblade won, hands down, even though the Druid could have mopped the floor with most traditional melee opponents. This may have due to better optimizing on the Warblade's part, but the Druid was pretty darn twinked out too with Draconic Wildshape and grapple ski||z, and the victory was still pretty emphatic.

1.I would love to get transcripts for that battle and those builds. I'm kinda curious(PM, or link)

2.I'm not as familiar with druids as I am with Wizards or ToB, but I can't picture a normal L20 wizard taking flack from a Warblade(or a Sorcerer semi-optimized for pvp, even).

Draz74
2009-09-21, 06:19 PM
an ordeal comparable only to magic item selection (I always have trouble with that

This. Seriously, in my experience, selecting equipment for an optimized character takes 10 times as long as everything else put together. :smallyuk:

tyckspoon
2009-09-21, 06:24 PM
2.I'm not as familiar with druids as I am with Wizards or ToB, but I can't picture a normal L20 wizard taking flack from a Warblade(or a Sorcerer semi-optimized for pvp, even).

They might if they had decided to experiment in engaging him in melee combat. Remember, a lot of the mid-tier classes are there not because they're not potent, it's because they don't have the power+versatility combo of Tier 1 and 2. A Warblade can easily compete with or beat a Tier 1 caster in the field of physical combat; that really shouldn't be that much of a surprise. It doesn't make the caster less powerful, tho- the caster's power is shown in his ability to even compete with a good dedicated physical class like Warblade, and the caster is still far and away superior in fields the Warblade can't even begin to compete in.

dragonfan6490
2009-09-21, 07:38 PM
As has been said before, I recomend using Arcane, Divine, Psionics and ToB. Each has its own niche and fulfills an archetype. Magic, Blessings from the gods, powers of the mind, and crazy weapon tricks.

sonofzeal
2009-09-21, 07:49 PM
I probably would have gone Frozen Wildshape for a (Cryo)Hydra instead, possibly making use of a Jack B. Quick-style AoO-counter build (attack once, get bitten 48 times in return! 'tho White Raven has ways to completely shut that down.) Dragon-type monsters almost universally have far too many HD to be useful for Wildshaping, especially at levels where 'cast a spell' isn't the default best answer to everything.
Actually, the Warblade was built along these lines, as they get some nice class features to tie in and can use maneuvers on AoO's. In his case, he maximized for accuracy and damage on AoO's, rather than spamming multiple ones which is rather cheesy. The other major trick he used was Deep Impact + Instant Clarity, to negate the Druid's ridiculous (50+) AC.

For reference, the Druid build was (I believe) VoP Saint 2 / Monk 1 / Druid 17. VoP usually sucks, and Monk usually suck, and losing CL to templates usually suck, but when you're applying the benefits of all three while in Wildshape, and the template in question is one of the most thoroughly overpowered ones ever printed, the result works pretty darn well. I'm sure some will criticize it, but Monk1/DruidX is an excellent Druidzilla base, and pretty much the ideal use of VoP anyway. I have no doubts that the Druid would have been a terrifyingly powerful melee warrior (who also casts 9th level spells) in just about any campaign, but that the Warblade still had the decisive edge in melee.

Draz74
2009-09-21, 08:39 PM
Actually, the Warblade was built along these lines, as they get some nice class features to tie in and can use maneuvers on AoO's.

:smallconfused: Um. Which? Maneuvers require a standard action, a swift action, or a full-round action, none of which are available when making an Attack of Opportunity.

The exception is Counters, which (being immediate actions) can be used at the same time as Attacks of Opportunity. But Counters, with a few exceptions, aren't offensive attacks, and don't need to be used in relation to Attacks of Opportunity.