Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gradine" data-source="post: 7008036" data-attributes="member: 57112">I totally get wanting to move away from the alignment-based flavor; my personal take on Incarnum in 5e would revolve instead around more abstract philosophies than alignment. I agree that I'm not sold on Smite being the best solution for the Soulborn; but as-is instead of feeling like a less-interesting Paladin with soulmelds it becomes a less-interesting Fighter with soulmelds; given the choice I know which one I'd prefer, but I think there's a lot of room to come up with something more interesting to be their defining feature other than heavy armor & martial weapons. Because that's a pretty dull defining feature. Like I said, I'll mull it over and try to come up with some interesting ideas.I guess I'm not a huge fan of using the soulmeld list as the defining characteristic of each subclass (again, except for the totemist, because that was kind of always their shtick). That might be for strictly selfish reasons to be honest; I want an Incarnate class so I can recreate my old Incarnate, and I can't recreate her with your version of the class because her signature soulmelds were divided between three different subclasses. The 3.5 method of splitting soulmelds by class involved giving different classes access to different chakras at different times. That might be how I would attempt to go about it if I were trying to differentiate the classes more, but I get that that doesn't totally gel with the Incandescent/Necrocarnate divide either. Some method/ability to diversify might be a good option. I'm definitely interested in seeing how it develops.</blockquote>

Verification