Post/Author/DateTime	Post
smerwin29 06-25-07, 08:41 AM	I will raise a point here and let people speak to it. The campaign allows for both psionics and incarnum. There are, of course, interesting options I would love to include in adventures about these. But it is terribly difficult to include, as you cannot assume that DMs are familiar with these rules, or even that they own the necessary books. For the Mark of Heroes Special Event for GenCon that I worked on, we did include a wilder for the PCs to face. It seemed to work well, but the judges only ran it at GenCon, so they had lots of time to prepare and ask questions, and it was only 4th level. Now we are already at 7th+ level in Xen'drik Expeditions (in terms of writing the adventures). So my question is, to those people out there playing or DMing, would adding foes with psionics or incarnum be problematic? Thanks again, Shawn
smerwin29 06-25-07, 08:46 AM	Someone asked in another thread about the RPGA policy for "non-core" rules items in RPGA adventures. Essentially, it is this: if it is not in the PHB, DMG, MM, or ECS, it needs to be spelled out completely in the adventure. So if it is something like a prestige class, the whole of the prestige class does not to be rewritten, but the stat block needs to define all of the abilities the NPC has. For things like spells and feats, it all needs to be typed into the adventure. That's why creating something like a spellscale NPC is rough. All of those meditations need to be typed out. For incarnum, it would mean typing up A LOT of rules information, and even then the DM might not "get it."
Herrbard 06-25-07, 09:30 AM	I have no problem with psionics in adventures. Psionics was always a core part of Eberron, so I have always included it in games, even before RPGA mods, and I'm very familiar with it. And, the SRD includes most of the Expanded Psionics Handbook stuff, so it is freely available for anyone. Incarnum is a bit dicier. I own the book, and have skimmed it, but I can't say I am fluent in the system presented. No one in the groups I run has been interested, so the book has gone pretty much unread. At one table at D&DXP this February I saw one Incarnate, who had a very good grasp on his character, and had all of his abilities ready for me to quickly review. (I don't think it took more than 3 minutes to scan through). I don't think DMs will have a problem as long as the information is presented in the module, as required. But yes, that means more work for the mod author to type it all in. So I can see both sides of the equation, and I vote for whatever the author wants. ;)
smerwin29 06-25-07, 09:55 AM	The author wants happy DMs and players. Which is not always as easy as it may seem to some people. But you know that!
lseelba 06-25-07, 10:37 AM	Psionics is fine as long as you keep it to 'core' psionics. As in anything that can be found in the SRD. Every DM should have access to the SRD, either online, or if they don't have a stable internet connection, they should be able to print out the psionic portion of the SRD at some point. Magic of Incarnum is really cool. Unfortunately it is pretty obscure and is different from the way 'core' characters and magic works. If you put stuff in from MoI, I'd keep it to a minimum. Say a 1 level dip into one of the classes, or something like that. -Lou
Harliquinn 06-25-07, 10:59 AM	As a player and DM, I have knowledge of both systems (Enough to be dangerous for Psionics and pretty extensive for Incarnum). Since Totemists and Incarnates are both allowed in Codex and the Skarn have a special place now as well, I would love to see some Incarnum ties. An enemy with Incarnum or a quest to discover more information about how this new 'soul energy' ties in with the prophecy (Maybe even some story objects relating to it). To simplify the Incarnum rules as well for those not as familiar with the system, I would just have any NPC have a 'fixed' set of soulmelds they have bound for the adventure (Much like assigning the spells for a caster) and have Essentia invested in as a fixed amount in any particular 'feat', soulmeld or item. Otherwise, the 'reallocate essentia every round' might be a bit too much bookkeeping for a DM. However, a DM with knowledge of the rules could use the allocation if they felt comfortable with it (But I wouldn't allow them to change soulmelds). The overall 'rules' for Incarnum are pretty simple once you have a short primer on them. Each soulmeld occupies a spot (chakra) on the body, is either 'bound' (using that slot just as a magic item does) or not. Essentia is then invested from a total pool which augments the soulmeld. I would think that if the soulmelds were fixed for the NPC (i.e. Helm chakra (bound) to this soulmeld, arms chakra (unbound) to this soulmeld) and their standard allocation of essentia was given (Along with the bonuses this imparted), then most DM's wouldn't have too much trouble. I think most of the cool flavor would come from describing the person's abilities. So in short, I would like to see some Incarnum elements in the Codex faction adventures so our Skarn, Totemists, and Incarnates feel at home As for Psionics, a few psionics here and there might be fun as well and I think those could extend into all the factions/expenditions. Harliquinn Here's an example of how I see this working (Taken from wizard's site which is already public) NPC Description: ... Soulmelds Shaped: 4 Total Essentia: 6 Brow Chakra: Charming Veil (bound) (3 Essentia invested) Regular Benefits: 1) +3 insight bonus on save DCs of charm and compulsion powers and psi-like abilities. Bound Benefits 1) Read Thoughts once / round 2) +3 insight bonus on saving throws against charm and compulsion effects 3) +3 insight bonus on Sense Motive checks to detect charm and compulsion effects on others Then you would include just the description of the soulmeld used (Like is done for spells now). Also the above bonuses would be factored in to the creature's stat block with the normal notation which is usually a parenthetical. Soulmeld Description Charming Veil Descriptor: None Classes: Incarnate, soulborn Chakra: Brow Saving Throw: None You create a wispy veil that sparkles in the slightest breeze, but seems to vanish in stillness. When you manifest a charm or compulsion power, tendrils of incarnum writhe and sparkle, enhancing the effects. Benefit: Gain a +1 insight bonus on the save DCs of your charm and compulsion powers and psi-like abilities. Essentia: For every point of essentia you invest into your charming veil, you increase the save DC by +1. Chakra Bind (Brow) A dim silver glow emanates from your eyes. A brief flash, visible only to you, scans across your field of vision and periodically outlines creatures and objects while continually heightening your awareness. When your charming veil is bound to your brow chakra, you can read thoughts as per the power once per round at will. You also gain an insight bonus on Sense Motive checks equal to the number of points of essentia invested in the veil to detect others under a charm or compulsion effect. You also gain this insight bonus on saving throws to resist charm and compulsion effects targeting you.
heirodule 06-25-07, 11:14 AM	Lots of psionics, please. Occasional incarnum. I have a player who runs an incarnum wielder in my home game, and I'd like to offer him incarnum-centered advantures. Definitly tie it to the prophecy and make it special!
Timlagor 06-25-07, 11:16 AM	Wish I'd really understood that we had magic-p[sionic transparency before I decided not to use a creation card (to open Psionics) with my Artificer ...cos she just sin't complicated enough at the moment... errr A Spellscale NPC need only have the Meditation(s) they are actually slated to choose written into the module which should cut down significantly. I think Psionics and incarnum are relatively straightforward and psionics has enough of a following already that a GM should have a good idea how it works anyway. I wouldn't mind not seeing these thing appear but I have no objection to them ..but then I haven't actually runany XenDrik yet (only played) so my opinion shouldn't carry too much weight.
lseelba 06-25-07, 11:34 AM	(snip) The overall 'rules' for Incarnum are pretty simple once you have a short primer on them. Each soulmeld occupies a spot (chakra) on the body, is either 'bound' (using that slot just as a magic item does) or not. Essentia is then invested from a total pool which augments the soulmeld. I would think that if the soulmelds were fixed for the NPC (i.e. Helm chakra (bound) to this soulmeld, arms chakra (unbound) to this soulmeld) and their standard allocation of essentia was given (Along with the bonuses this imparted), then most DM's wouldn't have too much trouble. I think most of the cool flavor would come from describing the person's abilities. So in short, I would like to see some Incarnum elements in the Codex faction adventures so our Skarn, Totemists, and Incarnates feel at home As for Psionics, a few psionics here and there might be fun as well and I think those could extend into all the factions/expenditions. Harliquinn Here's an example of how I see this working (Taken from wizard's site which is already public) NPC Description: ... Soulmelds Shaped: 4 Total Essentia: 6 Brow Chakra: Charming Veil (bound) (3 Essentia invested) Regular Benefits: 1) +3 insight bonus on save DCs of charm and compulsion powers and psi-like abilities. Bound Benefits 1) Read Thoughts once / round 2) +3 insight bonus on saving throws against charm and compulsion effects 3) +3 insight bonus on Sense Motive checks to detect charm and compulsion effects on others Then you would include just the description of the soulmeld used (Like is done for spells now). Also the above bonuses would be factored in to the creature's stat block with the normal notation which is usually a parenthetical. Soulmeld Description Charming Veil Descriptor: None Classes: Incarnate, soulborn Chakra: Brow Saving Throw: None You create a wispy veil that sparkles in the slightest breeze, but seems to vanish in stillness. When you manifest a charm or compulsion power, tendrils of incarnum writhe and sparkle, enhancing the effects. Benefit: Gain a +1 insight bonus on the save DCs of your charm and compulsion powers and psi-like abilities. Essentia: For every point of essentia you invest into your charming veil, you increase the save DC by +1. Chakra Bind (Brow) A dim silver glow emanates from your eyes. A brief flash, visible only to you, scans across your field of vision and periodically outlines creatures and objects while continually heightening your awareness. When your charming veil is bound to your brow chakra, you can read thoughts as per the power once per round at will. You also gain an insight bonus on Sense Motive checks equal to the number of points of essentia invested in the veil to detect others under a charm or compulsion effect. You also gain this insight bonus on saving throws to resist charm and compulsion effects targeting you. That's a great write-up, and I could definitely work with it, but DM's are going to run into the most basic problems that they can't resolve without the sourcebook. Example: cleric PC acts first in initiative and casts Dispel on the NPC. It reminds me of when I was DM'ing a certain faction module, and a NPC philosopher zapped a PC with a magic item. The PC in question happened to be a drow and told me his SR. I looked down at the mod, realized I had no information on the magic item, whether it emulated a spell, what sourcebook it was from, nothing. I did a quick scan of the books I had on hand, realized I wasn't going to find it, and said 'you take half damage' and I didn't use the magic item again. The issue at hand isn't really describing what an item or ability does, but rather how it interacts with ALL the other rules of the game.
Harliquinn 06-25-07, 11:49 AM	Well the 'Dispel' problem is going to hold true for anything (pre-buffs, magic items). The general rule that needs to be written in is "Dispel Magic" targeted against a soulmeld unshapes it (Basically removes it from consideration). That is why the bonuses are included but put into parenthesis so that the DM can ignore them when needed. For instance: Skills: Sense Motive: +7 (+10 to detect charms when Charming Veil is shaped) A few definitions and condensed rules are really all that should be needed to give the flavor. I also agree with Heirodule that mention of Incarnum should be made special and tied with the prophecy I think (Based on the recent Skarn article as well).
Grantor 06-25-07, 12:47 PM	On a side note, the Undermountain adventures at Origins and Gencon are allowing characters to be made with ANY book (except Eberron material). So as a DM, I am expecting to be running Shadowcasters, Binders, and characters made from the Tome of Battle. PC's are required to bring their own books, of course, but it is unlikely that there will be handy reference write-ups describing the details. Not the same situation as having the run some critter that makes use of these rules, but just as challenging, I'm guessing. As for using Incarnum, Psi, ect. You can use monsters from the books and not have to write as much rules materials. Creatures that can unbind soulmelds when they attack will only have that additional effect if there is a player that conveniently brought the book to play his character. The same with critters that drain Power Points. Even monsters that are shifting essentia around are only doing so from fixed options, which are deliniated in the monster write-up.
Marcus Majarra 06-25-07, 02:43 PM	Adding characters with psionics or incarnum is only going to be problematic insofar as to how the DM feels comfortable with these mechanics. It's obvious that players with incarum or psionic characters are going to be sufficiently proficient with these rule systems, since they need these rules to play their characters, mechanically speaking. While adding a touch of psionics and incarnum to adventures would be great, many DMs will not be familiar with these systems. Here are my suggestions on making this workable: 1) Although this might prove to be a license violation in the case of incarnum, add utility document files on the XenEx website on the mechanics of psionics and incarnum. Basically, these documents explain the mechanics of both systems and only the mechanics. Simply remove all the fluff from Magic of Incarnum on this matter and quote the SRD for psionics. Any adventure using any of these systems should make a mention of this in the adventure and provide links to these files. 2) Provide specific rule items inside the module. For example, if you want to include a meldshaping opponent in a module, the module should include his list of shaped soulmelds with a full description of each. All class abilities should also be detailed in the module (such as the rapid meldshaping feature of the 5th-level incarnate). 3) Provide alternatives to these systems. It's undeniable that some DMs and players will not want to become familiar with extra rules (especially during conventions) and would rather deal with more familiar rules. Basically: keep the fluff, lose the crunch. Psions could be using sorcerer spellcasting rules, only with Int instead of Cha and no spell components. Totemists could simply be druids without spellcasting, more wild shape attempts per day (without actually wild shaping) and wild feats to emulate the various melds. All in all, it's pretty extensive work, but the best way to do this is to grant easy access to the rules, and provide core-based alternatives.
LordAries 06-25-07, 04:13 PM	Down with Psionics and IN with INCARNUM! and I'm not just saying that since I just bought magic of incarnum this week, for the express reason of playing CC games. I think it would be easy, and fun to include some incarnum bad guys etc... one way I can see you doing this, is have a character... lets say an assasin. You build him as an encounter that will probably try and kill the PCs. You can build him one way, and then have an alternate version where you just shift a spell or feat etc to give him some ANTI-Incarnum abilties. Then if the party has some MoI characters the DM uses the assasin that is made to counter that. It would only take a little change to the character to be able to do this. The classes out of MoI are pretty easy to run and play once you know whats going on, but if you have never read the book, its like rocket science to figure out what they are doing.
bertman4 06-25-07, 06:25 PM	Psionics yes. Incarnum no. Bertman
LordAries 06-25-07, 07:29 PM	I think you mistyped your post, what you meant to say was NO MORE PSIONICS in D&D. Incarnum is just using magic of the land and creatures around you... Its like a Blue Mage from Final Fantasy... Psionics is someone tapping into the powers of CHEESE to break what would otherwise be a fun game.
smerwin29 06-25-07, 07:38 PM	Please keep things civil. Sound reasoning and facts behind opinions is great. Just calling things names doesn't serve any purpose. Thanks.
Jesse Heinig 06-25-07, 09:12 PM	I'm all for using psionics and incarnum in Codex modules; the Codex does, after all, specialize in the acquisition of obscure knowledge. This isn't to say that adventures should revolve around psionics or incarnum, but having the occasional appearance of these abilities can give players a nice surprise - an ally who has an unexpected power, a magic or psionic item that isn't commonly seen, or a character from an odd race can add some "flavor." As an example, consider one of the researchers from Morgrave University, who is an azurin but not an incarnum-wielder - he obviously knows about incarnum and he's a little "odd" by the standards of stock humans, but it's not game-breaking or overly difficult for the DM to include. Additionally, since the Codex faction allows players to unlock incarnum use for their characters via some of the incarnum-wielding base classes and races, those players should occasionally have a chance to shine. Incarnum and psionic ability are "neat and different" but from time to time a small easter egg in a module can make a player with those sorts of characters feel like (s)he really had a chance to stand out due to his/her character's differences. For example, an early Mark of Heroes module featured a hag that would send nightmare spells to plague the PCs in certain circumstances. A kalashtar character is racially immune, so it's a nice opportunity for a kalashtar PC's player to say "Hey! I got something neat and cool out of my character choice!" Such materials don't even have to be central to the plot of a module. A simple side-scene can provide an opportunity for a character to recognize and use talents in a meaningful way, perhaps to provide a unique solution to a problem, and can make those talents firmly fit into the "unique and, in just the right circumstances, the perfect tool for the job" category.
lordtiberiusfoxx 06-25-07, 09:13 PM	I would have to concur with the general concensus here. Psionics are usually okay. They're pretty widespread by this point, and they are on the SRD which can be downloaded and read from Wotc. In addition, the magic transparency rule answers questions pretty well. Incarnum, is a different story. I only have second hand knowledge of how it works and from the comments on this thread I see I'm not alone. There will be questions that will arise that a blurb can't cover. What if a PC uses spellcraft? How does it interact with ability X? In either case, I recomend keeping numbers low. A first level totemist requires less information to run than a tenth level totemist. Same holds true for psionics. Using psi-like abilities circumvents this problem altogether. Sure, that encounter on the rope bridge is going to be a killer against the kineticist, but would it be more simple to use a master of the unseen hand or a guy with a ring of tk? Hope this helps. :cool:
LordAries 06-25-07, 10:41 PM	In the words of Stephen Colbert... " I accept your apology." Ok, I can explain Incarnum base classes pretty easy so that ALL of you that read this post will pretty much know how they operate. Incarnate- Light armor, 1/2 BAB, 2+ int skills LOTS of meldshaping Totemist- medium armor, 3/4 BAB, 4+ int skills Medium amount of meldshaping They are basically, like a warlock. They have a few abilities that they get and can use at will, most of them as a standard action. these abilities can be picked from a list at the begining of the day, and unlike a warlocks invocations, they can change them from day to day. Most of the abilities they get are tied to some spot on the body, corresponding to a magic item slot. At low levels, you can take a handful of Melds (invocations) and each one gives you some sort of bonus for picking it... like a bonus to a skill, or some special ability. One might give you a bonus to jump... while another lets you dimension door 10 feet as a standard action ... etc etc etc... By picking the right melds you can re-tool how your character's skills are useful. At some point in your class, you start to be able to take one of your melds (invocations) and gain a BETTER benifit from turning it into an item, that coresponds to a body slot. Some Melds can be turned into different items (basically where you place the meld determines what it does) but when you do this, you cannot have a magic item in that slot. This might come in the form of making a sword out of incarnum for you to use, or a cloak that grants protection from spells. Just like with the regular melds, you can change what you pick from day to day. In reality, you are a versatile character, that from day to day can change your abilities and skills to fit what is needed at that time. You can use Melds to improve your AC to help you be a better tank (thats what I did mostly) or pick melds to help you get bonuses to hide, move silently and spot to help be sneaky, perhaps you want to use your melds to improve your damage and you pick some that give you special attacks or a weapon... The title Magic of Incarnum is a pretty poor tittle, what these characters are doing isn't like magic... its FULLY transparent, and you can use know arcane, spellcraft and even dispell magic to take care of it. A good way to explain it again, in simplier terms for those that didn't like the above post... is that these incarnum characters have the ability to once per day pick some items that give bonuses or abilities and craft them for use for 24 hours, and then can do it again the next day picking new items if they like.
DBlizzard 06-26-07, 12:53 AM	So my question is, to those people out there playing or DMing, would adding foes with psionics or incarnum be problematic? I've argued from the beginning that expecting DMs to be familiar with Incarnum is a stretch. Having players bringing Incarnum when a DM isn't familiar is tought enough, including it in the adventure is worse. I would just not run an adventure that uses Incarnum unless the rules used are completely contained within the adventure. The exception might be if it is a completely minor, easily ignored area in the adventure. I see two other possibilities. One have a "Primer on Incarnum" download that contains all you need to run Incarnum (like the never seen "Psionics Primer" promised for Mark of Heroes). Second, have options for DMs not familiar with Incarnum (or similiar rules sets such as Tome of Magic or Tome of Battle). For example, have alternate stats not using the incarnum rules. Psionics are different, to me. They are part of the SRD and are tied to the Eberron setting, even if designed to be easily dropped for DMs who don't like them. I do have sympathy for those DMs unfamiliar with psionics, though. In the future, perhaps it would be best to design factions in such a way that only certain factions use certain rules. If this was done when Xen'drik was designed then perhaps the Crimson Codex would be the only faction that allowed Incarnum. DMs not familiar with Incarnum wouldn't run the Crimson Codex. DMs who love Incarnum should focus on those adventures. Expedition adventures should allow all options, since players should be able to bring any of their characters and DMs don't have to run those adventures.
Istaran 06-26-07, 01:12 AM	Not that I want to throw a monkey wrench into the MoI debate, but Dispel Magic only supresses a soulmeld for 1d4 rounds. They are effected like magic items in that way. It's on page 52 for those with the book. While we're at it, there's a sidebar on that page about the additional penalties suffered by a meldshaper when they experience negative levels; that's definitely something DMs need to have available if they've got any incarnum NPCs running around at this level.. as PCs can easily have Enervation by now. I enjoy the incarnum stuff, and find it reasonably easy to run once you've picked the soulmelds (and for NPCs that would be the writer's responsibility). I don't think there's anyone who can GM D&D but can't grasp the incarnum stuff with a bit of a primer (see earlier in the thread) and the necessary rules info handy. I assume the same is true of psionics, though I've never tried them myself, and have only seen them used abusively.
Harliquinn 06-26-07, 08:25 AM	In the future, perhaps it would be best to design factions in such a way that only certain factions use certain rules. If this was done when Xen'drik was designed then perhaps the Crimson Codex would be the only faction that allowed Incarnum. DMs not familiar with Incarnum wouldn't run the Crimson Codex. DMs who love Incarnum should focus on those adventures. Expedition adventures should allow all options, since players should be able to bring any of their characters and DMs don't have to run those adventures. In general this is what was done with Xen'drik Expeditions. Codex has 3 Incarnum options, Covenant has one. The others have none. There is a campaign card that anyone can use that's been in since set 1. I don't understand why a DM would choose not to run an entire adventure because it had an Incarnum NPC or used some Incarnum rules. With a 1-2 page primer, 95% of the rules would be very clear to anyone capable of running RPGA events. In short, Incarnum is basically using magic items with special abilities. Harliquinn
WolfStar76 06-26-07, 11:28 AM	I don't have Magic of Incarnum, but one of the expeditions had dusklings so I borrowed MoI from a friend at the table that day, just to see what it was all about. I think it took about 5 minutes of skimming to have a basic idea of how Incarnum works. I'm no expert, but that brief glimpse was enough to show me that it's nothing to be feared, and like any monster with a few "special" abilities - a quick blurb of the mechanics of the things I don't already know is enough to make an Incarnum-wielding NPC useable. Go the extra mile and give me a sentence or two of "tactics" so I can see how the power(s) will be used, and I'm set. I'm not gonna cheer lead for Incarnum or Psionics, but with the webarticle about Ohnal Caldyn, and he feeling that Incarnum will play a part in prophecy. . . . I'd be disappointed if the overall story arc doesn't take that into account. :)
Sieylianna 06-26-07, 05:49 PM	Ed
smerwin29 06-26-07, 07:23 PM	The question was about putting psionics and incarnum into adventures, and if the DMs out there would feel comfortable using it. We don't need more posts about "how broken" everything is, etc. Thanks.
Jesse Heinig 06-26-07, 07:24 PM	Yet somehow, despite the fact that several campaign cards open up the whole XPH for Xen'drik Expeditions, psionic characters haven't taken over the campaign . . . hmm.
LordAries 06-27-07, 01:21 AM	Magic of Incarnum on Amazon books for 7.99 No reason not to get it....
DBlizzard 06-27-07, 02:06 AM	In general this is what was done with Xen'drik Expeditions. Codex has 3 Incarnum options, Covenant has one. The others have none. There is a campaign card that anyone can use that's been in since set 1. The campaign card was what made me bring this up the first time (admittedly, in response to a discussion about opening Tome of Battle to Xen'drik). Having two of four factions use an optional rules set* isn't what I wanted. I want it restricted to one faction (and multi-faction adventures). With a 1-2 page primer, 95% of the rules would be very clear to anyone capable of running RPGA events. In short, Incarnum is basically using magic items with special abilities. You'll note one of the solutions I mentioned was to have a downloadable primer for any such rules. This fails if there are too many a DM needs to download and digest, but as long as quite limited I think it's a good suggestion. Of course, that assumes it gets posted before it's needed by a DM (since the promised Mark of Heroes Psionics Primer never did appear). I have faith in the faction leaders getting it together, but not in the RPGA getting it up (noting how out of date the Dungeon adventure list is as we speak). Of course,, you know that something in the 5% of rules not covered will come up in the game by Murphy's Laws or the gaming corollary Munchkin's Law (if you don't have access to a rulebook, some munchkin will find a way to abuse your lack of knowledge). But that's something the adventure designer can consider when designing the use in the adventure (it's mostly an issue of interaction with player abilities). *By "optional rules set," I mean a set of rules that require you own a particular book that isn't core (or perhaps in the SRD). Tome of Magic. Tome of Magic and Magic of Incarnum qualify. The Expanded Psionics Handbook is a corner case that. IMO. could go either way.
Harliquinn 06-27-07, 08:13 AM	*By "optional rules set," I mean a set of rules that require you own a particular book that isn't core (or perhaps in the SRD). Tome of Magic. Tome of Magic and Magic of Incarnum qualify. The Expanded Psionics Handbook is a corner case that. IMO. could go either way. Technically all the factions use Optional Rules Set that aren't core, that's the great thing about Xen'drik. Each faction unlocks certain races, classes, and other rules that don't exist in normal Core-only campaigns. This includes the Duskblade, Raptoran, Beguiler, Dragon Shaman, Warforged Scout, Marshal etc. There's no reason that Incarnum relevant rules can't be inserted in a condensed format just like new spells, feats, and magic items are now. I concede it is a bit more for a DM to digest, but in all honesty DM's should be able to handle this with a little bit of work if they are running sanctioned RPGA games in the first place. With these options already allowed to players, it's important that a DM be at least passingly familiar with them anyways. It's very easy to 'break' psionics or Incarnum if a player tries to cheat and the DM has idea about it. For most DM's it's second nature to realize "Hey that cleric has cast 12 second level spells." but it's not always as clear that a player has used more than his allotment of power points, augmented a power beyond what he could, or assigned more essentia into soulmelds than he has. Harliquinn Harliquinn
DBlizzard 06-27-07, 04:53 PM	Technically all the factions use Optional Rules Set that aren't core, that's the great thing about Xen'drik. Sorry, I was tired and didn't make myself clear. With this use I don't consider a feat or class by itself a "rules set." A rules set means that the class, feat, magic item, etc. uses an alternate rules set. If I am only familiar with Core D&D I tell how almost all Complete X classes wrok just by reading the class. However, the same isn't true for the books I mention. They introduce new rules sets that require understanding more than just a single element the character might be using. I concede it is a bit more for a DM to digest, but in all honesty DM's should be able to handle this with a little bit of work if they are running sanctioned RPGA games in the first place. But should he be required to do this work? Why should I have to be familiar with the Magic of Incarnum if I happen to hate this optional and fringe book? (Yes, we can argue fringe, but I believe I'm on solid ground saying most players aren't familiar with the rules for it). How many rules sets are you comfortable requiring an RPGA DM to understand? Must I be familiar with all D&D expansions? If that's the rule than I'm afraid I'll pass on being an RPGA DM now. I might be familiar with most (in fact, I believe ToM & MoI are the only rules sets I couldn't run now), but the higher the standard the less DMs I'll be able to recruit so I'm not doing everything. If I had my way the rules for non-core materials in adventures would be simple (BTW, I consider the Eberron Campaign Setting to be core, and could be convinced that the Expanded Psionics Handbook is). If everything needed to use the non-core material isn't included in the adventure then it shouldn't be used.
Shadowed Intent 06-27-07, 10:51 PM	I have some experience with psionics and only the XE NPCs with Incarnum. That said: - a quick blurb of the mechanics of the things I don't already know is enough to make an Incarnum-wielding NPC useable. Go the extra mile and give me a sentence or two of "tactics" so I can see how the power(s) will be used, and I'm set. That says it just right. Give me a blurb, and tell me the most effective tactic (or the tactic they are going to use.) I have faith you can write it so I can run it. Bottom Line: Not problematic, put both of them in. For me, it will just make the flavor a little more spicy.
WolfStar76 06-28-07, 06:13 PM	But should he be required to do this work? Why should I have to be familiar with the Magic of Incarnum if I happen to hate this optional and fringe book? <snip> How many rules sets are you comfortable requiring an RPGA DM to understand? Must I be familiar with all D&D expansions? If that's the rule than I'm afraid I'll pass on being an RPGA DM now. Let me try to approach this from a different angle. If the module author is doing most of the work, and giving you a blurb on how the powers/spells/class works (even if that's as simple as saying "provides X bonus - already in the stats, as I've seen some do), and follows-up with a short paragraph on tactics for the character or characters in question, is it really asking that much of the GM in prepping this situation? Is that really any different from tossing a monster with "Bizzare Power Y (Su)" into the equation? You still need to read the appended blurb in the stats to know how to run the encounter, and IF you decide it's worth your time to know more about the mechanics you're welcome (and, yes, encouraged) to pick up the sourcebook for more background on how that monster thinks/acts/fights. What you're *required* to know is core mechanics (PHB, DMG, MM), and how to read a statblock - the module author has to fill in the "fancy" bits, to bring you up to fighting speed. From the other side of the screen - is that additional legwork worth it to surprise the players? If MoI or ToM are "fringe" - that makes it all the more surprising for the players when something they're not familiar with pops up. Sure, we all know you have to silence that caster, but what do you do about the guy who just made a piece of his gear dissolve into a greasy mist and suddenly has glowing eyes? We all have our preferences, and we all have varying amounts of time and money to dedicate to rules/modules/books etc. For me, the modules have done a great job, to date, of giving me (I DM all 4 factions) what I need to know for an encounter - even if I don't have most of the books from which the NPCs are produced. I'd love to know more about some of the undead I've seen, but I don't have Libris Mortis. The blurbs given have kept my players fooled thus far. :) I think that strikes a great balance between keeping players on their toes, without making me invest my entire finances and free time in a library of books. :) At the end of the day, I'm all for keeping players on their toes and including less-common encounters (be it NPCs with less-used classes, or Monsters from the pages of non-standard books). Your mileage, of course, may vary. :)
DBlizzard 06-29-07, 01:03 AM	If the module author is doing most of the work, and giving you a blurb on how the powers/spells/class works (even if that's as simple as saying "provides X bonus - already in the stats, as I've seen some do), and follows-up with a short paragraph on tactics for the character or characters in question, is it really asking that much of the GM in prepping this situation? If that's all it is, I have no problems. However, it's usually not the case. What if there is a MoI power that specifically cancels such abilities? What if there is a rule that MoI powers require a Concentration check after they take damage. Something is often missing. To give an actual example, I bring you to something that happens in the Eyes of the Lich Queen adventure: There is a crusader opponent in the adventure (a Tome of Battle class). They neglect to mention any of the stances that the character must have and that the smite special ability can only be used once per day. Yes, these are relatively minor errors. The players might never notice (unless they get smited every round of the combat). However, this is a WotC book that went through their whole process. We know the RPGA adventures are a shadow of that process. Is that really any different from tossing a monster with "Bizzare Power Y (Su)" into the equation? Often it is. Sure, sometimes the rule is only about a paragraph from the book. However, I'm not worried about that. I'm worried about the interactions with the rest of the rules in the book. It's especially bad when PCs might be using rules from a book you haven't read and don't own as well (which is a bigger issue, but we've been asked to stay away from that topic). The issue is the interactions and making sure the bases are all covered for the DM can be a huge challenge and maybe not worth the amount of space it might take up. From the other side of the screen - is that additional legwork worth it to surprise the players? If MoI or ToM are "fringe" - that makes it all the more surprising for the players when something they're not familiar with pops up. The headache is when the players know the rule and you don't. If the applicable rules are succinctly and completely covered in the module good. If they aren't (and the example above shows why I am concerned they won't be) then a headache can develop at the table, and it's better to avoid that risk than just put something in the adventure just o put in something different. Why not just make something up if that's the goal. Sure, we all know you have to silence that caster, but what do you do about the guy who just made a piece of his gear dissolve into a greasy mist and suddenly has glowing eyes? Which is the DMs problem as well. Did the author remember to include that? Did he miss some ways? Were they there and got mangled in the editing process? I'd love to know more about some of the undead I've seen, but I don't have Libris Mortis. Apples & oranges. Liber Mortis isn't a rules set. There aren't very many rules interactions there, just new options for the existing rules sets. That's why I'd rather see something like "Crimson Codex is the Magic of Incarnum focused faction" when the campaign is set up. DMs who want to run the adventure will know that it will user those rules sets can run that faction if he knows the rules set, avoid it if he doesn't (or doesn't like it) or choose to run it and wing it if he doesn't.
WolfStar76 06-29-07, 11:41 AM	Interesting points throughout. Have a couple I'd like to dissent, but at this point it's mostly boiling down (I think) to opinion (which is the point in the first place, right?) To give an actual example, I bring you to something that happens in the Eyes of the Lich Queen adventure: this is a WotC book that went through their whole process. We know the RPGA adventures are a shadow of that process. While I know the editing process for the RPGA isn't terrific on the gramatical side, I get the feeling (yes, that's ephemeral and hardly a good guide, but it's what I've got) that the monster stats and power explanations here are typically well thought-out. Perhaps moreso than in a WotC book, if only because the authors of the modules here will hear about it very directly and very vocally if they drop the ball big-time. What's more, I get the feeling (there it is again) that with the RPGA mods, the authors have a direct desire to hear good feedback on their modules. They're part of "the club" and want to do well by the rest of us. (This doesn't mean WotC drops the ball here either, but there's a degree of separation. . .) Ultimately, I feel that if we ask for something like this to be a focus, it will be - so I'm not much concerned with glaring stat block errors. (Chalk it up to naivety if you like. :) ) The issue is the interactions and making sure the bases are all covered for the DM can be a huge challenge and maybe not worth the amount of space it might take up. Decent point, I keep thinking of it more in terms of combat encounters, but this can color all portions of a persona, including diplomatic relations. I yield that one to you. The headache is when the players know the rule and you don't. If the applicable rules are succinctly and completely covered in the module good. If they aren't (and the example above shows why I am concerned they won't be) then a headache can develop at the table, and it's better to avoid that risk than just put something in the adventure just o put in something different. Why not just make something up if that's the goal. I come from the standpoint of having a well-rounded knowledge of the books, though there are many I don't own - the assumption for me is that there's ALWAYS someone at the table who knows a rule better than I do (from Grapple to playing an Incarnate). I don't let that stop me. I run a module to the best of my ability, and I make mistakes. So do the players. Thankfully, I haven't run into any real rules-lawyer situations, and if I did my two courses of action would be to 1) ask a player to please flip to the relavant rule (if they could do so while the action continues) and 2)either adjust accordingly or stick with my "gut" ruling as a GM. As for just making something up - I'm okay with that too. If the Faction Masters want to create a "GMs Pet" monster with all-new powers that aren't sourced, great. :) Again - your playstyle (and therefore your opinion) may vary. :) Which is the DMs problem as well. Did the author remember to include that? Did he miss some ways? Were they there and got mangled in the editing process? Same as above for me. I run a module to the best of my ability. I make mistakes, sometimes because of the module, sometimes in spite of it. :) While I've been corrected once or twice (during the mod or after it) I've so far never had a table tell me they didn't enjoy the session (nor have I heard back from HQ that someone complained). Apples & oranges. Liber Mortis isn't a rules set. There aren't very many rules interactions there, just new options for the existing rules sets. I suppose it's a matter of opinion. Personally, I don't see Incarnum or Psionics as any different from a new moster power at the mechanics level. Tell me the parts I need to know and I'll make due. However, trying to put myself in your shoes (Don't worry, I'll use an anti-fungal spray) I can see where viewing the entirety of MoI as a new set of optional rules would make it a bigger deal. Agree to (moderately) disagree? That's why I'd rather see something like "Crimson Codex is the Magic of Incarnum focused faction" when the campaign is set up. DMs who want to run the adventure will know that it will user those rules sets can run that faction if he knows the rules set, avoid it if he doesn't (or doesn't like it) or choose to run it and wing it if he doesn't. Hmmm. . . while it's implied now, I suppose it would help people better tailor their play sessions if the DM and players know what the overall flavor of each campaign is going to be. Of course, the flip-side is that pigeonholing each campaign like that sets expectations that may or may not be reasonable. I fear the negatives might outweigh the positives. 1) People would "expect" to always see Incarnum, so everyone will start carrying anti-incarnum gear. (theoretical example) 2) People expecting Incarnum will complain of every module doesn't feature Incarnum-based nasties every module 3) Storylines can be inhibited because module authors now have to walk a narrower-line. For me, having the implied "flavor" as opposed to a stated "purpose" (my words, not yours) gives the factions a chance to toy with a few new things, without railroading the faction. Some people might prefer that pigeonholing (I know I have one player in my local group who feels EVERY Cabal mission should come down to murdering innocents, EVERY Blackwheel should have large-scale combat and MAAD drops, EVERY Codex should be a puzzle-solver, and EVERY Covenant should involve running around casting blesses and freeing opressed peoples) - I just disagree.
lseelba 06-29-07, 12:13 PM	Some people might prefer that pigeonholing (I know I have one player in my local group who feels EVERY Cabal mission should come down to murdering innocents, EVERY Blackwheel should have large-scale combat and MAAD drops, EVERY Codex should be a puzzle-solver, and EVERY Covenant should involve running around casting blesses and freeing opressed peoples) - I just disagree. lol...I ran a BWC DM's Mark once where the PC's had to ride HORSES to their destination. Horses if you can imagine! One of the players complained that there was no MAAD, and I replied that MAAD's are expensive and that the Blackwheel Company is not made of gold (especially since the BWC keeps burning through airships). On topic, it seems like there is more objections to featuring Magic of Incarnum in a module than it is featuring Psionics. Regarding the issue of a player knowing more about a sourcebook than the DM, this is going to happen anytime you have a Totemist or Incarnate at your table anyways. Having it in the module is actually BETTER because you get to read it and figure things out ahead of time, instead of sitting there scratching your head and trying to figure out on the spot whether using a blink shirt while threatened provokes an AoO (or the act of teleporting out of the square does for that matter). -Lou
Timlagor 07-06-07, 08:41 AM	I remember moaning about not having a MAAD drop ..but that seems appropraite to BWC characters ;)
lseelba 07-07-07, 01:31 AM	I remember moaning about not having a MAAD drop ..but that seems appropraite to BWC characters ;) Next time I ran that same DM's Mark there was a MAAD drop to the den :D
heirodule 07-16-07, 10:20 AM	We do have a running gag about psionics. A psionic player will go into great deal of detail about how they're overchanneling this and manifesting that. After they do this, the GM replies: "blah blah blah, psionics. they all die." :D
smerwin29 07-16-07, 10:33 AM	We do have a running gag about psionics. A psionic player will go into great deal of detail about how they're overchanneling this and manifesting that. After they do this, the GM replies: "blah blah blah, psionics. they all die." :D I can just see my next adventure now: Tactics: The big bad evil guy starts combat by using his psionic powers against the PCs. Blah blah blah, they all die. I should have been doing that all this time. I could write these things so much more quickly!
Jesse Heinig 07-16-07, 11:00 AM	Amazing. Who knew that my half-giant's 2 racial power points made him an unstoppable killing machine! No wonder it's a +1 LA race. I can just see my next adventure now: Tactics: The big bad evil guy starts combat by using his psionic powers against the PCs. Blah blah blah, they all die. I should have been doing that all this time. I could write these things so much more quickly!
Zantumal_Waveharp 07-20-07, 04:31 PM	I am all for Incarum. So much so, that I bought the MOI just the other day. I can hardly wait until I get it. (4 to 5 business day shipping :( )
Istaran 07-20-07, 06:14 PM	I can just see my next adventure now: Tactics: The big bad evil guy starts combat by using his psionic powers against the PCs. Blah blah blah, they all die. I should have been doing that all this time. I could write these things so much more quickly! They had this in a recent XE adventure. It would have been a TPK except that the BBEG ran out of power points before I ran out of HP. It turns out a dagger is not sufficient to finish of an adamantine bodied warforged w/ 27 AC. Who knew?