D&D 3E/3.5 Does Magic of Incarnum and 3e's Tome of Magic and Tome of Battle have a place in 5e?

CapnZapp

Legend
If it isn't in the core books, it pretty much guarantees it won't be used by official adventures and campaign descriptions, which pretty much tanks my interest.

The exception is something like psionics + Dark Sun, where WotC goes out of its way to make the new mechanism the star of the show.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mecheon

Sacabambaspis
I love the flavour of the Truenamer, but the mechanics were, well. Yeah.

I'm always down for more flavourful stuff being down but if there's ever a class you just take the previous mechanics and throw them away, the Truenamer is it
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Never looked at any of those books and I did not like much I read about them at the time we were playing 3E.

I liked the 2E Tome of Magic and some of that has made it into 5E already with the wild magic sorcerer and arguably the elemental sorcerer.
 

I love the flavour of the Truenamer, but the mechanics were, well. Yeah.

I'm always down for more flavourful stuff being down but if there's ever a class you just take the previous mechanics and throw them away, the Truenamer is it
I had a bit of a flavor problem with the truenamer, which boiled down to, "Wait, if this is some radically different kind of magic, then what is it wizards and bards have been doing all this time?"

Mechanically... with 5E's bounded accuracy math, a skill-check-based magic system might not be such an immediately broken idea as it was in 3E. Nevertheless, the risks seem high and the rewards rather low, unless the mechanic is really well tied to the flavor and is clearly the best way to execute it. Which I think we'll agree is not the case with the flavor of truename magic. But I have been playing around with a sort of hybrid system, ironically as a mechanical update for shadow magic (which also had a weak tie between mechanics and flavor in my eyes), playing up the notion that this magic is especially mysterious, slippery, and untrustworthy. It still uses spell slots, and the skill check does not determine the success or failure of your spellcasting; rather, it determines whether the spell costs a spell slot, or whether you forget it entirely instead. So even if you break the system math and succeed on every single check, you're just casting from slots like a plain old wizard; whereas if you botch your check, your spell still goes off, you just have to rely on different spells in the future.
 

ironically as a mechanical update for shadow magic (which also had a weak tie between mechanics and flavor in my eyes)

I actually agree. I've never, from the day I sent it in, been satisfied with my work on that class. :eek:

It still uses spell slots, and the skill check does not determine the success or failure of your spellcasting; rather, it determines whether the spell costs a spell slot, or whether you forget it entirely instead. So even if you break the system math and succeed on every single check, you're just casting from slots like a plain old wizard; whereas if you botch your check, your spell still goes off, you just have to rely on different spells in the future.

Now this is fascinating. I'm not 100% sold on forgetting forever--I think certain players might feel cheated--but maybe it has to be relearned? And it would depend on what other benefits shadow magic gives.

But I love the basic concept. I hope you decide to share the system once it's done.
 

GMMichael

Guide of Modos
I actually agree. I've never, from the day I sent it in, been satisfied with my work on that class. :eek:
Oh snap! I'll hold back my Truenamer criticisms, in case the Mouse contributed to that one...but Pact and Shadow magic just beg to be carried into 5e. On a palanquin.

Bounded accuracy be damned: 5e is a very close relative of 3e. To the extent that I don't see anything from 3e that isn't compatible with 5e. Except prestige classes.

I think everyone felt that Incarnum was too far out there in weirdness, most of Tome of Magic felt poorly implemented as remember how the True Namer was an example of why there should never be a skill-roll based power system. Though the Binder was well received. Tome of Battle was in many ways the precursor to 4e's power system, but I liked the system of martial magic and special techniques, and even the idea of the various schools of fighting styles like Desert Wind and White Raven.

I don't know if anything can be done for Incarnum in 5e since it was such an experimental concept.
Tome of Battle and the Warlock from...Complete Wizard?...were the first seeds planted in the 4e pot. Incorporate them in 5e at your own risk. Incarnum, rest its rainbow-colored soul, seems like a bad fit for 5e since it was (bear with my memory here) basically a system for permanent magic items (and 5e seems fairly anti-magic-item). However, in the hands of an able DM, and with some less dramatic artwork (how about invisible Incarnum?), there's no reason why you couldn't give it a whirl.
 

However, that said, I don't think it works in 5e's low item setting. 3.X was built on the concept that you would fill all your slots as quickly as possible, and constantly upgrade them. Incarnum did that. 5e's flavor of (at least in Adv League) by level 10 you may have 4 magic items and 2 of them will be useful, doesn't allow for Incarnum to do anything.


Incarnum, rest its rainbow-colored soul, seems like a bad fit for 5e since it was (bear with my memory here) basically a system for permanent magic items (and 5e seems fairly anti-magic-item).

I actually feel like the exact opposite it true. Incarnum works better in a low-magic system because there's less competition for space with magic items. In 3.5, the soulmelds had to compete directly with the magic christmas tree that every class wanted/used and so it often felt underpowered compared to a different character with a fully spec'ed out set of gear (on top of class abilities!). In 5e, you have plenty of room for the hand soulmeld, the belt soulmeld, and the helmet soulmeld because your only magic item of note is the +1 sword you carry. Actually, you could easily do a 5e version of Incarnum without interacting with magic items at all by having all the slots correspond to the real-life positions of the chakras instead of the wonky 3.5 appropriation, with "hand" and "boot" chakras. Wearing a magic amulet + heart chakra soulmeld? No prob!

I want to see a Totemist in 5e and can easily envision how awesome it could be. There might be a default "magical beast" core with a the additional types being the subclasses (Dragon souls, Vine Souls, Aberrant Souls, et all). You would a have a suite of default melds to equip your character with and a small pool of points to shift around, enhancing different abilities therein. It would be completely different from any of the existing casters we have out but woulld strongly represent the DnD brand by including abilities lifted from iconic monsters like the purple worm, displacer beast, beholder, chromatic dragons, etc.
 

Oh snap! I'll hold back my Truenamer criticisms, in case the Mouse contributed to that one...but Pact and Shadow magic just beg to be carried into 5e. On a palanquin.

Heh. Nope. Just shadow magic.

But just to be clear, I was being serious. I've never been satisfied with my work on the shadowcaster, and I certainly bear no ill will to people who feel it fell short. I really do agree with them.
 

Eltab

Lord of the Hidden Layer
I thought the Truenamer was an awesome concept. So much so that I have a 4e Invoker who is completely fluffed as one.

But when I looked through the 3e mechanics and realized that I had to start with a roll for a 50-50 chance that my tang would get toungled and everything else (including the to-hit roll) would automatically flub ...
I know enough probability to realize that stacking 50% chances in series does not lead to success happening often.
 

I actually agree. I've never, from the day I sent it in, been satisfied with my work on that class. :eek:
That was you? I had no idea. Regardless of the nitpicks, it's still hands-down my favorite 3E book, so from where I'm sitting you've got nothing to be ashamed of.

Now this is fascinating. I'm not 100% sold on forgetting forever--I think certain players might feel cheated--but maybe it has to be relearned? And it would depend on what other benefits shadow magic gives.

But I love the basic concept. I hope you decide to share the system once it's done.
Nah, forever might work in a game like Unknown Armies, but it doesn't really fly in D&D. You do relearn them. Just slowly, and unreliably, and you might wish you hadn't. It's old-school Vance through the filter of Lovecraft.

[sblock]
Casting and Forgetting Spells
The Occultist table shows how many spell slots you have to cast your spells of 1st level and higher. To cast one of these spells, you must make a special Charisma check (adding your proficiency bonus) against a DC of 10 + the level of the spell slot you are using. You have advantage on this check if you are in an area of dim light or darkness. If you succeed, you expend the spell slot and cast the spell. If you fail, you cast the spell, but do not expend the spell slot. Instead, you forget the spell entirely, as your mind revolts against the black magic's nightmare-logic. Remove it from your list of spells known.

If you wish, you can forgo the check and automatically forget the spell rather than expending the spell slot. You can even use this ability to cast a spell for which you have no available spell slots.

You regain all expended spell slots when you finish a long rest. Relearning forgotten spells is harder...

Learning Spells
When starting at 1st level, you know a number of 1st-level spells from the occultist spell list equal to your Charisma modifier + 1 (minimum of one spell). At any time, you can know a maximum number of spells equal to your Charisma modifier + your occultist level, and the spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots.

You learn the secrets of black magic through nightmarish dreams, and like all dreams your spells are elusive to the waking mind. If, through forgetting spells, you know fewer than your maximum, you experience a nightmare during your next long rest. Within the nightmare is one spell, of the level of your choice but selected at random from that level on the occultist spell list. Immediately after you finish the long rest, you must speak to another willing creature or write about your nightmare for at least twenty minutes in order to learn the spell. If you do not, not only do you learn nothing, you lose the benefits of the long rest and gain one level of exhaustion, as the uncomprehended mysteries take their toll on your sanity. A creature that you speak to, or any creature that studies what you've written, also gains a level of exhaustion.

You can also relearn a spell you previously learned through a nightmare by spending twenty minutes studying your writing on the nightmare. Discerning the magic from the gibberish is difficult, even though you yourself are the author, and you must succeed on an Intelligence check (adding your proficiency bonus) with a DC of 10 + the spell's level to learn the spell. You also gain an exhaustion level unless you succeed on the check by 5 or more. Whether you succeed or fail, you cannot again try to learn a spell this way until you finish a long rest.

Finally, you can learn a spell by spending twenty minutes studying the nightmare writing of another occultist with whom you share a common language, or listening to the occultist recount his or her dream. This is similar to studying your own writing, but the DC of the Intelligence check is increased by the other occultist's Charisma bonus, and you gain the exhaustion level automatically. Again, whether you succeed or fail, you cannot try to learn another spell this way until you finish a long rest. (This method is distinct from studying your own writing, and you can do both.)

Nightmare writings are unique: all attempts to copy them fail to recapture the essence of the nightmare, and are useless to occultists.[/sblock]
 

Remove ads

Top