Gestalt Elven Swordsage/Incarnate - Balance??

[vulcan_idic]

I was going over the Tome of Battle again last night to evaluate it as a friend had suggested it to be an elven martial arts style (makes some sense given elves inherently magical nature and fascination with swordplay, among other things) and I noticed that the alignment of a swordsage can be anything with one neutral component and thought, "Gee, that reminds me of an incarnate!" and swift on the tails of that thought came the idea for an elven swordsage/incarnate and as I think our next campaign is probably going to be gestalt that is particularly nice. I think the flavour of the two meld well to become a sort of mystical warrior of sorts. I can imagine him outfitted in a suit of elven chain with a magnificent blade...

Right, so anyway, getting to the point... any suggestions on things to think about that might work? I'm always curious to see what the collective knowledge/creativity of these boards suggest on concepts I'm working with!

 

[Vurt]

If bringing in the gestalt option kicks the game up to 11, throwing in incarnum jacks that up to 13. I found it a little much for my game when I did something like this.

The reasoning being, a gestalt barbarian//sorcerer, that is, joining a melee class with a caster class, is somewhat balanced for the higher power by the fact the character only get one action per round. Which is to say that, generally speaking, they can either act as a barbarian or as a sorcerer at any given moment. A barbarian//incarnate however, can effectively be both classes each round, owing to the various mantles the incarnate can bring to bear as semi-permanent buffs, and not to mention that moving essentia around is free.

More specifically, a melee type with a 2d6 mantle of flame (think permanent fire shield if you're unfamiliar with incarnum) at 1st level is broken, plain and simple, in my opinion. I don't think anyone in the development of Magic of Incarnum had gestalt in mind when they made/balanced it.

The swordsage//incarnate build may also suffer from the "too much going on" to really get a good handle for the character. I'm playing in a gestalt game right now, and am having that exact problem. Too many options at any given moment make it difficult to make a decision as to what exactly to do. Of course, this may not be an issue for you.

That's my experience in any case.

Cheers,
Vurt

 

[vulcan_idic]

Thank you very much for your thoughts Vurt. They provide very interesting food for my thoughts. I'll have to bring it up to the group and see what they think.

I hadn't seen much of a problem because I'd been thinking that the various abilities would enable such a character to really replace a frontline fighter in the party, something which typically would be quite difficult for an Incarnate or a Swordsage, due to their lighter armoring and so on. Part of what I like about the Incarnum Radiance feature and the White Raven School techniques in particular was that they are the sort of thing that really seems to encourage organized teamwork and tactics among allies, not simply a free-for-all donnybrook or individualistic glory-quest, but a team working towards a common objective. The flavors of the two classes seemed to blend pleasantly together to me and make sense being together in the same individual.

As for the "too much going on" concept I can see that being a potential problem. I think I can deal with it, though, I think the bigger concern is the other issue you brought up. Balance and equitability in the various characters powers and abilities is quite important though and you make some very good point which certainly require more thought. I have no desire to detract attention from the other characters, I only want to be one part of the team.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on the issues Vurt has brought up?

 

[Vurt]

I suspect that of those who own the Tome of Battle, few also possess Magic of Incarnum, and fewer still have tried to join the two with the gestalt rules, so I'm not totally surprised by the lack of response. Well, other than mine. Ahem.

Another potential issue to monitor is the key stat for incarnum classes: Constitution. Whereas a standard barbarian//sorcerer really has to think about how he spreads his ability scores around, gestalting a melee class with an incarnum class makes that choice much easier: Str and Con. And even with a moderate point-buy system for generating stats, you can do a lot if you're only looking at two ability scores.

I suspect the problem is probably worse at low levels, and eventually evens out as other characters get magic items of their own. But things that do show up early tend to be very pronounced. Consider a 1st level barbarrian//totemist with Str 16 and Con 16. At first level he gets 15 hp, or 17 hp when he rages. In the morning, he shapes the rageclaws meld, which lets him act without penalty while in negative hit points. He throws a point of essentia into it just because, so now he dies at -13 hp instead of -10. Our 1st level barbarian, raging, now effectively has 30 hit points! At first level, this is huge! But again, the extra 10-20 hp at 6th level isn't quite as bad.

By all means, your best option is to talk to your group and lay all the cards on the table. Both the martial adept and incarnum classes are very versatile and option-rich, so if you really want to try that particular gestalt combination, you certainly can pick options for the character that won't cause complaint at the table, especially if, as you suggest, you focus primarily on buffing others. But if that's your intent, perhaps a swordsage//marshal (Mini Handbook) or a swordsage//dragon shaman (PHB2) or even a swordsage//divine mind (Comp Psionic) might make for a better fit.

I personally think the Incarnum rules are very creative and interesting, and I'd certainly allow them for any game in which I DM. But I don't think they mesh very well when gestalting with regular classes. It becomes almost too easy to game the system. At least with the regular gestalt rules, you have to think a little!

Cheers,
vurt

 

[moritheil]

Full disclosure: It is a matter of public record that I do not agree with the flavor of Incarnum.

That said, Vurt has done a good job of outlining a fundamental mechanical problem: the tradeoffs that exist for many gestalt builds (i.e. one can either cast or swing a weapon) do not exist for certain incarnum gestalt builds.

It is possible - but potentially very unsatisfactory - that things could be houseruled to swift actions to take care of some of this.