Would Warlock be a good chassis for 5E incarnum?

[thorr-kan]

There are a few incarnum conversions to 5E on DMSGuild. I haven't read any of them. Using soulmelds as spells/cantrips keeps learning new rules to a minimum while being able to leverage existing content.

Or maybe lean into infusions or invocations as the abilities for soulmelds.

[Snowbluff]

I think it would be closer to the 5e artificer. Incarnum made psueo-items. Artificer makes kinda items. Of course, there's the problem of attunement, which kinda replaced the item slot system of 3.5.

With that in mind, maybe they should have an option to improve items that take attunement, when there would be a conflict?

[Kuulvheysoon]

Eh... I don't feel like Incarnum is something that translates cleanly to 5E..

You can refluff Artificer, that'll probably be closest, but the feel of the mechanics, not so much. Warlock locks itself into it's options too hard (spells know, invocations knows) while at least Artificer can change most of their toolset day by day.

[Kane0]

Warlock and artificer translate better than most other classes because they get more points of customization than just spells and subclass.

[Mitchellnotes]

I also think the artficier is a better fit. I always liked the idea of a more "infuser" style artificier as opposed to a "magi-tek" one, and arcanum would be a great model for it

[thorr-kan]

You guys make a potent argument for artificer. I just happen to like the warlock's mechanics.

I know! We should just cram both together! Spells & cantrips & infusions & spells & cantrips & invocation & subclasses!

[Mitchellnotes]

You guys make a potent argument for artificer. I just happen to like the warlock's mechanics.

I know! We should just cram both together! Spells & cantrips & infusions & spells & cantrips & invocation & subclasses!

What is it that appeals to you about the warlock? Is it pact magic or infusions?

[T.G. Oskar]

Eh... I don't feel like Incarnum is something that translates cleanly to 5E..

You can refluff Artificer, that'll probably be closest, but the feel of the mechanics, not so much. Warlock locks itself into it's options too hard (spells know, invocations knows) while at least Artificer can change most of their toolset day by day.

Definitely a hard translation.

Incarnum worked in 3.5 because it was designed with that edition's rules in mind - in particular, the lack of "bounded accuracy". Soulmelds could work as magical pseudo-items that provided certain bonuses based on the amount of Essentia you added to them, and then you could unlock powers based on whether you bound them to one of your Chakras. The latter is easy - the attunement aspect effectively duplicates chakra binding, since you could say that you can unlock the soulmeld's powers if you attune to a specific chakra in your body. You could use the tiers of play to determine which chakra binds to unlock - 1st to 4th level get the least binds, 5th to 10th get the lesser binds, 11th to 16th give you the greater binds, and you can only get Heart and Soul chakras at 17th level. From there, you can work powers that could apply to those soulmelds.

The concept breaks once you add Essentia to the mix. Essentia not only powered the effects you could use, but also determined its save DC. The base amount wasn't large enough (you started with the ability to use 1 point of Essentia, and it eventually improved to 4 points, with classes increasing your capacity), so you could justify probably transplanting it as-is, but then you enter the problem of "bounded accuracy". One point of Essentia to increase damage by one die might not seem like much, but one point of Essentia to increase a numerical bonus is HUGE. Consider that, without attunement, you could get, say, a +4 to your ability checks just by wearing a magical pseudo-item made from soulstuff. Unless that's bound by your class (and it usually doesn't), a single dip could effectively break the game. In fact, chakra binding might not even be a dissuasive, since now you get at-will attacks that can be more powerful than cantrips.

But, let's say you solve that predicament. You gauge very well how to control Essentia so that it doesn't tear your game in half by having at-will Fireballs dealing 16d6 damage just because you always have 4 points of Essentia placed on them, without making the same effect so weak it's laughable, and yet still more powerful than a Sun Soul Monk's Kamehameha. How will you tackle the class design paradigm of 5e? Remember - 5e classes are designed with the idea of being modules to build ideas. Martial Archetypes for Fighters are meant to represent most kinds of warriors, whether supernaturally empowered or not. Cleric Domains are meant to represent the different powers provided by deities. Wizard Schools are meant to represent the myriad ways in which Wizards understand magic. What would be the equivalent for the prospective Incarnum user? And, more than that, how many such iterations could exist before you exhaust them all? I mean - you could have some sort of "Incarnate" that has Totemist and Necrocarnate as subclasses, but what else? Incarnum was so underdeveloped that the prestige classes in MoI are the only ones that support the system, and half of them are meant to be theurge classes mixing them with arcane or divine magic. Some (like Incarnum Blade) are best settled as subclasses for other classes (I.E., Incarnum Blade would be perfect for Fighters!) And a small handful are even tied to races (Spinemeld Warrior, anyone?) Unless you can tackle that, making Incarnum-related content will be difficult. This is the problem psionics confronted, and in the end, WotC gave up and just made psionics accessible through subclasses and "psionic spells" - the disparity of opinions regarding the Mystic disheartened them, and they just rushed it with Psionic Energy Dice as a substitute.

In that regard, neither Warlock nor Artificer seem good bases for content, but you can subtract things from them. The Warlock relies a lot on at-will and short rest-based powers, whereas the Artificer's Infusions form a good basis for how soulmelds can work and also to increase your attunement slots. Other than that, you'd need to create everything from scratch, and that's a huge task.

[thorr-kan]

What is it that appeals to you about the warlock? Is it pact magic or infusions?
Resetting spell slots with a short rest seems to mirror the ability of incarnum to reset their soulmelds.

Cantrips could be flavored as minor incarnum abilities.

[thorr-kan]

Definitely a hard translation.
<SNIP!>

Excellent critique! You give a lot to think about.

I'm not even really at the building point yet. I'm just pondering. But you bring up good points. Especially about subclasses and making them for incarnum. That's a slot that can't be overlooked. Maybe prestige classes? :smallcool: (I'm in quite the minority that I *liked* the Runesmith and 5E's take on prestige classes.)

Maybe poach sorcery points as a mechanism for essentia?

[Pex]

The essentia problem can be fixed by not translating word for word. It's not +1d6 per essentia point spent. It's spend one essentia for +1d6 and that's it. At a higher level this can be improved to spend 2 essentia for +2d6. To get a +1 somewhere it's one essentia, and that's it. Maybe 2 essentia for that +1. At a higher level it becomes 2 or 4 essentia for +2, at the same levels +2 weapons and armor could appear. One essentia gives proficiency in a skill. Two essentia gives Expertise. Then it's just a matter of how much essentia to give. The base model is Ki/Sorcery points, get essentia equal to your class level. Essentia can be reallocated on a short rest. Chakra Binding, using Attunement, costs an extra essentia. Those essentia cannot be reallocated on a short rest but can be after a long rest. Max number of Chakra Binds is equal to half your proficiency rounded up. However, it's not fair to deny the character access to magic items for the audacity of being the class, so either increase the number of Attunement slots or allow the spending of another Essentia point to allow a Chakra Bind and an Attuned magic item to use the same Attunement slot.

[Mitchellnotes]

Resetting spell slots with a short rest seems to mirror the ability of incarnum to reset their soulmelds.

Cantrips could be flavored as minor incarnum abilities.

Ahh! You could take an artificier base and replace their normal casting progression with a modified pact magic system. I would keep # of slots the same as a regular lock, but progress to the next slot at the same level 1/2 casters get their next spell level. At the highest levels, it may be a bit overtuned (having 4 5th level slots / rest is probably a good bit better than what an artificer has now), but you still trade some versatility with power. It would take some tweaking in advance (spell storing item using just the base level spell Not the pact level), but could work

[XmonkTad]

If you were to add in Incarnum as a subclass, I would make it as something that doesn't have spells (like a Monk) rather than as a Warlock or a Artificer. While the flavor works great with Warlock (investing a part of your soul), the spells don't seem right.

Also, I always felt like Incanum would work great with bounded accuracy. Am I missing something?

[thorr-kan]

Huh. I never realized that ki and sorcery points accumulate exactly the same.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If you were to add in Incarnum as a subclass, I would make it as something that doesn't have spells (like a Monk) rather than as a Warlock or a Artificer. While the flavor works great with Warlock (investing a part of your soul), the spells don't seem right.

Also, I always felt like Incanum would work great with bounded accuracy. Am I missing something?

As to the first part, I agree. The second part, not so much. Incarnum is famously fiddly--lots and lots of small, stacking bonuses and micromanagement of powers, slots, etc.

I wrote up an "Incarnum-inspired" (ie taking the concept rather than than the mechanics) (Google Docs link (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HH_pwZ0J6q2TqIP0YmVLyTXArlDdVgtLUapJxC77ZGU/edit?usp=sharing)) which used a pseudo-ki progression -- one point per level except first, used to fuel the "active" effects of the forms (my variant of the binds/melds), plus an increasing number of known forms and "bound" forms. This, combined with tiered forms (ie they gain extra abilities at higher class level) was what I relied on.

The class fiction was around a form of anti-spellcasting--since seekers rely on gathering ambient soul-stuff and spell-casting manipulates this soul-stuff in a disruptive way, seekers learn techniques to neutralize casters. The sub-classes were designed around themes--there's "Captain America, the sub-class", a TWF one, an archer, and a "combat medic" one.

Is it great? Hah. No. But I don't think spells OR the original mechanical implementation are the ways to go. Both are at odds with the core concept or 5e's basic design paradigms.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I actually don't think bounded accuracy is the biggest problem in updating Incarnum. There are plenty of ways to convey "this meld makes you good at dealing with animals" without relying on numerical boosts. The 3.5e version dealt with numbers because it had to--with the way opposed skill checks and DCs scaled, that was the most graceful way of letting you play at scouting or archery in a level-appropriate way. 5e doesn't have that problem. Simply granting proficiency is enough to make you decently competitive at a thing.

No, the problem is that 5e is much more focused on rests and attrition than 3.5e was. Among the published classes, only Rogues can operate at full power all day long*. There simply aren't many examples and isn't much design space for a system as fundamentally at-will as Incarnum. There are probably two ways you could go, ultimately.

The first would look something like a spell-point-casting Artificer--you shape your melds and they last all day, but binding them is temporary and requires you to expend essentia points. (Or maybe a Mystic who prepares their disciplines every morning, but that's a whole different can of worms). It wouldn't feel quite the same as the 3.5 version, but it would be a decent compromise between the two editions. It would also be by far the easiest; any practiced homebrew writer could probably have a rough version ready in an hour or two.

The second, harder version, would require you to figure out the balance on an Artificer who relies entirely on Infusions. To handle essentia points, you'd probably want to remove level-based scaling on the Infusions; I'd probably still drop the shaped/bound distinction out of simplicity, but that's just me. It's not impossible-- I did it with the Magewight in my Guide, for instance-- but it would take a lot more work and leave DMs a lot more leery of allowing it.




*Okay yes, Fighters and Warlocks can too, to a lesser degree, but they'd still be better with short rests.

[Amechra]

To me, the biggest challenge facing a 5E version of Incarnum is that it would probably end up dropping the whole "reassign your essentia to change which of your powers you're emphasizing" thing, which would be super disappointing.

If I just wanted Soulmelds, I'd personally handle it as an Artificer subclass. You get the ability to shape soulmelds (read: create an item out of soulstuff and then shove an infusion into it), access to some unique infusions, and the ability to spend spell slots to improve my infusions. Maybe you have to spend a spell slot to shape a soulmeld, and spending higher-level spell slots gives you extra bonuses? That could work.