PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Why is Incarnum so obscure?



Ivius
2008-11-18, 09:16 PM
What is it about the stuff that keeps it under the radar? I just built a character for a rare campaign that allowed the book, and I thought it was pretty awesome. It allows a lot of versatility in where you want you power to be with Essentia, level orthogonality (that doesn't lead to power creep because of chakras), and some great fluff.

Fax Celestis
2008-11-18, 09:21 PM
From my understanding, it's not that people don't know about the book, it's that they don't understand the mechanics within. I'm a fairly game-mechanically inclined person myself, and it took me two reads to fully understand everything within it.

That's not to say it's awkward: rather, it's getting one's mind around the difference between shaped and bound; the purpose and means of reallocating essentia; what exactly is the best method to keep track of all this; et al.

RTGoodman
2008-11-18, 09:22 PM
I think it's for a few reasons.

First, it's really hard to find unless you look online, or has been for me, at least. I don't think I've ever seen more than one or two physical copies of it in my life, and never really even got a chance to flip through it.

Second, it's an alternate system that, well, as far as I know, doesn't fit a niche role. It does replace or upgrade anyone like ToB, and it doesn't weaken anyone else either like ToM. Also, to expand on that, from what I know, it doesn't fit one of the four major archetypes that a lot of people like playing in (Healbot, Beatstick, Sneaky Guy, Arcanist).

I personally would love to get a good look at it after so many people seem to like it a lot, but like I said earlier, it's pretty hard to get in my area and I don't have the money to buy it online without knowing anything about it first.


EDIT: Huh, so apparently I'm wrong for at least parts of the world, if Fax is right about a lot of people actually knowing about it. I can't think of anyone I've ever played with that's ever known about it.

Maerok
2008-11-18, 09:22 PM
Because roleplaying and fun are proportional to corpses per minute, or DPS in metric.

Fax Celestis
2008-11-18, 09:28 PM
I personally would love to get a good look at it after so many people seem to like it a lot, but like I said earlier, it's pretty hard to get in my area and I don't have the money to buy it online without knowing anything about it first.

Let me do some convincing. It is, hands down, my favorite book. Over MM-V, over XPH, over ToB, over ToM, over CCham, over CScn...It is interesting and well-planned and balanced, and above all else, unique.

Lemur
2008-11-18, 09:28 PM
I would second the mechanics aspect. Many players take quite a bit of time just wrapping their heads around the core magic system, and aren't willing to learn a new system on top of that. Psionics, martial adepts, and the like have it a bit easier because their power system is conceptually similar to the magic system, but even those take time to gain acceptance from newer players.

Doomsy
2008-11-18, 09:29 PM
I blame it on being a totally novel system for the most part. I'm not the most mechanically-inclined person and it took me quite a while to actually come to grips with how it functions. Adding it into a campaign is kind of headache for just one character, and most DMs probably just want to stick with what they know and what is familiar - same reason some ban psionics, really.

Also their power level seems a bit uneven - like I said, I'm not the most mechanically inclined, but most of the classes looked underpowered save for the totemist, which looked like it could be a hell of a class if played intelligently.

Maerok
2008-11-18, 09:30 PM
I got ToI supremely cheap and I always thought it was very interesting but I've never been able to plug it enough to get a game in. Compared to spellcasting there isn't that much bookwork. I think a lot of people are under the impression that it's underpowered.

Fax Celestis
2008-11-18, 09:32 PM
I got ToI supremely cheap and I always thought it was very interesting but I've never been able to plug it enough to get a game in. Compared to spellcasting there isn't that much bookwork. I think a lot of people are under the impression that it's underpowered.

They'd be wrong, but first glance is often misleading.

Starbuck_II
2008-11-18, 09:34 PM
Let me do some convincing. It is, hands down, my favorite book. Over MM-V, over XPH, over ToB, over ToM, over CCham, over CScn...It is interesting and well-planned and balanced, and above all else, unique.

Really? Better than ToB or XPH?
Better than Toppa Tengen Gurran Lagan awesome?

I've always wanted to read it, but never did.

Keld Denar
2008-11-18, 09:40 PM
I blame the color blue. Entirely WAY too much in that book. If it didn't have so much blue in it, it might be more popular.

Seriously...if it had been red? WAY more popular. Everyone would be playing it. Think about it. ToB is popular...and the iconic warblade "Arzimon the warblade" is decked out in red. Coincidence? I think not!

EDIT: Further speculation leads to evidence that "Chrimson Matk, champion of the downtrodden" a swordsage, is also pro-red, as are the entire legion of Ruby Knight Vindicators.

Maerok
2008-11-18, 09:51 PM
They'd be wrong, but first glance is often misleading.

I still wanna break some stuff with the Gauntlets of Mauling or steal soulstuff with a Necrocarnate.

wadledo
2008-11-18, 09:54 PM
From what I know, it's because the system is complicated in a way most of the players I've found aren't used to.
Magic is a cut-and-paste system, while Incarnum is more fluid, more I can do this, this, and this, all with the same little bit of soul".

Tequila Sunrise
2008-11-18, 09:54 PM
Yeah I also put MoI's invisibility down to its mechanics. I bought it just because I can never resist a splatbook about magic; particularly another mechanical way to handle magic. I like it, but the mechanics are hard to keep straight in my head. I could explain the basic gist of them, but don't remember many details at all.

I allowed MoI when I was DMing 3e, but only saw one player ever use it. He made a VoP incarnate, and he was possibly the strongest PC in a party of him, a sorcerer, a cleric and...something else. It helped that the MoI player was the group's optimizer.

I like the MoI classes, but found its races totally boring. Right now I'm trying to remember what they were called or what their shtick was...but I just can't. Two were blue reptiles...and the third was a goblin type race or something...meh. And yeah, there is too much "azure" in MoI.

TS

Innis Cabal
2008-11-18, 09:55 PM
While it was an interesting read and....really nor weak...I was rather....let down when I saw the word Chakra and it had nothing to actually do...with them. Just the locations(And then not fully)

MeklorIlavator
2008-11-18, 10:15 PM
Interested, but I've never really had the opportunity to buy it, and even though my friends have it I've never been able to borrow it to read it. Still, it looks interesting, and when I get a chance I'll look into it.

Fax Celestis
2008-11-18, 10:37 PM
Really? Better than ToB or XPH?
Better than Toppa Tengen Gurran Lagan awesome?

I've always wanted to read it, but never did.

I'd say yes on all three counts, but this is my opinion.

mabriss lethe
2008-11-18, 11:18 PM
I've flipped through it a few times. It was an interesting read and looked to be a very well thought out system. I admit I was put off by that monomaniacal fixation on the color blue.

Draken
2008-11-18, 11:31 PM
Why no one likes the blue? I liked the blue of the book. More books should have the blue, in my opinion.

AmberVael
2008-11-18, 11:42 PM
Let me do some convincing. It is, hands down, my favorite book. Over MM-V, over XPH, over ToB, over ToM, over CCham, over CScn...It is interesting and well-planned and balanced, and above all else, unique.

Really? Huh. Curious.

Personally, I like Incarnum, though I think the fluff could have used some... reconsidering.
It's just a bit weird.
However, the mechanics are quite awesome.

Proven_Paradox
2008-11-18, 11:51 PM
I'm blue, ah bu dee ah bu diiii...


Anyway. I really, really like Incarnum as a concept. Thing is... I hate to admit it, but I've never actually played a mono-class incarnum class. I've done a few multiclass deals with incarnum, but usually that's an incarnum-user augmenting another primary class. That's something I'll get to fixing eventually...

They're GODLY in gestalt games; soulmelds make excellent augmentations to just about any other class ever. Lots of fun to be had there.

Vinotaur
2008-11-18, 11:57 PM
Yeah, the mechanics are very good. The system is one of the better ones. But I do think the fluff ranges from terrible to could be improved.

Jerthanis
2008-11-19, 01:01 AM
I considered playing an Incarnum class once, but built a Lawful Good Soulborn at level 6 that was 75% similar to a Paladin of the same level. Immune to fear, some minor healing powers, good saves...

I sort of assumed because of that experience that while conceptually different, and mechanically fluid, most choices you'd make would wind up being very mechanically similar to other more familiar classes. Perhaps this is unique to soulborn, or a false impression on my part.

Callos_DeTerran
2008-11-19, 01:14 AM
I'm curious Fax, mostly because I've trouble spotting power in a class, but how does MoI stand up? Obviously it's not reaching heights of like Batman wizards and what not but I don't see any particular strengths when I look through the book.

If you could provide some pointers that'd be helpful because I love the fluff for MoI but everytime I think about playing it I think 'Well..I like Incarnum but I like Tome of Battle too and at least then I'd be useful. Sorry Incarnum, off to ToB!" which is a shame ause I wanna play a Skarn incarnum user.

1of3
2008-11-19, 02:21 AM
I really think it's the words. When I read XPH I knew words like psion or power, I could easily understand psi crystall, power points are like mana points in any other game etc.

Then there is Incarnum. (What does that mean at all?) And it has soulmelds and meldshapers, and charkas and chakra binds, and essentia and stuff. Before I read the book I couldn't figure out what any of these would mean. After I read I almost forgot.

Doomsy
2008-11-19, 03:14 AM
Yeah I also put MoI's invisibility down to its mechanics. I bought it just because I can never resist a splatbook about magic; particularly another mechanical way to handle magic. I like it, but the mechanics are hard to keep straight in my head. I could explain the basic gist of them, but don't remember many details at all.

I allowed MoI when I was DMing 3e, but only saw one player ever use it. He made a VoP incarnate, and he was possibly the strongest PC in a party of him, a sorcerer, a cleric and...something else. It helped that the MoI player was the group's optimizer.

I like the MoI classes, but found its races totally boring. Right now I'm trying to remember what they were called or what their shtick was...but I just can't. Two were blue reptiles...and the third was a goblin type race or something...meh. And yeah, there is too much "azure" in MoI.

TS

I had that same problem with the Incarnum races. They were just less than impressive for the most part and pretty much forgettable. And after a second glance at the classes - yeah, I'd say they are on par, it is just hard to judge without knowing the mechanics very well. The totemist still impresses me the most, though.

Sinfire Titan
2008-11-19, 08:25 AM
Because roleplaying and fun are proportional to corpses per minute, or DPS in metric.

In that case the Totemist is the best class this side of the Bo9S for that unit of measure. Their damage output at level 3 rivals most 7th level characters.


I'm curious Fax, mostly because I've trouble spotting power in a class, but how does MoI stand up? Obviously it's not reaching heights of like Batman wizards and what not but I don't see any particular strengths when I look through the book.

If you could provide some pointers that'd be helpful because I love the fluff for MoI but everytime I think about playing it I think 'Well..I like Incarnum but I like Tome of Battle too and at least then I'd be useful. Sorry Incarnum, off to ToB!" which is a shame ause I wanna play a Skarn incarnum user.

Both the Tome of Battle and Magic of Incarnum are on par with each other in terms of combat abilities. What the Incarnate lacks in BAB it makes up for in defenses and skills, and the lack of attacks/round can be bypassed by using Warforged or Skarn as the base race (and there is a way to get the Skilled quality on your Incarnate weapon without it being broken, but it costs you the Soul Chakra and 4 levels of advancement).

The Totemist kicks more ass than most classes are capable of. Even compared to a Ranger armed with a Splitting bow and optimized for ranged combat, the class is able to keep up (even in damage). You can easily get 9 attacks per round, all of which are at your highest BAB and decent damage.

The Soulborn is, quite frankly, crap. It's the worst class in the book (barely better than CP's Divine Mind).

The Incarnum Handbook (http://http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=551.0)on Gleemax or Brilliant Gameologists goes into deep detail about the classes, and a mojority of the soulmelds and options you have. The handbook is incomplete as of yet, but only by about 20%.

OverdrivePrime
2008-11-19, 09:44 AM
This thread has gotten me curious about Incarnum again. Like (apparently many) others, I gave it a quick skim a while back, thought it looked pretty neat but difficult to slide into my existing campaign.

It sounds like a great option is a new campaign, where most of the standard base classes are replaced by the classes from the Tome of Battle and Magic of Incarnum. Has anyone tried anything like this?

Perhaps more interesting to me is if anyone has ripped out the standard magic system entirely and replaced it with incarnum? It's an idea that is suddenly very attractive to me.

Blackfang108
2008-11-19, 09:46 AM
I like the MoI classes, but found its races totally boring. Right now I'm trying to remember what they were called or what their shtick was...but I just can't. Two were blue reptiles...and the third was a goblin type race or something...meh.

To be fair, the races are EXTREMELY uninspired. Three "Humans" and a blue lizard type thing.

The Skarn are kinda goofy, think Batman's arm spikes, but
The Azurin are humans with the reptilian subtype, but if they wore a turtleneck, you'd never know they weren't normal humans.
There is the obligitory "just like a human but not" as well, can't recall the name.

And the only not obviously human race is the Dusklings.

I actually dipped into MoI for three feats for my Dire Wolf Barbarian/Sorcerer(three level dip for utility spells).
Cobolt Rage (+1 per investment while raging to Atk, Dmg, and Will, 1 bonus essentia)
Shape Soulmeld (Wormtail Belt - +2 Natural Armor Bonus, +1 per point of essentia)
Bonus Essentia (2)

It helps get my AC high enough to be survivable. although my CON is insane.

kamikasei
2008-11-19, 09:51 AM
Perhaps more interesting to me is if anyone has ripped out the standard magic system entirely and replaced it with incarnum? It's an idea that is suddenly very attractive to me.

I was never under the impression it was really a magic system. Whenever I see it in builds it's usually for a sort of buff or equipment stand-in. Maybe I'm wrong on that, of course.

Still, the "rip out the normal casters and build a game around ToB, XPH, Binders, Shadowcasters and MOI" idea is voiced fairly frequently, though I don't know if anyone's run the experiment. Dang, if only Binders and Shadowcasters were in a book with a handy acronym which could be referred to as a whole!

Blackfang108
2008-11-19, 10:02 AM
Still, the "rip out the normal casters and build a game around ToB, XPH, Binders, Shadowcasters and MOI" idea is voiced fairly frequently, though I don't know if anyone's run the experiment. Dang, if only Binders and Shadowcasters were in a book with a handy acronym which could be referred to as a whole!

So, ToB, ToM, and MoI?

That could be fun.

I think I'll try that if I ever DM a 3.5 campaign or one-shot.

kamikasei
2008-11-19, 10:13 AM
So, ToB, ToM, and MoI?

Minus Truenamers, and possibly including XPH (less powerful than standard casting, but possibly too powerful for this lineup), yes. You could probably do interesting things with the fluff between Binders and Incarnum-users, too.

Kaiyanwang
2008-11-19, 10:13 AM
To be fair, the races are EXTREMELY uninspired. Three "Humans" and a blue lizard type thing.

The Skarn are kinda goofy, think Batman's arm spikes, but
The Azurin are humans with the reptilian subtype, but if they wore a turtleneck, you'd never know they weren't normal humans.
There is the obligitory "just like a human but not" as well, can't recall the name.

And the only not obviously human race is the Dusklings.



When first time I've seen the races, I found them unispiring. Later, I used their strange characteristic or my own fluff linked to the Sarruk from Serpent Kingdoms and linked incarnum and Obiryths and they assumed a lot more sense. It's strange becasue their odd appearance pushed me to invent almost from the ground new fluff.

And Dusklings are awesome... I would play a Duskling Gestalt Druid/Totemist

Eldariel
2008-11-19, 10:18 AM
Well, I guess people just don't integrate extra materials easily. It's a fixture of all my games, just like ToB, Binders, Psionics and homebrew.

Blackfang108
2008-11-19, 10:21 AM
Minus Truenamers, and possibly including XPH (less powerful than standard casting, but possibly too powerful for this lineup), yes. You could probably do interesting things with the fluff between Binders and Incarnum-users, too.

I'd actually allow truenamers.

I don't think anyone would play one, but I'd allow it.

And i'd probably allow XPH as well.

Fax Celestis
2008-11-19, 10:40 AM
I'm curious Fax, mostly because I've trouble spotting power in a class, but how does MoI stand up? Obviously it's not reaching heights of like Batman wizards and what not but I don't see any particular strengths when I look through the book.

If you could provide some pointers that'd be helpful because I love the fluff for MoI but everytime I think about playing it I think 'Well..I like Incarnum but I like Tome of Battle too and at least then I'd be useful. Sorry Incarnum, off to ToB!" which is a shame ause I wanna play a Skarn incarnum user.

On power level, the Soulborn is the weakest, ekeing in just above a PHB Paladin. The Incarnate and the Totemist, however, are really strong Tier 2s: the Incarnate can turn into quite the combat monster despite his poor BAB due to his melds, and the Totemist is the king of natural attacks.

InaVegt
2008-11-19, 10:42 AM
Incarnum is very nice.

There are some builds that are /very/ powerful while keeping true to a central theme. (A properly build Shifter Totemist/Barbarian/Totem Rager is a force to be reckoned with. My 12th level version was capable of tearing apart monsters with slightly higher CRs with ease, on her own.)

Though, broken builds exist with all builds, and most of the book is refreshingly new, yet quite balanced. I find that in role oriented games, Totemists often fall into the Tank role, Incarnates often fall into the Skill Monkey role, and I've never seen the third class being played.

MoI was, however, clearly not build with a role structure in mind. The classes within are flexible, and have an important thing in common with divine casters (Albeit in a different way), they can change their focus overnight. Due to this, there is power to keeping within the base class instead of going to a more specific PrC. Because while such PrCs make you more powerful in a specific role, it costs you at others. An Incarnate can be very different today compared to what he'll be tomorrow, but the same cannot be said for a necrocarnate.

As with all books, there exist broken combinations, but, as with many books, this doesn't make it any less awesome.

Telonius
2008-11-19, 10:42 AM
I really think it's the words. When I read XPH I knew words like psion or power, I could easily understand psi crystall, power points are like mana points in any other game etc.

Then there is Incarnum. (What does that mean at all?) And it has soulmelds and meldshapers, and charkas and chakra binds, and essentia and stuff. Before I read the book I couldn't figure out what any of these would mean. After I read I almost forgot.

For me, it's a combination of this, plus the mechanical issues. And the above related to the mechanical issues, to the extent that it makes it harder for the DM to remember who can do what.

On the mechanical side of things, most DMs I've had know how to balance an encounter pretty well based on what a standard Wizard, Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, etc. can do. The threat level of a monster can be pretty easily adjusted with the addition of things like a lot of the new "regular" base classes like Knight or Swashbuckler, or even a more magic-y class like Favored Soul, Wu Jen, or Warlock. It's all working on the same principles of what the DM already knows.

But when you toss in a new spell/psionic/whatever other sort of "magic" mechanic, it becomes a problem of, "Okay, what new reality-breaking system of ridiculousness am I going to have to learn in order to tailor this encounter to my players?" If the DM doesn't know the new system very well, an encounter he thought would be easy might become a near-TPK, or the BBEG goes out like a punk in a single round because of some random power he forgot the player had.

Even things like Tome of Battle classes suffer from this a little, though not nearly to the same extent. I think DMs are more likely to be open to ToB, because (once they get their brains around the Stances) it's pretty easy to integrate it into encounter planning. It just means that "the fighter can hit things with his pointy-stick a lot better now," or "suddenly the monk is a lot more awesome." ToB doesn't require as much out of the DM.

vegetalss4
2008-11-19, 12:51 PM
i have seen the book a few times, love the fluff, but still don't understand the mechanics. i belive that is quite sommon actuly

AmberVael
2008-11-19, 12:57 PM
Currently, in one of my games, I'm playing a Totemist with a modified Vow of Poverty. It's quite an interesting combination, really, and in the end it actually works fairly well. You just have to make sure your soulmeld bonuses aren't overlapping with your VoP bonuses...

I am quite fond of how the classes work though, and if you work around with them you can really adapt it to almost any idea.
For example, the aforementioned VoP Totemist is explained as a demon who has possessed a normal human. All of my soulmelds are basically an extension of the demon's power and presence (while Vow of Poverty is explained as the demon tithing to Pale Night for more power).

...
I guess what I'm trying to say is, I think Incarnum is pretty fun to work with. I wish it were more common.

Callos_DeTerran
2008-11-19, 04:16 PM
On power level, the Soulborn is the weakest, ekeing in just above a PHB Paladin. The Incarnate and the Totemist, however, are really strong Tier 2s: the Incarnate can turn into quite the combat monster despite his poor BAB due to his melds, and the Totemist is the king of natural attacks.

Aye, so that incarnum handbook has shown with some aptness however the Totemist is a bit beyond me with it's natural attack frenzy. I'm just wondering how a Warblade/Incarnate/Spine-meld Warrior might work out or the 'how' to do it.

Fax Celestis
2008-11-19, 04:23 PM
Aye, so that incarnum handbook has shown with some aptness however the Totemist is a bit beyond me with it's natural attack frenzy. I'm just wondering how a Warblade/Incarnate/Spine-meld Warrior might work out or the 'how' to do it.

A better way to do that would probably be to go Swordage 4/Incarnate 2/Spinemeld Warrior X, that way you only end up dependent on Con and Wis, instead of Int on top of that.

Plus, you know, Desert Wind and Shadow Hand.

ChaosDefender24
2008-11-19, 04:40 PM
I think Incarnum is obscure because there's only a few other books that have Incarnum in there and quite frankly it isn't a groundbreaking book. The Totemist is a beastly melee class on its own that is absolutely beautiful if you apply other classes to the mix (Soul Eater strikes again!), but otherwise the book's rather bland in terms of what it adds to the game.

This is in stark contrast to the mostly stand-alone Tome of Battle, which changed the face of martial combat. Or the Tome of Magic, which is famous for containing two of the worst classes ever.

I didn't really think that the Incarnum system was very hard to digest. If you're getting esoteric enough that you even know that the book MoI exists, you're probably used to this sort of thing.

ImperiousLeader
2008-11-19, 07:40 PM
I really liked Magic of Incarnum, it's a nice subsystem. I like the mechanics of it, it's versatile and fun. Gestalt with Incarnum is really impressive.

I just wish I'd been able to play with it. I couldn't find a DM that would allow Psionics or Tome of Battle, let alone Magic of Incarnum.

WinterSolstice
2008-11-19, 07:53 PM
I always thought of Incarnum as fairly underpowered...not to say that it wasn't intriguing.:smalltongue:

apparently I'm not the only one http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0546.html (3rd panel)

Sinfire Titan
2008-11-19, 07:55 PM
I really liked Magic of Incarnum, it's a nice subsystem. I like the mechanics of it, it's versatile and fun. Gestalt with Incarnum is really impressive.

I just wish I'd been able to play with it. I couldn't find a DM that would allow Psionics or Tome of Battle, let alone Magic of Incarnum.

Mostly due to the fact that few people understand it. I can guarantee you that there are people who allow the system once they've played with it a few times. Look for PbP games that allow it.

wadledo
2008-11-19, 08:05 PM
I always thought of Incarnum as fairly underpowered...not to say that it wasn't intriguing.:smalltongue:

apparently I'm not the only one http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0546.html (3rd panel)

Hah!
I didn't remember that.

Well, at least this thread has convinced me to finally buy Magic of Incarnum(which could be one of the problems, seeing how it isn't magic).

Lert, A.
2008-11-19, 09:47 PM
I would say the problems are mostly:

1) poor labeling - Magic of Incarnum is lacking in magic, and turning away readers before they have a chance to give the book a chance

2) labeling - binding, chakras, incarnum, etc. are hard to follow and have to be explained in detail before even getting into the mechanics

3) mechanics - not too difficult one you get used to them, but the learning curve is pretty steep

4) lack of support - one book of limited publishing and a few little references here and there, no official FAQ, support of 3.x being now discontinued

5) not revolutionary enough - two of the classes are good, one is meh, and the races are bland, but - being not so user friendly - not enough to bring in anyone other than diehards who want something new and different

Captain Six
2008-11-19, 10:53 PM
I really delved into Incarnum when I first got it but two things drove me away. First of all it was a bit to flashy, I was always a little annoyed by the feeling that heroes are made by their magic items. My DM is usually good on altering flavor so I could probably pass this class by him without having the items actually appear on my person and simply be enhancements. Two, I couldn't really find anything they're good at. At least the Incarnate which I built for fun. After getting myself a ton of cool abilities I found that I couldn't really use them for anything but looking cool. I might have to give it another look though, seeing as he wants to start a new campaign I might give it a shot.

ImperiousLeader
2008-11-19, 11:19 PM
I've debated porting it over to 4e, I've even seen some other attempts to, and I've realized, what I like most about Incarnum is the Essentia management. I like the idea of redistributing essentia between different soulmelds, it's like playing Starfleet Command, and juggling power between engines, weapons and shields.

Lert, A.
2008-11-19, 11:38 PM
SFC is awesome. If its mechanics were translated into RPG builds (and advertised as such) Incarnum would rule over the world of D&D.

Or at least for those who can appreciate the awesomeness of SFC.

Sinfire Titan
2008-11-20, 08:49 AM
I really delved into Incarnum when I first got it but two things drove me away. First of all it was a bit to flashy, I was always a little annoyed by the feeling that heroes are made by their magic items. My DM is usually good on altering flavor so I could probably pass this class by him without having the items actually appear on my person and simply be enhancements. Two, I couldn't really find anything they're good at. At least the Incarnate which I built for fun. After getting myself a ton of cool abilities I found that I couldn't really use them for anything but looking cool. I might have to give it another look though, seeing as he wants to start a new campaign I might give it a shot.

Incarnates are Jacks of All Trades. If you focus on one single ability, then you can make them better than anyone who isn't able to cast spells. Focusing on melee combat, for example, allows you to get the highest attack bonuses in the game before spells or outside abilities are involved. Focusing on your skill checks gets you the ultimate skill monkey, and focusing on UMD gets you a mini-Artificer (IE: less broken).

Totemists are almost exclusively combat machines. While they make excellent scouts and Rogue-wannabes, their true place is in the front lines, kicking ass and taking names.

Soulborns want to be like all of the other melee characters, but lack the mechanics to do it effectivly. Their abilities don't focus on what few soulmelds they get (whereas both the Incarnate and Totemist are highly focused) which is the biggest weak-point of the class. Because they got soulmelds as almost an afterthought, they weren't given good combat-oriented class features. If their soulmelds weren't so limited in use, then maybe they would stand a chance at a comparisson. But the class is worse than the Paladin.

Scaboroth
2008-11-21, 02:48 AM
In the chronology of My Own Personal Cosmology, incarnum was the oldest form of energy in the Multiverse. It predated the birth of the Gods, even, and in fact it was introduction of soul energy (essentia) into the cosmic equation that spurred the genesis of both divine power and mortal souls. Mortals were born, and grew, and evolved and learned to use their minds, and discovered psionics. Mortals ventured out to interact with their environments, and extraplanar awareness led to divine clerical magic on the one hand, and invocations (which led to mysteries) on the other. Last in line was arcane magic, the most codified and specific power of all. And wizards followed sorcerors, scientists who studied the gifts of their brothers and learned to harness magic with their intelligence.
So naturally my campaign world is kind of focussed on the most recent event in the Magical Timeline. While there are many nations and factions, the most powerful are the ones wielding arcane magic. (Who doesn't love a good evil empire of wizard-kings?) Societies with clerics and warlocks are powerful but not as dominant, and psionic groups range from relatively rare to almost unheard of (and often associated with creepy tentacly elder things like illithid and aboleth). But the oldest power of all, incarnum is still there in the background. Some rare few learn to expand their awareness enough to even recognize it for what it is. But the power that is derived from the soul energy of every living being in the multiverse - how cool is that?
Use the Force, indeed.

Kaiyanwang
2008-11-21, 03:35 AM
In the chronology of My Own Personal Cosmology, incarnum was the oldest form of energy in the Multiverse. It predated the birth of the Gods, even, and in fact it was introduction of soul energy (essentia) into the cosmic equation that spurred the genesis of both divine power and mortal souls.

Did something similar in my campaign, but imagined the start of the universe as a whole separated, and the separation bringed the alignment (and the 9 big alignments deites). The Obyriths demons are the part of the original indistinct being wanting to return the universe to the original whole (their idea of Chaos, different from Tanar'ri).

In my campaign, standard divine caster are subjected to gain taint in some zone like in OadV, and arcane caster to make troubles like in Dark Sun, but Incarnum keeps his own purity.

Ivius
2008-11-21, 10:26 PM
So, the problems come down to:

being mechanically complex

being entirely novel

using unfamiliar terms

the color blue (?)

and the name.

Fax Celestis
2008-11-22, 01:07 PM
So, the problems come down to:

being mechanically complex

being entirely novel

using unfamiliar terms

the color blue (?)

and the name.

Preeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetty much.

woodenbandman
2008-11-22, 01:32 PM
I find that Totemist is an incredible class, with good flavor and a fair amount of power, possibly coming in just below psychic warrior. Incarnate, unfortunately, for me is a weak class. While it's true that they can easily stack an arbitrary number of bonuses, their low BAB makes it hard for them to benefit from power attack, and thus shock trooper and pounce, the main way that melees do their damage, and they can't boost up their damage with insight, competence, profane, sacred whatever bonuses to make up for the loss of the two attacks that a normal melee would get at similar to-hit bonuses. It's simple math, really. Their two attacks cannot possibly equal the 3 or 4 attacks that a pouncing barbarian can expect to hit with.

Totemist doesn't have that problem because they ARE a pouncing barbarian, only with 11 natural attacks at high to-hit bonuses.