Incarnum interest level?

[kyloss]

I realy enjoy it and am planing on using it, either in a home brew or just as a replacement character, for home brew I am also deciding how it would work with ghostwalk book, some charcters are ghosts, some use soul energy for magic- could be interesting.

 

[devilbat]

I have very little interest in it, but one of my players picked it up, and now wants to play a prestige class form the book. So, I guess I'm going to have to read it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Uhm, my opinion is in the review.

And Psion and Dialgo and Nightfall all concur? Kickin'! I'll have to write a review of Heroes of Horror when I pick it up this weekend!

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Zero interest. I think the three new systems in Tome of Magic have a much better chance with me.

 

[cmanos]

I have actually considered ditching divinge magic in favor of Incarnum. I haven't actually fully thought out the details.

That said, I have leant my copy out to be perused by a couple people, one of whom has ordered it. I definitely plan on allowing it in any future game I run and players should expect to run into incarnum users, just as they should expect to run into psionics. I'm not going to not put it in because they choose not to use it.

 

[Odhanan]

I just finished reading the book, and I like Magic of Incarnum for its mechanical originality (not yet another power point/slots system) and for the base concept idea.

People wanting to incorporate it into their games, is your little brother demanding you let him play an Incarnate?

I'm incorporating it in my campaign, yes. But I'll be bringing some modifications to it.

I don't want Incarnates to be just "wizards that materialize magic items". I think I'll have the players "customize" the look and feel of their souldmelds instead of relying on the default descriptions of the book, which are nice but too "mundane" for something that should be a physical manifestation of a metaphysical subject.

So, one would describe all of his soulmelds as "ethereal and hazy", another as "organic and biologic", another as "translucent and shimmering". Sorta.

That's one flavour element I'm thinking about. I like the idea of ghostly manifestations of incarnum items instead of the default descriptions in the book.

I also find the incarnate really underpowered when compared to the totemist. The totemist gets really cool soulmelds and options with the totem chakra binding, while the incarnate gets a *bit* more in terms of meldshaping (incarnum spellcasting, so to speak) for less skill points, less hit dice, a poor BAB progression but fairly non-special soulmelds? I guess I want the incarnate to have 4+INT skill points and a medium BAB like the totemist. Then there's a real choice between to two flavours, IMO. Anyone else sharing my opinion, or am I dead wrong, and in this case, what do I miss (I can miss something as I've read it once)?

 

[Dalamar]

Well, the incarnate does get increased essentia capasity with all her soulmelds instead of just the one bound to his totem. Though I'm considering dropping incarnum radiance from incarnates, and instead giving them medium BAB.

And you are right about the flavor issue. I managed to mention that as a gripe because I didn't even bother to read the flavor texts for the melds for the most part as I though from the first few that it wouldn't be something I'd hold dear. I'll probably have most melds appear as hazy glow whose intensity depends on the amount of essentia invested in relation to the maximum the characte can invest, with bound melds having a more compact glow. And totemist melds making actual physical transformations in most cases.

 

[Odhanan]

Well, the incarnate does get increased essentia capasity with all her soulmelds instead of just the one bound to his totem. Though I'm considering dropping incarnum radiance from incarnates, and instead giving them medium BAB.

Okay. I guess it would do with medium BAB and a few more flavourful soulmelds added then. What about allowing incarnates to select any soulmelds from any of the incarnate, soulborn and totemist lists?

And you are right about the flavor issue. I managed to mention that as a gripe because I didn't even bother to read the flavor texts for the melds for the most part as I though from the first few that it wouldn't be something I'd hold dear. I'll probably have most melds appear as hazy glow whose intensity depends on the amount of essentia invested in relation to the maximum the characte can invest, with bound melds having a more compact glow. And totemist melds making actual physical transformations in most cases.

Same opinion here. Hazy glows for incarnate and soulborn, physical modifications for totemists.

 

[Dragonhelm]

A workaround i'm concerning is requiring Incarnates to have one of the alignment axis fixed, say "good", and allowing the character, at the time he shapes his soulmelds to "switch" alignment to one of the three neutral-something alignments except the opposite of his "natural" one. So that a "good" Incarnate each day can choose to be neutral-good, lawful-neutral or chaotic-neutral (obviously he carries with him all pros and cons of the new alignment, such as soulmeld restrictions).

In a way, that reminds me of the half-giant from Dark Sun.

While this is to a certaint extent true, what many don't consider it that there's no need to have all of the characters come from the same places. Just like many DMs have psionic characters come from distant lands where psionic is more common than magic, so soulshaping could easily be a tradition originating in a remote land of the campaign world, where it replaces worshipping of deities. Actually soulshaping could easily be adapted in being a full fledged religion.

A DM could also drop traditional magic altogether and make incarnum the standard. That would definitely give a different feel to a campaign.

 

[tetsujin28]

No player or GM of D&D that I know (in real life) has bought it, or will buy it - unless maybe it hits the super-special bins.

I've given it a good look over now, and it doesn't appeal to me either.

Same here, on both accounts. I haven't met anyone who feels they have to buy it, and if they did buy it, that they would use it.