Dragonhelm
Knight of Solamnia
JoeGKushner said:
Score one for the warforged!
Maybe they'll put out a Complete Incarnum someday and use that.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Incarnum interest level?
- Thread starter Graf
- Start date
Score one for the warforged!
Maybe they'll put out a Complete Incarnum someday and use that.
Just got the book, so I'll add my 1st impressions.
The races were pointless. Not just because new, non-iconic fantasy races are hard to pull off in general, but because these races came off as a half-arsed effort. The "Human+Incarnum" race was beyound pointless. There's already a feat to gain an incarnum point, right? Only the Duskling and the Rikish had any potential, but they lost it by not going far enough. A Fey race? Excellent. Everyone's been waiting for more fey...so don't just give them one incarnum fueled ability, a bit of bland fluff, and call it a day. Rikish were similar. The image of a Rikish monk using arm spines is pretty cool...and it's about as far down the cool path as the race manages. Humans with arm spines...sigh. New races shouldn't be based around a single ability...it comes off as unatural specialization. Little bits like kobold's bonus to trapmaking really help round out a race.
I agree that the background Incarnum fluff doesn't interest much. Manipulating the stuff of souls is the most subtle form of magic? Works much better as a shaman system, which is part of the reason the Totemist comes out as the most interesting class. The mechanics and concept come together well for it.
The Soulborn looks solid mechanically, but insanely boring. Yes, I realize that the Paladin and Ranger have a similar spell progression, but they also have a host of other abilities, and the advantage of being archtypes.
The Incarnate is the class I've been looking at the most, if only because it's apparent weakness makes it sort of an instant challenge to see if you can build one that doesn't suck. I don't like the 4 alignment rule, personally, and I'd probably houserule it, but other than that, it seems interesting, aside from some built in mechanical issues.
I don't like the 1/2 Bab, I just don't. It makes no sense, and only the Lawfuls have a good way to get around it. I don't want my champion of good to spend his whole career spitting acid, just because his host of self-enhancing powers include every tool he needs to be competant in melee, except the ability to hit anything...lame.
Just as a mechanical question, I noticed Merric routinely has his sample Incarnates adding about 7 essentia to abilities at 20th level. I thought the cap was 4? I'm sure I'm wrong, but I'd like to understand the rules on that point.
The races were pointless. Not just because new, non-iconic fantasy races are hard to pull off in general, but because these races came off as a half-arsed effort. The "Human+Incarnum" race was beyound pointless. There's already a feat to gain an incarnum point, right? Only the Duskling and the Rikish had any potential, but they lost it by not going far enough. A Fey race? Excellent. Everyone's been waiting for more fey...so don't just give them one incarnum fueled ability, a bit of bland fluff, and call it a day. Rikish were similar. The image of a Rikish monk using arm spines is pretty cool...and it's about as far down the cool path as the race manages. Humans with arm spines...sigh. New races shouldn't be based around a single ability...it comes off as unatural specialization. Little bits like kobold's bonus to trapmaking really help round out a race.
I agree that the background Incarnum fluff doesn't interest much. Manipulating the stuff of souls is the most subtle form of magic? Works much better as a shaman system, which is part of the reason the Totemist comes out as the most interesting class. The mechanics and concept come together well for it.
The Soulborn looks solid mechanically, but insanely boring. Yes, I realize that the Paladin and Ranger have a similar spell progression, but they also have a host of other abilities, and the advantage of being archtypes.
The Incarnate is the class I've been looking at the most, if only because it's apparent weakness makes it sort of an instant challenge to see if you can build one that doesn't suck. I don't like the 4 alignment rule, personally, and I'd probably houserule it, but other than that, it seems interesting, aside from some built in mechanical issues.
I don't like the 1/2 Bab, I just don't. It makes no sense, and only the Lawfuls have a good way to get around it. I don't want my champion of good to spend his whole career spitting acid, just because his host of self-enhancing powers include every tool he needs to be competant in melee, except the ability to hit anything...lame.
Just as a mechanical question, I noticed Merric routinely has his sample Incarnates adding about 7 essentia to abilities at 20th level. I thought the cap was 4? I'm sure I'm wrong, but I'd like to understand the rules on that point.
Knight Otu
First Post
The incarnate's essentia capacity (for soulmelds only) increases by 2 by level advancement. The third increase could have a small number of sources, such as the Incarnum Focus magic item.Mad Mac said:
JoeGKushner
Adventurer
Mad Mac said:And just so you don't think I'm all doom and gloom, I do like the book.
I agree with you about the bab. Just seems odd that a class designed to do some upfront fighting has to rely solely on a few tricks and a META design of having High Con, much like the Wizard getting 2 skill points on the META design of having a high int. Heaven forbid he has a few more knowledge skills!
JoeGKushner
Adventurer
Mad Mac said:
Don't have the book with me but I'd say off the top of my head, based on other magical weapons and rules, no. Does it allow you to imbue abilities? If it does, then I'd say +5 would be the highest bonus but that you could imbue abilities into it still.
Mad Mac said:
Yes. To +8 as a maximum.
8 essentia investment can be gained by:
* 4 from being 18th-20th level
* +2 as part of the Incarnate's "Expanded Soulmeld Capacity" ability
* +1 from the Expanded Soulmeld Capacity feat
* +1 from the Incarnum Focus magic item.
The Incarnum Focus item is tricky, so many of my builds go only to 7 investment.
Cheers!
Mad Mac said:
Believe me, the Azurin is needed for good Incarnate builds.
The other races thrill me not at all, but the Azurin has a definite place.
Somehow you seemed to have missed the Chaotics and the Evils. Incarnate Avatar for the Chaotics get a pretty good ranged attack bonus; the Evils get Necrocarnum Zombies to do their dirty work for them. A 6th level Evil Incarnate can have a Troll Necrocarnum Zombie... very nasty indeed.
I suggest that for a Good incarnate you try making someone with Combat Expertise, Cobalt Expertise and Improved Trip (or Disarm). The combination is very interesting.
Lightning Gauntlets, Soulspark Familiar, Incarnate Weapon.
Oh, and for tricked out Incarnate: Skilled Weapon. (see Complete Arcane). It moves the Incarnate into "better in melee than the fighter: better AC, hp, attack and damage". There's a really good reason the Incarnate doesn't have a better BAB.
The Incarnate is a lot like a more flexible Warlock.
Cheers!
Last edited:
mhacdebhandia
Explorer
I like the book, but . . .
Take cerulean sandals as an example. It unshapes once you've used its dimension door movement to the maximum; does that just mean you're one soulmeld down until the next day? Same question applies to soulmelds destroyed by the unshape soulmeld spell.
Is there any provision to reapply/replace soulmelds that have been unshaped, voluntarily or otherwise?
Take cerulean sandals as an example. It unshapes once you've used its dimension door movement to the maximum; does that just mean you're one soulmeld down until the next day? Same question applies to soulmelds destroyed by the unshape soulmeld spell.
Is there any provision to reapply/replace soulmelds that have been unshaped, voluntarily or otherwise?
