Post/Author/DateTime	Post
fefnir 04-24-06, 11:12 PM	I have seen, and posted in some of them. So I had a question for all those players who have encountered it. give a quick little post saying what you liked or disliked. Please don’t go on rants, and throw in comparisons with psionics and regular magic. So just put if you liked it or not. That’s all really.
Gallameed 04-24-06, 11:42 PM	Incarnum was as welcome in our group as a wet fart. It is the only D&D book I have ever gotten and found no use for what so ever. Also none of my group of seven (players and two DM's with their own games) liked it either or intend to use it. The best thing about it is the art. :) According to online reviews we're not the only people who feel that way about it either, the beautiful and flavourful Tome of Magic pisses all over it from a great height.
Vaelan 04-25-06, 12:09 AM	I like Incarnum, being a fan of magic systems that aren't horribly broken. The presentation is a bit lacking, though.
Tempest Stormwind 04-25-06, 12:11 AM	I enjoy Incarnum and have dabbled in it with the one character I have played since getting the book. My next likely won't, but this is because the availability of the book is dependent on story arcs (that is, it exists, but isn't usable until we do *something* in the game, and we aren't sure when the opportunity will present itself). I am currently constructing a minor campaign setting that uses no magic whatsoever for the PCs (the only "magic" will be restricted to NPC adepts who are in certain locations, which I've reflavored as 'sylvan oracles'), instead opting only for incarnum and psionics. The results so far are interesting, though it hasn't seen play.
fefnir 04-25-06, 12:23 AM	the beautiful and flavourful Tome of Magic I said please dont compare it to regular magic or other books please. I just have a incarnum question. The reason for this is i dont want to start up debates on tomes or some crap like that. If you like it good for you.
Foozlesprite 04-25-06, 12:23 AM	I'm somewhat of a history/religion buff, so I love that the Hindu/New Age chakra system is being incorporated. Incarnum provides flexibility for a character, but flexibility is not to be read as "powergaming opportunity." Tome of Magic is good too, though.
scienceman47 04-25-06, 12:33 AM	Loved it, especially the totemist. Wanted to play a dwarven totemist obsessed with becoming the tarrasque. Think a cosplayer, but with real incarnum costume. Our DM got sick though so it probably wont happen.
Gallameed 04-25-06, 12:41 AM	I'm somewhat of a history/religion buff, so I love that the Hindu/New Age chakra system is being incorporated. That was one of the things that attracted me to the book also, unfortunately it was just another way of doing ''slots''. I wanted so much more. :)
serow_#R 04-25-06, 12:45 AM	bought it, read it, put it aside. it might see some use in the future if i run a game and i allow my players to use it. until then, i'm the only 1 with a copy of MoI among all the people i game with.
Darkuwa 04-25-06, 12:51 AM	I really like it, its the only non-core book that I own. My current DM won't allow me to use it though. :mad:
Manic Man 04-25-06, 01:30 AM	I liked it, especially the flavor but there wasn't enough options of good +1 meldshaping classes available to keep liking it, among other things
the overlord 04-25-06, 03:43 AM	I'm currently implementing it into one of my campaigns. 2 players have showed their interest, they just want to get another level before gaining levels with incarnum characters. So I just seized the moment and adapted the story line so they (players and characters) will get the change to get familiar with options and possibilities given by Incarnum. So far I really like the system, and as such I am building two NPC's/ opponents through this system. If you have the book just try it out, I believe that if used in game spirit Incarnum has the option to really enhance your games. Greetings NoA Just on a side note and perhaps considered as a little rand: It really helps if you game with a group that is open minden and into the roleplay aspect. As with all systems Incarnum could be mis-used for power gaming. The best games in my option are those where a group is able to focus their games on game play thus be aware of the group thus enhancing the fun of all those that participate in the game.
Arrowhen 04-25-06, 03:56 AM	I said please dont compare it to regular magic or other books please. I just have a incarnum question. The reason for this is i dont want to start up debates on tomes or some crap like that. If you like it good for you. Yeah, heaven forbid an actual discussion should arise from your little "DO YOU LIKE INCARNUM? CHECK ONE: []YES []NO" poll. :rolleyes: fo·rum (fôr'əm, fōr'-) 2. A public meeting place for open discussion. 3. A medium of open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper or a radio or television program.
babysamurai 04-25-06, 07:33 AM	Incarnum makes my genitals grow...or is that glow-blue/sapphire/cerulean/jacinth/azure etc. No really, I dig it. When I think of MoI...I get very comfortable.
Seeker95 04-25-06, 09:39 AM	My objection to Magic of Incarnum is that they took a decent article-length (or chapter length) idea and fluffed it up to fit a 230-page book. If it had been a single chapter / section of Tome of Magic, I think it would have been received better by many of those who do not like it.
fefnir 04-25-06, 09:53 AM	Yeah, heaven forbid an actual discussion should arise from your little "DO YOU LIKE INCARNUM? CHECK ONE: []YES []NO" poll. :rolleyes: fo·rum (fôr'əm, fōr'-) 2. A public meeting place for open discussion. 3. A medium of open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper or a radio or television program. Ok i just wanted to do a simple poll with a short answer added onto it. I know tome of magic is good, and I know a lot of people like it. Im trying to have the subject change to greatly. Is that a problem of you.
Ath'kethin 04-25-06, 10:03 AM	I'm with the person who mentioned MOI being the only book they found no use whatsoever for. Having been a D&D-er for some 12 years now, I was really interested in an "all-new" magic system. I was sorely disappointed in the book; I think that in trying to make it "different" and "all-new," they left out a number of abilities that the concept should have allowed, I would guess so it wouldn't be redundant with the abilities of other classes. Anyway, it was a cool idea, badly mis-handled. Which sadly seems to be a growing trend in WotC supplements . . .
Morrowner 04-25-06, 10:36 AM	Very much pro. Necrocarnum users make great baddies, the soulborn and Totemist are the classes for the shamanistic magic users and more lowbrow races to get forever, and since nobody really seemed to like it you can pick it up for a song and a dance right now. Its as easy as finding it "used", more like rejected, from your buddies or somebody on the internet for about a 60% price cut. I know I'm decidedly in the minority on this but i think it was one of the better WOTC books to come out this year and a damn sight better than Completely Jacked Psionic.
babysamurai 04-25-06, 10:54 AM	Necrocarnum users make great baddies Funny you should mention that. In the Planescape campaign I'm currently running the BBEG is a Tiefling, Incarnate/Necrocarnate. ...harvesting souls is juicy.
ZeronHitaro 04-25-06, 07:19 PM	*snip* According to online reviews we're not the only people who feel that way about it either, the beautiful and flavourful Tome of Magic pisses all over it from a great height. ....one moment please. *leaves room* Bwahahahahahahahaha! *coms back clutching ribs* Please, you trust online reviews? Poor poor you. ^_^ Anyone worth his salt knows online reviews = crap information. You can take the greatest thing in history and give it to 5 online reviewers. 2 will hate it, 2 will love it, one will remain neutral. :P Online reviews are about as accurate as me trying to hit a bottle cap 500 feet away with a blow dart while blindfolded, drunk, and mindless. If online information were really as accurate as you hope, then D&D would be nothing but demonic summoning and responsible for hippies, drugs, goths, and acne; George Bush wouldn't have won the election by "popular" vote; and the world would've ended in 2000. :D
Encard 04-25-06, 08:30 PM	Online reviews aren't *always* inaccurate, y'know. :-P Magic of Incarnum is a nice book, but I'm not totally sure if it was worth buying. It has some cool ideas and certain things that will be handy to numerous characters - however, it's the sort of supplement that probably won't be used continually, not aside from a couple feats and soulmelds. I really enjoy some of the characters that can be made with it, along with some of the feats/etc, but certain other books might be more worth the money for most folks.
WizO_Cat 04-25-06, 10:21 PM	Ok, just a couple of reminders: 1) Let's keep the discussion off of political figures and organizations. 2) If you thin someone has violated the Code of Conduct, report it. Otherwise, calling them out on in on the boads is considered off-topic which is also a violation of the Code of Conduct.
fefnir 04-25-06, 10:29 PM	Ok, just a couple of reminders: 1) Let's keep the discussion off of political figures and organizations. 2) If you thin someone has violated the Code of Conduct, report it. Otherwise, calling them out on in on the boads is considered off-topic which is also a violation of the Code of Conduct. hey relax, its just a fourm. what the big deal. He just made a joke.
WizO_Cat 04-25-06, 11:02 PM	It wasn't meant to be focused on the previous posters, but to all of the posters where the two statements applied. ;)
speeblefreak 04-25-06, 11:19 PM	It strikes me as a less interesting version of pact magic. Then again, I only had time to give it a once-over at Borders, so take that with a grain of salt.
Zilred 04-25-06, 11:25 PM	:twocents: I looked at Magic of Incarnum and didn't decide on buying it, although I can't say that I'm against it. It didn't appeal to me anyway since I thought the presentation was clumsy and would involve a lot of page-flipping when referencing abilities. The fact that no rules were presented for creating your own soulmelds (although please correct me if they are there) also had me thinking that the class features could become fairly limited/inflexible over time. There were also a few feats in there that just felt kind of redundant. I already have the Expanded Psionics Handbook to provide for the dabbler in supernatural forces (thank you Wild Talent), and saw little need for what was presented in Magic of Incarnum. In all, I'm not against having a system of soul/essence power, and would allow an Incarnum-using PC in any game I may run in the future (provided the player brings the book with them to game), but I don't think the system was well presented, and it somehow felt kind of forced.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 04-25-06, 11:52 PM	I might have been able to tolerate MoI if they hadn't included the whole "blue eye" thing. Now I have the urge to shot "The Spice must flow!" everytime it's mentioned.
fefnir 04-25-06, 11:59 PM	I might have been able to tolerate MoI if they hadn't included the whole "blue eye" thing. Now I have the urge to shot "The Spice must flow!" everytime it's mentioned. the blue eye thing is just for the azurin race.
Seeker95 04-26-06, 09:13 AM	the blue eye thing is just for the azurin race.The Spice must Flow! In case RLY needed a proxy!
fefnir 04-26-06, 06:59 PM	The Spice must Flow! In case RLY needed a proxy! WTF is that from dune or some thing
SokenzanMarauder 04-26-06, 07:11 PM	WTF is that from dune or some thing Naw, it's from Aliens... As for the book, if someone gave it to me I'd take it. Otherwise I'd rather have another Eberron book. -Gene
Archimedes314 04-26-06, 08:53 PM	I enjoy Incarnum and have dabbled in it with the one character I have played since getting the book. My next likely won't, but this is because the availability of the book is dependent on story arcs (that is, it exists, but isn't usable until we do *something* in the game, and we aren't sure when the opportunity will present itself). I am currently constructing a minor campaign setting that uses no magic whatsoever for the PCs (the only "magic" will be restricted to NPC adepts who are in certain locations, which I've reflavored as 'sylvan oracles'), instead opting only for incarnum and psionics. The results so far are interesting, though it hasn't seen play. Sorry to go off topic but that setting sounds fairly interesting. Do you have a thread discussing it and/or a website? Oh, and I liked Incarnum for the most part. The only incarnum character that I've played so far was in a one shot but the essentia managment aspect was pretty fun. I didn't like the "everything must be blue" thing though.
Tempest Stormwind 04-26-06, 09:54 PM	Sorry to go off topic but that setting sounds fairly interesting. Do you have a thread discussing it and/or a website?Just my notes on scratch paper, I'm afraid. I'm aiming for a larger-than-life feel (a nod to Eberron) while having the environment play a significant role in the campaign as well (Dark Sun influence here). For example, that Sylvan Oracle thing -- each of those specific locales are going to be extremely vibrant examples of natural power (dense forests with a huge tree in the center, giant mountains, an almost impossible series of waterfalls, that sort of thing), and the adepts (oracles) will all be Killoren (Races of the Wild, a type of fey). I think much of the area outside of those, though, is either going to be desert or an urban setting, to further the contrast of Nexus vs Everything Else. It's not going to be deeply developed -- in fact, I plan on making much of it up as I go -- but the decision to keep magic out of it was concious on my part. I'm an experienced optimizer. I can list more troubles with the core ruleset than with most noncore alternate systems. The biggest abuses of the alternate systems come from them serving as an enabler for magic -- for instance, the big "OMG teh borken!" thing from Magic of Incarnum was Psycarnum Infusion linked with Midnight Metamagic, which amounts to a few feats on the part of a character leading to "Expend Psionic Focus = Free Spontaneous Metamagic" if it all works out. If you remove magic from the equation, it stands alone as a useful and interesting system. The hardest part, I feel, will be the lowest levels with healing (which I deal with by creating alchemical salves which operate as the Minor Vigor spell, but no other healing exists. Egoists and Society Minds (see sig) will be in high demand as well, and between them can easily enough handle healing), and the entire game with respect to CRs (kineticists handle the big booms well enough, and telepaths have good (albiet mind-affecting) save-or-dies, but both lack the ability to keep it up anywhere near as long as a wizard or sorceror, for instance -- and unlike a wizard or sorceror, each would have to spend feats on Expanded Knowledge to learn the trick of the other). I'll be sure to post it later -- either here or on the Psionics board (as it is a psionics setting and many regulars there enjoy Incarnum, myself included). Oh, and I liked Incarnum for the most part. The only incarnum character that I've played so far was in a one shot but the essentia managment aspect was pretty fun. I didn't like the "everything must be blue" thing though.If you don't like the "blue" thing, then change it. It's just flavor text. Just as you can describe your weapons and armor looking like whatever you'd like, why not your spells as well? Just leave the mechanics unchanged and booyah. (Example: Truenaming Psionics in my sig. It's for psionics, instead of incarnum, but you get the gist of it already.) And YES, for those who weren't in the know, "The spice must flow!" is a Dune reference. People addicted to the spice in that series had eyes that were "blue within blue", similar to the azurin's. (Coincidentally, in the context of this post, the powers exhibited by the Atreides line in that series as a result of melange are very classical psionic effects (or, alternately, if Tolkien influenced Faerun, then Frank Herbert influenced Dark Sun, which was pretty much THE psionic setting), despite being constantly compared to the description of incarnum. ;))
Siginaugan 04-26-06, 10:27 PM	I love incarnum. The only thing I hated was the strict alignment system so I was thankful for the Totemist and the Umbral Disciple. I thought the concept was awesome. It was nice for my character concept of having somebody that relied on himself. Mind (Psionics), Body (Monk), and Soul (Incarnum). As for how the game goes.... Well if something is bad then my friends help me fix it.
BrowncoatF 04-26-06, 10:41 PM	I am anti-new system of magic of the week. I.E. Psyonics, Incarnum, pactmagic, shadow magic, true name magic. I am pro WOTC coming out with a book I can buy that will convert all these different types of magic into one nice system. Their original nothing wrong with it so don't monkey with it system they have had for years. Now that I am done sounding like a bitter old man it is time for my jeritol compleates and to change my depends before I go to bed. Flippity Flap
FlameLover 04-26-06, 11:30 PM	I'm seriously considering dropping standard magic in my next campaign, and just using Psionics+Incarnum+ToM(with truename magic tweaked) and the Warlock. The only thing missing then is a good healer, which i'll make a standard class of based on a cross between a Cleric, a Bard, and a Psion. As to pro- or anti- incarnum.. i'm neither. I can say with certainty i am pro-pact magic and anti-truename magic (in its current form that is) but incarnum i'm pretty indifferent on. The book could have been organized better, it could have covered more bases (HEALING!1!) but i wouldn't stop a character concept that used incarnum heavily.
Edymnion 04-26-06, 11:44 PM	My objection to Magic of Incarnum is that they took a decent article-length (or chapter length) idea and fluffed it up to fit a 230-page book. If it had been a single chapter / section of Tome of Magic, I think it would have been received better by many of those who do not like it.Agreed. MoI would have been a good single chapter in ToM. It was not worth an entire book. They had a good idea, they bogged it down in totally unrelated mechanics, and them milked the whole thing for 200+ pages. And it shows. Ok i just wanted to do a simple poll with a short answer added onto it. I know tome of magic is good, and I know a lot of people like it. Im trying to have the subject change to greatly. Is that a problem of you.Actually, yeah. Conducting polls is specifically against the CoC. If the thread was nothing but yes/no answers, it would have to be locked. The fact that people are discussing it is likely the only thing that is keeping this thread open.
Board_Rider 04-27-06, 12:26 PM	I like the Magic of Incarnum supplement. I think that it is just as well written as anything else that WoTC has put out. The mechanics are fine as there are only a couple of problems with the Soulmelds. As for the blue coloring and alignment argument...that dog just don't hunt. There are core classes with alignment restrictions. The blue is flavor and can be changed. Every argument I hear/read is based on the "flavor" of Incarnum. Change the flavor, it is allowed. I don't think that this is the greatest book however. The feats are a bit "cheap" and some of the soulmelds are, well, crap. Worth the money? That depends on you. I would buy it at a reduced rate and keep the reciept. BR says - :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: / of 5 Be in the Blue, BR
Sythorn 04-27-06, 02:44 PM	I haven't played in an incarnum campaign yet, but after glancing through the book it seems more balanced than the D&D magic system is. Of course, few things are the same on paper as they are when actually applied, so I may be proven wrong in the future. As a fan of paladins, I was immediately drawn to the soulborn class. A class designed to work with multiple alignments instead of a single, rigid one is exactly what the game needed, in my opinion. Overall the soulborn seems to be a better done class than the core paladin, at least to me. My main criticism with the system, one that applies to psionics as well, is that it requires the DM to give the player extra special treatment via monsters and items that will allow him or her to get the most use out of their character choice. Incarnum is even worse than psionics in that the party's alignment has to match the incarnum character's alignment for him to contribute 100%, this forces the group to create characters that conform to each other much more rigidly than they already do. I would have much preferred a system that didn't require a checks and balances system between the players and DM for it to be useful. One other nit pick I have is that the system is just too flashy for me. Things like glowing eyes and halos I definitely could have done without, it makes the game feel to "comic book superheroish" for my tastes. If I ever run an incarnum game in the future I'll probably house rule the shiny, visible elements of incarnum out. So anyway, those are my thoughts on the book, having quickly glanced through some of it.
Chrono Nexus 04-27-06, 02:55 PM	Incarnum's flavor = A hairy lolly pop. With spikes. Incarnum's Mechanics = Too confusing and "unique". Incarnum has never found a home with any of my friends or any campaigns I have seen. I found it to be poorly made and kind of boring, and I believe it would have found a better place in the ToM.
Vaelan 04-27-06, 08:29 PM	There is nothing wrong with the original system, so don't monkey with it. Edited for coherency. The original system is terrible. The resources/day paradigm never worked and compensating for initial weakness with later strength makes the game less balanced as a whole. Playing in a game where no class based entirely upon "per day" abilities is allowed makes the problems with the original system quite clear.
Seeker95 04-27-06, 08:36 PM	The original system is terrible. The resources/day paradigm never workedHyperbole alert! 30+ years of D&D hegemony in the RPG world makes such a statement highly suspect.
Tempest Stormwind 04-27-06, 09:32 PM	Hyperbole alert! 30+ years of D&D hegemony in the RPG world makes such a statement highly suspect. Hyperbole alert! 30+ years of communism in Russia (then USSR) makes such a statement highly suspect. Just because something endures doesn't mean that it works. Nor does it mean that if it works, it works well. Try playing in a system with per-day removed: Incarnum and Pact Magic come close enough to this, with psionics existing in a happy medium between that and the existing system.
Seeker95 04-27-06, 10:12 PM	30+ years of communism in Russia (then USSR) makes such a statement highly suspect. Just because something endures doesn't mean that it works.Communism didn't endure. :P
Seeker95 04-27-06, 10:19 PM	Try playing in a system with per-day removed: Incarnum and Pact Magic come close enough to this, with psionics existing in a happy medium between that and the existing system.I've played in RPGs what do not use the Vancian system of magic. They're fine. But they're not D&D. They work fine in the systems they were made for. This does not mean there is anything wrong with the system D&D uses. And if you want hyperbole, how about: Incarnum sucks. Pact magic is a band aid for a make believe boo boo. And psionics wants to be magic and ends up being nothing but head games. These statements make as much sense as Vaelan's The original system is terrible. The resources/day paradigm never worked. The original system does work, and it has worked for over thirty years. Is there room in D&D for alternative systems? Sure. Psionics has played the ugly step-sister just fine for over 25 of those 30 years. Tome of Magic introduces some new approaches that are also likely to endure in sme folks' games for the next dozen years as well.
Vaelan 04-28-06, 02:23 AM	The paradigm didn't exist before third edition. The game was never designed around the concept of /day resources to such an extent before then. The only reason magic worked in earlier editions is because it was substantially less effective. 30+ years of D&D hegemony in the RPG world makes such a statement highly suspect. Such a statement assumes that people are, to put it bluntly, at all intelligent. It leaves out factors such as the tendency to stubbornly adhere to pretty much anything regardless of reason and the tendency to not accept new ideas. Speaking of which... I've played in RPGs what do not use the Vancian system of magic. They're fine. But they're not D&D. I am reminded of the term "sacred cow". I feel quite silly for forgetting about it.
Millennium 04-28-06, 10:13 AM	The paradigm didn't exist before third edition. Sure it did. The flavor was different, since spellcasters literally relearned spells each day and forgot them as they were cast, but it was very much there. It existed before D&D did, in fact: read Jack Vance's The Dying Earth series if you want to understand where it came from and why it makes sense. It's a fair sight better than the empty, roleplay-free point-based magic paradigms that have become so popular. Give me magic that I can base a character around, rather than clicking on the Magic menu and casting Firaga. I have video games to provide video-game magic when I want that experience. I play tabletop games when I want a more meaningful character experience, and video-game magic detracts from that.
Lord Mhoram 04-28-06, 01:00 PM	I really liked it. Played an Incarnate for about 12 levels, before the game stopped. Plan on using it anytime I GM. I've also mentally fiddled with the idea of a game without mage classes, just Incarnate, Psions and maybe some of the stuff from ToM.
fefnir 04-28-06, 04:16 PM	by my count now there are 15 people that liked it 5 people that didnt 6 that were undecided some of the likes or didnt likes havent read it so there are a few variables and the count could be off by a little.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 04-28-06, 11:27 PM	Naw, it's from Aliens... No, it's a Dune thing. Don't know which book.