Adapting MoI: Removing Alignment. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Adapting MoI: Removing Alignment. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
WilliamPall
09-29-05, 07:52 PM Greetings all.

I've recently purchased and read through Magic of Incarnum. There are some things I like about it some things I dis-like. And due to the desire to change some things when I bring them into the games I run I wanted to get some opinions.

But, first, I want to know if the rules presented in the book are balanced. I know that in my completely un-educated perspective on things . . I probably won't be able to determine if they are.

Secondly, going off the supposition that the rules are balanced, how un-balancing would it be to remove the alignment restrictions to Incarnates and Soulborns?

If I were to change the BAB progression for Incarnate to from Weak to Medium, but then reduce the Essentia progression to max out at 20 (to match Totemist progression, IIRC) would it still be balanced.

I really hate the fluff of the Totemist. I see absolutely no reason for totemists to be all "primative". If I were to remove the "illiteracy" of the class, what other modifications would you all suggest to counter-act it's removal?

Any idea's?
dedicated
09-29-05, 08:01 PM Greetings all.
Secondly, going off the supposition that the rules are balanced, how un-balancing would it be to remove the alignment restrictions to Incarnates and Soulborns?

While, considering almost half of the classes abilities and soulmelds of Incarnates have effects based on their alignment, you'd pretty much have to make an entirely new class to avoid headaches
But, if you make incarnates and soulborns pick one aspect of their alignment to be the one that counts for these abilities it would probably work
WilliamPall
09-30-05, 07:07 AM I really don't see where I would run into any headaches.

The incarnate does not have the ability to have more than one soulmeld of the same type melded at the same time, so therefore, there is no way He could have Incarnate Avatar: Good and Incarnate Avatar: Law melded at the same time, but if the character wanted to have Incarnate Avatar: Good and Incarnate Weapon: Law, then they'd still be able to.

What headaches are you seeing that I'd run into?
Vengeblade
09-30-05, 07:56 AM I think you're rushing things right now. Try play testing it a bit first, that's what I'm doing. An incarnate embodies only one extreme, that's their purpose and incarnum classes have enough flexibity without giving them access to another incarnum weapon and/or avatar, think rapid meldshaping, tehy could use that to great effect from what I speculate. You're basicly making a whole new class off a system that hasn't been played in depth by the majority of the population. The illiteracy of the totemist is part of who they are, they ARE primitive tribal people who wield incarnum to gain the powers of magical beasts, they are still beasts.

You just need to test it first then see how it goes, you never know it may be better than you thought.
dedicated
09-30-05, 03:08 PM I really don't see where I would run into any headaches.

The incarnate does not have the ability to have more than one soulmeld of the same type melded at the same time, so therefore, there is no way He could have Incarnate Avatar: Good and Incarnate Avatar: Law melded at the same time, but if the character wanted to have Incarnate Avatar: Good and Incarnate Weapon: Law, then they'd still be able to.

What headaches are you seeing that I'd run into?
That's the problem, they aren't different soulmelds. It's 1 soulmeld that gives abilities based on your alignment. Same with smite oppisition, it would now be twice as effective, as it covers a broader base.
MysteryGilgamesh
09-30-05, 08:35 PM You could definatly change the BAB of the Incarnist to that of a Rogue's, without having to compensate for anything else. The class definatly is solidly balanced with the exception of the BAB, which makes the class lean towards weakness. The BAB is the only part of the class that seems entirely out of place, especially given the flavor text and the role of the class itself.

So up it to that of a Rogue BAB.
WilliamPall
09-30-05, 09:44 PM The illiteracy of the totemist is part of who they are, they ARE primitive tribal people who wield incarnum to gain the powers of magical beasts, they are still beasts.

But ya missed the part of what I'd said about removing all the fluff. I hate the fluff of the Totemist. I just like the mechanics of the class. And when you strip it all away and give the class a new name, change the name of the Totem Chakra, and remove any semblance of the soulmelds to any association with magical beasts, well . . . then the illiteracy just doesn't make any sense, does it.

That's the problem, they aren't different soulmelds. It's 1 soulmeld that gives abilities based on your alignment. Same with smite oppisition, it would now be twice as effective, as it covers a broader base.

Okay, good point . . . I'll probably remove the smite opposition ability and replace it with something else. But, when you do strip away the alignment, incarnate avatar and incarnate weapon really do become four different soulmelds each.

What I guess I'm really trying to figure out is why, from a strictly crunchy point of view, why a TN can't be an incarnate and soulborn. Look at the adaptation section on pages 24, 28, and 32 . . . I'm trying to take what they say there and run with it. remove the alignment restriction for the In, and SB, and remove the primitive/magical beast aspect of the totemist.
mikaelcor
10-01-05, 10:22 AM IMC there is an exalted (and yes she plays an exalted character well) Cleric who is LG. This player is very interested in MoI and I plan on letting her take Incarnate even as LG. Personally, I think the exalted mindset is about as extreme an alignment as you can get. As for ballance, I plan on letting her beinifit from only one alignment aspect at a time. I can't see how this is unballanced, and it feels like it meets the flavor of incarnate well.

I like totemist as is, but if you are going to change its flavor...how are you going to handle the soulmelds? Are you going to change their names only? What about their powers? If not, how do you justify soulmelds that are so obviously tied to various magical beasts? Just some questions you will have to think about before you revamp that class. Good Luck.
WilliamPall
10-01-05, 11:09 AM I like totemist as is, but if you are going to change its flavor...how are you going to handle the soulmelds? Are you going to change their names only? What about their powers? If not, how do you justify soulmelds that are so obviously tied to various magical beasts? Just some questions you will have to think about before you revamp that class. Good Luck.

Changing the names will be a start . . . there are some totemist soul melds that are general enough that just changing the name will be enough. For others . . I plan on changing the Totem Bind that they have. Change/remove the totem bind and the base ability and body chakra abilities become a little bit more generic and not tied to a specific magical beast.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
WilliamPall 09-29-05, 07:52 PM	Greetings all. I've recently purchased and read through Magic of Incarnum. There are some things I like about it some things I dis-like. And due to the desire to change some things when I bring them into the games I run I wanted to get some opinions. But, first, I want to know if the rules presented in the book are balanced. I know that in my completely un-educated perspective on things . . I probably won't be able to determine if they are. Secondly, going off the supposition that the rules are balanced, how un-balancing would it be to remove the alignment restrictions to Incarnates and Soulborns? If I were to change the BAB progression for Incarnate to from Weak to Medium, but then reduce the Essentia progression to max out at 20 (to match Totemist progression, IIRC) would it still be balanced. I really hate the fluff of the Totemist. I see absolutely no reason for totemists to be all "primative". If I were to remove the "illiteracy" of the class, what other modifications would you all suggest to counter-act it's removal? Any idea's?
dedicated 09-29-05, 08:01 PM	Greetings all. Secondly, going off the supposition that the rules are balanced, how un-balancing would it be to remove the alignment restrictions to Incarnates and Soulborns? While, considering almost half of the classes abilities and soulmelds of Incarnates have effects based on their alignment, you'd pretty much have to make an entirely new class to avoid headaches But, if you make incarnates and soulborns pick one aspect of their alignment to be the one that counts for these abilities it would probably work
WilliamPall 09-30-05, 07:07 AM	I really don't see where I would run into any headaches. The incarnate does not have the ability to have more than one soulmeld of the same type melded at the same time, so therefore, there is no way He could have Incarnate Avatar: Good and Incarnate Avatar: Law melded at the same time, but if the character wanted to have Incarnate Avatar: Good and Incarnate Weapon: Law, then they'd still be able to. What headaches are you seeing that I'd run into?
Vengeblade 09-30-05, 07:56 AM	I think you're rushing things right now. Try play testing it a bit first, that's what I'm doing. An incarnate embodies only one extreme, that's their purpose and incarnum classes have enough flexibity without giving them access to another incarnum weapon and/or avatar, think rapid meldshaping, tehy could use that to great effect from what I speculate. You're basicly making a whole new class off a system that hasn't been played in depth by the majority of the population. The illiteracy of the totemist is part of who they are, they ARE primitive tribal people who wield incarnum to gain the powers of magical beasts, they are still beasts. You just need to test it first then see how it goes, you never know it may be better than you thought.
dedicated 09-30-05, 03:08 PM	I really don't see where I would run into any headaches. The incarnate does not have the ability to have more than one soulmeld of the same type melded at the same time, so therefore, there is no way He could have Incarnate Avatar: Good and Incarnate Avatar: Law melded at the same time, but if the character wanted to have Incarnate Avatar: Good and Incarnate Weapon: Law, then they'd still be able to. What headaches are you seeing that I'd run into? That's the problem, they aren't different soulmelds. It's 1 soulmeld that gives abilities based on your alignment. Same with smite oppisition, it would now be twice as effective, as it covers a broader base.
MysteryGilgamesh 09-30-05, 08:35 PM	You could definatly change the BAB of the Incarnist to that of a Rogue's, without having to compensate for anything else. The class definatly is solidly balanced with the exception of the BAB, which makes the class lean towards weakness. The BAB is the only part of the class that seems entirely out of place, especially given the flavor text and the role of the class itself. So up it to that of a Rogue BAB.
WilliamPall 09-30-05, 09:44 PM	The illiteracy of the totemist is part of who they are, they ARE primitive tribal people who wield incarnum to gain the powers of magical beasts, they are still beasts. But ya missed the part of what I'd said about removing all the fluff. I hate the fluff of the Totemist. I just like the mechanics of the class. And when you strip it all away and give the class a new name, change the name of the Totem Chakra, and remove any semblance of the soulmelds to any association with magical beasts, well . . . then the illiteracy just doesn't make any sense, does it. That's the problem, they aren't different soulmelds. It's 1 soulmeld that gives abilities based on your alignment. Same with smite oppisition, it would now be twice as effective, as it covers a broader base. Okay, good point . . . I'll probably remove the smite opposition ability and replace it with something else. But, when you do strip away the alignment, incarnate avatar and incarnate weapon really do become four different soulmelds each. What I guess I'm really trying to figure out is why, from a strictly crunchy point of view, why a TN can't be an incarnate and soulborn. Look at the adaptation section on pages 24, 28, and 32 . . . I'm trying to take what they say there and run with it. remove the alignment restriction for the In, and SB, and remove the primitive/magical beast aspect of the totemist.
mikaelcor 10-01-05, 10:22 AM	IMC there is an exalted (and yes she plays an exalted character well) Cleric who is LG. This player is very interested in MoI and I plan on letting her take Incarnate even as LG. Personally, I think the exalted mindset is about as extreme an alignment as you can get. As for ballance, I plan on letting her beinifit from only one alignment aspect at a time. I can't see how this is unballanced, and it feels like it meets the flavor of incarnate well. I like totemist as is, but if you are going to change its flavor...how are you going to handle the soulmelds? Are you going to change their names only? What about their powers? If not, how do you justify soulmelds that are so obviously tied to various magical beasts? Just some questions you will have to think about before you revamp that class. Good Luck.
WilliamPall 10-01-05, 11:09 AM	I like totemist as is, but if you are going to change its flavor...how are you going to handle the soulmelds? Are you going to change their names only? What about their powers? If not, how do you justify soulmelds that are so obviously tied to various magical beasts? Just some questions you will have to think about before you revamp that class. Good Luck. Changing the names will be a start . . . there are some totemist soul melds that are general enough that just changing the name will be enough. For others . . I plan on changing the Totem Bind that they have. Change/remove the totem bind and the base ability and body chakra abilities become a little bit more generic and not tied to a specific magical beast.