Am I the only one who thinks Incarnum is hokey?

[JPL]

I guess I stopped worrying about setting retcons right about the time halflings became skinny and nomadic, humans starting multiclassing, and dwarves started casting arcane spells. Also, I haven't heard about "crystal spheres" in a long while.

Linking new systems to new [or little-explored] cultures, races, or regions seems like a pretty solid solution. Eberron has it about right --- there's a race of psionics, but they mostly live waaaaay over here, and if you don't want to use them, that's OK --- it'll still feel like Eberron.

In the Realms, there are entire continents about which we know nothing. Maybe this is what they use over there [instead of conventional spellcasting?]. What are the ramifications of that? Hell, you could fill up the map of Toril with ideas like that --- put warforged and artificers on one continent and go for a steampunk feel, put arcanum on another and develop a culture around it, slap Ghostwalk down over here...and either send players over there, or have representatives make their way into Faerun.

I could see arcanum as the centerpiece of a quasi-Indian setting or subsetting [perhaps with a funky anime vibe, given all the cool visual manifestations]...use those varana monkey-men, and maybe some lizardfolk, and those big elephant-men, and the various new races from the MoI book.

 

[tetsujin28]

I think WoTC has to be willing to try new concepts, otherwise the game could become stagnant.

Indeed. I'm not saying that I think it is teh suxxorz that WotC released it, and I'm sure there's people out there who enjoy it. It's just not my cup of tea, is all.

 

[Truth Seeker]

Mark me down for "cheesy" and "hokey", some of these newer products just feel like a departure from the traditional D&D feel to me.
The only upcoming thing from WotC thats on my radar is the Tome of Magic, hopefully the 3.5 version of this great 2e book will live up to my expectations.

No, that feeling is correct. I am seeing it too.

 

[WildWeasel]

No, that feeling is correct. I am seeing it too.

Well, that depature is rather deliberate. It's WotC kicking out optional, different ways of doing things. They still build from the D&D core, but aren't Yet Another Book Of Stuff That's Already Done to Death. As optional supplements, I doubt they expect everyone to buy or even like it (as much as they'd like that to be the case!).

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Mark me down for "cheesy" and "hokey", some of these newer products just feel like a departure from the traditional D&D feel to me.
The only upcoming thing from WotC thats on my radar is the Tome of Magic, hopefully the 3.5 version of this great 2e book will live up to my expectations.

FWIW, I tend to like departures from the traditional D&D feel. I've been there and done that. I like vanilla D&D, but I also like to keep things interesting from both the crunch and fluff ends of it. I play Arcana Evolved for that reason. It's novel, but I don't have to learn a whole new system. If Incarnum turns out to be any good, it might be worth looking at.

 

[FireLance]

Looking over some of the above posts, I'm seeing a lot of blind support for this product solely because it's new and it bucks the trend. I'm not sure that's healthy, but neither am I here to tell all of you what you can and can't think.

I'm not sure if you're including any of my posts under the category of "blind support", but I assure you that my support is not blind. If it was an unbalanced, clunky, overcomplicated system, I would not be enthused about it. As it is, I can see how it could serve as a less complex alternative to someone who wants to run a magic-user.

And there is some value to newness and trend-bucking. It's the same reason that (I assume) you don't want to eat exactly the same thing for breakfast, lunch and dinner, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year.

I think it's sloppy and does not include helpful, plausible information on its integration into existing campaigns.

The three approaches detailed in the book are:
(1) It's something new - the PCs are among the first to discover it, or some event happens that makes it possible to wield incarnum. How different is this from the introduction of a new spell or type of spellcaster?
(2) It's a well-kept secret - knowledge of this strange power is limited to secret societies and cabals. How different is this from introducing feats, prestige classes and other techniques that are only available from a source that the PCs are among the rare few people that stumble upon?
(3) It's from a distant land or another plane - the PCs must interact with travelers or invaders from afar in order to learn how to wield this power. How different is this from introducing psionics via a githyanki invasion, or incorporating samurai, shugenja, wu jen and ninja into a mostly european-themed campaign?

As others have said, if you don't like the implications of soulstuff, it can just be another form of magic. Substitite "magic" everywhere you see the word "incarnum". Drop the "soul" from "soulmeld" and just call them "melds". Instead of "incarnates" and "soulborn", use "meldmages" and "meldwarriors". Instead of essentia, call it "mana" or just keep the term, since there's nothing "soul"-ly about it. Changing the mechanics is one thing, but there is nothing about the mechanics that requires incarnum to be powered by souls. Changing the flavor is as simple as substituing some words for some others.