Essentia capacity rule, is it good? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Essentia capacity rule, is it good? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Cytokinesis
11-01-05, 02:34 PM I am debating whether including an essentia capacity rule into my game. It's hard to explain but here is the example.

A 1st level Incarnate would have an essentia capacity of one normally but under this new rule if he has constitution 16 (a +3 bonus) then he could have essentia capacity 2 for everything. If the 1st level Incarnate wants a Essentia capacity of 3 without feats or leveling he needs to have a 20 in constitution (a +5 bonus).

If a level 3 Incarnate comes along with Essentia capacity 2 then to have essentia capacity 3 he needs 18 in constitution (a +4 bonus) and for capacity 4 he needs 22 constitution (a +6 bonus).

Basically for the next level of essentia capacity you need 10+2xmax essentia capacity+4 for each up.

If you understand, is this a good rule?
Millennium
11-02-05, 05:27 PM What is the purpose of this rule? Are you trying to increase or decrease the effective essentia capacity of characters with an essentia pool?
zaduma
11-02-05, 10:13 PM This is not a good rule. Period.
sfurtwangler
11-03-05, 07:43 AM One problem is that it makes meldshapers, who are already pretty much dumping everything they have into constitution, need/want to do so even moreso. A second is that it makes the essentia capancity so small for "normal" characters that it would be even less concievable to take incarnum feats unless you're going to go the full-mile (and be a meldshaper).

Unless I am mistaken, though, that was your intention - to allow meldshapers more essentia, and at the same time, limit the essentia pool of people who are just taking the feats, but are otherwise non-incarnum characters... if so, than you've done it. ;-) I'm jsut not sure I believe that that was something that needed fixing.
Cytokinesis
11-04-05, 02:45 PM No you don't need the high constitution score to go to the limit just over it. Like say if you normally have 6 essentia cap then you do not need to have 22 con. But if you want to have a 7 essentia cap you need 26 con.

Is it still a bad rule with this in mind?
sfurtwangler
11-04-05, 03:16 PM Its better with that in mind - but raising the essentia cap is a BIG deal. Raising it jsut one point allows the Incarnate to create an effect he otehrwise couldn't do for about 4 levels.

I wouldn't say its bad, necessarily, but it looks abusable - and you're giving a clear advantage to meldshapers (who will already have large con scores)... that is like letting a sorcerer raise his caster level by his charisma bonus or something... they all will have high charismas.
Cytokinesis
11-04-05, 05:15 PM Hmm, I do see your point but I still need a way other then feats to improve the Essentia cap in my campaign. I ran several play tests and most of the time the non meldshapers won.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Cytokinesis 11-01-05, 02:34 PM	I am debating whether including an essentia capacity rule into my game. It's hard to explain but here is the example. A 1st level Incarnate would have an essentia capacity of one normally but under this new rule if he has constitution 16 (a +3 bonus) then he could have essentia capacity 2 for everything. If the 1st level Incarnate wants a Essentia capacity of 3 without feats or leveling he needs to have a 20 in constitution (a +5 bonus). If a level 3 Incarnate comes along with Essentia capacity 2 then to have essentia capacity 3 he needs 18 in constitution (a +4 bonus) and for capacity 4 he needs 22 constitution (a +6 bonus). Basically for the next level of essentia capacity you need 10+2xmax essentia capacity+4 for each up. If you understand, is this a good rule?
Millennium 11-02-05, 05:27 PM	What is the purpose of this rule? Are you trying to increase or decrease the effective essentia capacity of characters with an essentia pool?
zaduma 11-02-05, 10:13 PM	This is not a good rule. Period.
sfurtwangler 11-03-05, 07:43 AM	One problem is that it makes meldshapers, who are already pretty much dumping everything they have into constitution, need/want to do so even moreso. A second is that it makes the essentia capancity so small for "normal" characters that it would be even less concievable to take incarnum feats unless you're going to go the full-mile (and be a meldshaper). Unless I am mistaken, though, that was your intention - to allow meldshapers more essentia, and at the same time, limit the essentia pool of people who are just taking the feats, but are otherwise non-incarnum characters... if so, than you've done it. ;-) I'm jsut not sure I believe that that was something that needed fixing.
Cytokinesis 11-04-05, 02:45 PM	No you don't need the high constitution score to go to the limit just over it. Like say if you normally have 6 essentia cap then you do not need to have 22 con. But if you want to have a 7 essentia cap you need 26 con. Is it still a bad rule with this in mind?
sfurtwangler 11-04-05, 03:16 PM	Its better with that in mind - but raising the essentia cap is a BIG deal. Raising it jsut one point allows the Incarnate to create an effect he otehrwise couldn't do for about 4 levels. I wouldn't say its bad, necessarily, but it looks abusable - and you're giving a clear advantage to meldshapers (who will already have large con scores)... that is like letting a sorcerer raise his caster level by his charisma bonus or something... they all will have high charismas.
Cytokinesis 11-04-05, 05:15 PM	Hmm, I do see your point but I still need a way other then feats to improve the Essentia cap in my campaign. I ran several play tests and most of the time the non meldshapers won.