I've recently pulled out Magic of Incarnum, and I am now looking for some general opinions. I get the gist of Magic of Incarnum, and I think it has some really interesting material(if not alot of poorly named things).
Can someone give me a general break down of the book?
- Is the book balanced against core?
- How complex is the crunch to the Incarnum?
- Is any of it viable?
- What are each classes role?
- Do any of the MoI classes replace any core classes?
- How well does MoI mesh with the core system?
- How have you used it in your game as a DM?
- What were your experinces playing a MoI character as a player?
Any other comments, suggestions, opinions, or thoughts?
Fizz
|
I've recently pulled out Magic of Incarnum, and I am now looking for some general opinions. I get the gist of Magic of Incarnum, and I think it has some really interesting material(if not alot of poorly named things).
Can someone give me a general break down of the book?
- Is the book balanced against core?
- How complex is the crunch to the Incarnum?
- Is any of it viable?
- What are each classes role?
- Do any of the MoI classes replace any core classes?
- How well does MoI mesh with the core system?
- How have you used it in your game as a DM?
- What were your experinces playing a MoI character as a player?
Any other comments, suggestions, opinions, or thoughts?
Fizz
In order:
More or less.It's a completely new subsystem, requiring you to track essentia and where it's invested. So it's quite complex.
It's viable, but generally not considered that interesting.
There are three classes: Only the totemicist, a savage incarnum user who uses incarnum to mimic monster abilities, is interesting. The other two are alignment based and are bland.
They do not replace any existing classes.
It is a completely new subsystem which basically allows people to create temporary magic items in their item slots. It doesn't really mesh as bolt on.
I haven't used it, but it is the most forgettable of Wizards new magic theories, IMHO
I haven't used it, but it is the most forgettable of Wizards new magic theories, IMHO
Which (and I suppose, what) of the other "new magic theories" did you think highly of?
|
- pretty much
- not that complex really. You get essentia and you spend it on stuff.
- I think it all is, but I think it would have to be tweaked a bit to fit into a non-standard fantasy world.
- see below
- no replacing, the totemist is similar to a druid, soulborn is similar to a paladin, and the incarnate is a versitile jack of all trades that can be customized to flavor
- nope, they are different enough to be their own class
- I have had no problems mixing with the rest of the books
- Yep, I have had a player use it. Played an incarnate. It's like any new material, takes a bit to get used to but then it flows.
- Haven't played one myself, just DM'd it.
The flavor isn't for everyone but it's fun.
THe skarns are my favorite race then the dusklings. The azurins and rilkans are just so-so.
|
|
I haven't used it, but it is the most forgettable of Wizards new magic theories, IMHOWhich (and I suppose, what) of the other "new magic theories" did you think highly of?
The Binder was my personal favourite. Shadowcasters were underpowered to a hideous degree and Truespeakers were a great idea, but the mechanics were wonky.
Psionics also worked but was underpowered relative to normal magic.
Book of Nine Swords, I think, was mechanically sound, but flavourwise not what I wanted.
I am a big fan of Shadowcasting, but more for the flavor of it than anything else. It was ridiculously underpowered unless you multi-classed it with anothre class that could benefit from the "mysteries". Oh, and I hated that the powers were called "mysteries", it just sounds so cheesy and bs. They could've simply called them "Shadows" or "Callings" or something.
I found Incarnum very fascinating, but the opportunity to use it never arose.
I played an Incarnate in an AoW campaign for around 6~8 levels before he was eaten (from the inside out). Overall, I think MoI was fairly balanced, although it definitely got a nice boost in a power found in an enhancement article on Wizard's site (I think it was in a Mind's Eye article ... basically the item gave DR 2/Magic +2 per point of Essentia, giving even low level Incarnum users access to pretty decent DR.)
The classes are very flexible, but (as with many other classes) end up a bit feat-starved. You could easily create items making you a front-line Defender one day and a mobile ranged Striker the next, but without the Feats to really emphasize these points, it might be harder. By far the biggest limitation to any of these is that once chosen for the day it is VERY difficult to change your abilities out, so all of their flexibility amounts to playing a game of "guess what the adventure will be today".
I find Incarnum users were best at covering Defender and Striker rolls (to use 4E parlance). They had a very small handful of abilities that provided some level of AoE and a few that buffed healing, but they'd really be reliant on items to boost UMD to allow for any real healing/spell casting if you wanted to replace a Leader or Controller. They have TONS of abilities that boost skills, and could make effective skill monkeys, but see above for the one problem with this attempt ... if you don't know the skill you need, you are most likely SOL. The phrase "I can do that! ... tomorrow" became an oft-mocked phrase from my Incarnum character.
Overall, I really liked it, although the class has lots of fiddly bits. I wouldn't advise it to anyone who doesn't really want to enmesh themselves in a completely different system. I'll ask other members of my group to comment too ... maybe they'll have something interesting to say.
Cheers! :)
I play in a few combat-heavy parties, and I have yet to see a build of ANY of the Incarnum classes that is reasonably combat viable. The Totemist is ok, the other classes?......Meh....
I've never gotten a player to play one, but did get a chance to run one in a PbP. I enjoyed the uniqueness of the class abilities and thought the mechanics worked out well enough and the classes can fill very diverse rolls depending on the melds. I think the primary deficit for the system is, as mentioned already, the fact that you have to lock in your melds, neutering the flexibility provided by the melds. A mechanic like the Tome of Battle has for changing maneuvers coupled with the increase feat acquisition rate of a system like Pathfinder RPG would go a long way toward making these great classes.
Here is a thread which might be of interest to some. The OP of that thread is working on a Vedic Indian fantasy campaign setting which is deliberately _not_ using arcane magic. Instead, there will be liberal use of Incarnum, Psionics, other variants like Binding and Naming, plus some divine magic.