Yes, there are plenty of people who don't like Incarnum and I respect their opinions, but what about all the people that do. My friends and I only played Incarnum for a while after it came out. We made a world based on Incarnum.
Put up a post if you want Incarnum back. WotC may tink about it if we send a big enough message. Help the cause!
That said, some of the ideas were fun, and I wouldn't mind seeing Incarnum get a specialized setting treatment.
The only problem I had with the Incarnum is that you had to design it into your campaign. It was okay, but it was another level of reward management that I don't really want to handle.
That said, some of the ideas were fun, and I wouldn't mind seeing Incarnum get a specialized setting treatment.
Incarnum could easily be introduced as something that no person in a world knew existed or could be manipulated for such tasks as adventure and combat. LONG LIVE INCARNUM!! :fight!:
On a side note, I'm believing that Incarnum might end up rolled in with Ki. Just a gut hunch.
Yeah... that's sane.
Cool concept, terrible balance.
I would love to see those mechanics return, though I would really prefer that they were rolled into the "Ki" power source, just to give that power source some actual purpose and distinction within the 4th Edition framework.
That, and "channeling your Ki" to produce specific effects could be awesome.
If they swear not to use 'blue' or any synonyms thereof in power descriptions, I might consider it.
[sarcasm]But "Pick a Color and Run With It" is totally a valid way to make fluff![/sarcasm]
In this case, the mechanics were pretty good and reasonably interesting, but the concepts they represented were bizarre, and fit into a fantasy setting about as well as a brick fits into a duck. It is so unusual that it demands to be a central, preplanned part of any setting that incorporates it. Not impossible, and not even a bad idea, but it made the entire book inapplicable for any game that I actually wanted to run or play in.
Magic of Incarnum was original, yes, but that doesn't mean it was particularly good in all respects. Or even most respects. In fact, while originality is considered a good thing, it doesn't necessarily mean that there is a single other good thing about the subject.
In this case, the mechanics were pretty good and reasonably interesting, but the concepts they represented were bizarre, and fit into a fantasy setting about as well as a brick fits into a duck. It is so unusual that it demands to be a central, preplanned part of any setting that incorporates it. Not impossible, and not even a bad idea, but it made the entire book inapplicable for any game that I actually wanted to run or play in.
Might I remind you that I speak only of my opinion. I think Incarnum was insanely awesome. That doesn't mean I state it as a fact. Also, Incarnum is and always has been a very big part of the universe, as the book points out, so that means that someone in an already made world could have learned to use it(PC or NPC) and the world is slowly understanding it.
I would love to see Incarnum come to 4E but it seems unlikely, at least in its current form, since the core system has gotten away from being magic item dependant. Also since, in general it is only the daily powers that have any duration it seems unlikely that shaping will make it in as it was presented.
I will agree with blowfish that your title was misleading, you should probably change that. Especially since this is really just a thread about how much you, and others, like a subsystem of the game that hasn't yet been released for 4E.
I would love to see Incarnum come to 4E but it seems unlikely, at least in its current form, since the core system has gotten away from being magic item dependant. Also since, in general it is only the daily powers that have any duration it seems unlikely that shaping will make it in as it was presented.
They could have the items be less like the other items and be what gives them the otions for their powers and maybe one extra benefit outside of powers for every soulmeld. Of course, there would need to be far less soulmelds so it can stay simple.
I don't know how to change the title
Second, to edit the title of a thread, edit your first post. When you are editing, there is an option to "go advanced" all that does is make it like a normal post...
But there you can change the title.
Imagine a Shaman "summoning" to himself (and others) the power/aspect of the great magical beasts/wild animals to help the party and damage the enemies... Yeah.
Wishfull thinking.
I think the Shaman (primal leader class from phb2) could kinda resemble a totemist from the 3.5 Incarnum book.
Imagine a Shaman "summoning" to himself (and others) the power/aspect of the great magical beasts/wild animals to help the party and damage the enemies... Yeah.
Wishfull thinking.
Yeah, it's not so much the "incarnum" part as it is the idea and capabilities of the characters, though incarnum would still be preferable.
After talking about it on these threads, though, I see very few people really liked it, giveing WotC little reason to repeat the same low-selling idea. :raincloud
Yeah, it's not so much the "incarnum" part as it is the idea and capabilities of the characters, though incarnum would still be preferable.
After talking about it on these threads, though, I see very few people really liked it, giveing WotC little reason to repeat the same low-selling idea. :raincloud
Hey, I liked it quite a bit ;)
It was a little bit over the top (the totemist mostly) but had real great flavour and good mechanics. I had no problem using it in a Eberron campaign I was DMing, and it was a blast
Druid = Totemist - reflavor transformation into soulmelds, and any summons into calling up beast spirits from incarnum (or make them Mishtai).
Barbarian = Soulborn (I think. The incarnum paladin). Turn rage into soulmelds, and it easily fits the incarnum gish feel.
Warden = Incarnate or Soulborn. Incarnates have a defendery feel to them.
Shaman = Incarnate or Totemist. Do as the druid, and play up the leader role.
Also, if the Ki source isn't just the Asian powersource, it'll likely have incarnum in some form (it might be renamed and slightly refluffed, though).
I want Incarnum back. If not for me, then for Allthonar. PLEAASE!
Some of the low level Totemist binds are disgustingly broken.
Nothing more than can be accomplished by other options.
Totem bind Sphinx Claws, now your level 2 guy has two +2 claws that do 1d8 damage each, and they don't even have and kind of "two weapon" penalty when you attack with both because they're both primary weapons.
Rapid Shot with a 16 Dex and WF: Longbow lets you do the same--from 120 feet away, no less--and you can enhance archery as you progress more than you can a single meld. Whirling Frenzy barbarian can do the same, with a higher attack bonus from Strength and rage. Fighter with Monkey Grip (not that anyone would actually take it) could wield a 2d8 greatsword and outdo the totemist when power attacking and full attacking, and do it on a charge since its only one attack.
On top of that, you can get +2 Natural Armor from shaping a Wormtail Belt.
Quite a few LA 1 races give natural armor, and other benefits besides. Monks get a higher benefit from their class AC and Wisdom. Scouts with Dodge (which they're probably going to take to get the Spring Attack chain) match that, and the dodge bonus stacks with more.
Why not throw on the option of the occasional standard action 20ft teleport? It's handy. Why not spend a feat to take Shape Soulmeld(Mantle of Flame) so that everyone that does hit you in non-reach melee takes an automatic 1d6 fire damage. That's only like, 75% of the level 2 guys you'll fight.
I don't know, why not? Why can't any characters besides full casters have Nice ThingsTM? A 20ft teleport is worse than walking unless there's an obstacle, in which case your average barbarian can jump over it or bust through it. Karmic Strike gets you an attack of opportunity against anyone who strikes you, which will probably net you more than 1d6 damage, and any 2nd level fighter can get it if they want.
All of these tricks are balanced against something another character of their level can do, whether melee character or caster. And they can do more than one of these tricks because one-trick ponies are boring and, at low levels, weaker. So your fighter can get two attacks at first level? Woohoo! So he can get an AoO on everyone who attacks him? Yay! So his AC is 1-2 points higher? Sweet! Now how about we let one character do all of those things, since he'll still not measure up to quite a few characters of his level (charging barbarian for damage and HP, scout for mobility and damage, casters for anything but HP, etc.) and might actually be more fun than a one-trick pony.
I don't mean to sound adversarial or condescending, but none of these is really all that impressive compared to what's in other, more familiar splatbooks. Heck, a wizard with the Fiery Blast reserve feat and mage armor beats his armor bonus and almost matches his damage output (from 30 feet away) and has more options besides. A Shock Trooper barbarian blows his damage out of the water and is still much more resilient. Magic of Incarnum doesn't add power, it adds options, and having more options is always a good thing.
My totemist came into the campaign around level 6 or 7, im not sure. My main cheese foundadtion was the Landshark boots, which let you make 4 natural claw attacks as a standard action whenever you jumped at least 5' up. With Leap of the Heavens this was guaraneed every round, even at very low levels, and none of the claw attacks were at a penalty because they were primary natural weapons. Basically, my setup was something like this:
- I dumped all my essentia into the landshark boots, and took the feat that let you add more essentia to one soulbind. If i recall, i think i had a +4 enhancement on them at level 6 or 7, so along with my 18 Str, thats +8 damage on each claw.
- I took scout for skirmish on all 4 attacks when i move more than 10', which i could do along with jumping 5' in the air every round thanks to maxed out Tumble+Jump ranks and Leap of the Heavens.
- I took a level of Warblade and the feat that lets you pick up a maneuver from another initiator class and treat it like a maneuver from your main class. I took Burning Blade so i could add another 1d6 + 1/2 initiator level damage to each claw attack every other round (i could recover the maneuver every other round like a Warblade maneuver).
So basically what happens is that i activate Burning Blade and move at least 10' while jumping 5' in the air automatically because of my +30 Jump mod without provoking because of my huge Tumble bonus. Since i jumped 5' i can make 4 attacks at my full base attack (they are primary natural weapons) with my full Str mod on each for a grand total of 3d6+10 x4 (1d6 claws + 1d6 skirmish + 1d6 fire + 4 Str + 4 enchancement + 2 fire). Keep in mind i also got that +4 ehancement bonus to the attack rolls, and thats only at level 6.
In fact, i think there was more damage but that is all i can remember off the top of my head. lol The DM was not happy, as i could easily move my entire movement and get 4 attacks at full base attack that were each more potent than anyone else's but i felt at home with the other PCs, since we had a Medium fighter with 20' reach as well as a lich rogue with no level adjustment. I think i may have been the only character that was following the RAW. lol
In fact, i think there was more damage but that is all i can remember off the top of my head. lol The DM was not happy, as i could easily move my entire movement and get 4 attacks at full base attack that were each more potent than anyone else's but i felt at home with the other PCs, since we had a Medium fighter with 20' reach as well as a lich rogue with no level adjustment. I think i may have been the only character that was following the RAW. lol
That reminds me of a group I once (and I mean once in every sense) played with.
A player showed up with a dracotaur character without any LA, so I asked the DM and he said "we ignore the LA rules". I quickly made a rakshasa sorceror for that game, destroyed everything in sight, and never showed up again ;)
EDIT: this makes "We Who Miss Magic of Incarnum" look very bad, BTW...
Ultimately, the DM got so frustrated by level 10 that he decided we all needed to make new characters. We were not allowed to use every splat book under the sun this time, but instead we were limited to only one splat of our choice on top of the "core" campaign books (the core 3, the spell compendium and the various numbered Monster Manuals).
I was kind of feeling like an ass because of how he off'ed my character, so i picked Lords of Madness as my book and made a druid that was far more broken than the totemist. I did give him fair warning when he was recklessly disposing of my beloved totemist though; "If you strike me down, i will become more powerful than you could possibly imagine." I think i followed through on that promise. ;)
So basically what happens is that i activate Burning Blade and move at least 10' while jumping 5' in the air automatically because of my +30 Jump mod without provoking because of my huge Tumble bonus. Since i jumped 5' i can make 4 attacks at my full base attack (they are primary natural weapons) with my full Str mod on each for a grand total of 3d6+10 x4 (1d6 claws + 1d6 skirmish + 1d6 fire + 4 Str + 4 enchancement + 2 fire). Keep in mind i also got that +4 ehancement bonus to the attack rolls, and thats only at level 6.
Half-orc Whirling Frenzy barbarian 6 with the Pounce ACF, Power Attack, Leap Attack, Shock Trooper, and a greatsword can charge, power attack for full and shunt it to AC, and get a x3 return on Power Attack for (2d6+27) x 2. If he also takes a level of warblade and goes into Punishing Stance that's (3d6+27) x 2. Make one of the barbarian levels a fighter level and pick up Headlong Rush, and that's (3d6+27) x 4 on a charge.
To reiterate: Half-orc Barbarian 4 (Pounce, Whirling Frenzy)/Fighter 1/Warblade 1. Power Attack, Leap Attack, Shock Trooper, Headlong Rush. 2d6 greatsword, 1d6 Punishing Stance, +15 Str (+6 half-orc, +4 rage, x1.5 2H weapon), +12 Power Attack (+6 PA, x2 Leap Attack); x2 for 2 attacks, x2 for Headlong Rush. That uses no Incarnum stuff, beats your minimum and maximum damage by 68, and uses (with the exception of ToB) books that have been around for a lot longer than MoI. Once again, MoI is no more broken than anything else--less so, in fact--and adds options, not power. Your totemist is weaker, but he can do more (not that mine is a one-trick pony; he's still a warblade), and that's a good thing; versatility is better than pure power.
The idea of MoI is awesome and unique, and I'll welcome more like it, if taken with a bit of time and presented for easy integration to games so it doesn't feel shoehorned into the system.
While I normally appreciate epeen wagging, please stop. There are lots of builds that are OMGWTFBBQ in damage output, raving about which is the best is a waste, they all have glaring weaknesses that no DM in their right mind wouldn't abuse. (oh you tanked your AC to -12? Ok, everybadguy on the field throws a javelin at you, you're dead. Or. OK, make a will save.)
I'm simply trying to dispel misconceptions about the system. This thread is about the good points of Incarnum, and why we should bring it back. Two posters so far have claimed that it was broken, that it didn't work, etc.--which would make other readers and devs unlikely to look kindly on Incarnum or aspects thereof in 4e.
I've pointed out that, just like the warlock, psionics, and Tome of Battle, they only seem broken but can be shown not to be with a bit of effort. You'll notice that at the end of each post:
Magic of Incarnum doesn't add power, it adds options, and having more options is always a good thing.
Your totemist is weaker, but he can do more (not that mine is a one-trick pony; he's still a warblade), and that's a good thing; versatility is better than pure power.
I'm not simply going "Your build sucks, nyah" I'm pointing out that Incarnum is as worthwhile a system as any other. Each person who realizes that it isn't broken like they thought is one more potential supporter for 4e Incarnum, and that's the purpose of this thread.
To respect your point, however, should anyone else post a "broken" build I will simply point them to my last two posts instead of proving them wrong again. ;)
I'm a little peeved that it would be just rolled in with Ki. It'll asian-flavor incarnum, and part of what made incarnum so appealing was that it was different from anything we'd seen before.
I'm a little peeved that it would be just rolled in with Ki. It'll asian-flavor incarnum, and part of what made incarnum so appealing was that it was different from anything we'd seen before.
Ki may not be Asian-themed. Honestly, I suspect, if anything, the Ninja would be shadow, the Shugeja and the Wu Jen would be Elemental and only the Samurai would be Ki, even then that's iffy. The only thing Asian-y about Ki thus far is that the Monk will be Ki.
i have no problem with the flavor of Incarnum being melded into Ki. With out Incarnum, Ki will be far too Asian-y for most DM's to really embrace. With Incarnum, Ki can become fairly generic and interesting.
To reiterate: Half-orc Barbarian 4 (Pounce, Whirling Frenzy)/Fighter 1/Warblade 1. Power Attack, Leap Attack, Shock Trooper, Headlong Rush. 2d6 greatsword, 1d6 Punishing Stance, +15 Str (+6 half-orc, +4 rage, x1.5 2H weapon), +12 Power Attack (+6 PA, x2 Leap Attack); x2 for 2 attacks, x2 for Headlong Rush. That uses no Incarnum stuff, beats your minimum and maximum damage by 68, and uses (with the exception of ToB) books that have been around for a lot longer than MoI. Once again, MoI is no more broken than anything else--less so, in fact--and adds options, not power. Your totemist is weaker, but he can do more (not that mine is a one-trick pony; he's still a warblade), and that's a good thing; versatility is better than pure power.
Well yeah, PowerAttack/LeapAttack/ShockTrooper was a pretty standard charger build that only got worst when the Complete Champ gave barbarians pounce. We had a few builds like this in our group over the course of 3E.
You totally missed my point though. I wasnt trying to present the most damaging build ive come up with. I wasnt even trying to prove that incarnum is actually broken (it was pretty well balanced compared to most of the 3.5 wackiness). All i was doing was giving of an example of how i inadvertently convinced my own DM that it was broken! lol
I mean, we all could post our verious super charger builds or crazy Stormguard Warrior thri-kreens, but i figured id actually share the closest thing i got to broken by actually using incarnum. ;)
You totally missed my point though. I wasnt trying to present the most damaging build ive come up with. I wasnt even trying to prove that incarnum is actually broken (it was pretty well balanced compared to most of the 3.5 wackiness). All i was doing was giving of an example of how i inadvertently convinced my own DM that it was broken! lol
If you weren't trying to show us why Incarnum was broken, but were only trying to say why it might seem so, then I apologize for flipping out at you. I was trying to counter claims of "Broken!" by showing that, yeah, your basic run-of-the-mill charger was more so. We seem to be on the same page; no hard feelings.
Ki may not be Asian-themed. Honestly, I suspect, if anything, the Ninja would be shadow, the Shugeja and the Wu Jen would be Elemental and only the Samurai would be Ki, even then that's iffy. The only thing Asian-y about Ki thus far is that the Monk will be Ki.
i have no problem with the flavor of Incarnum being melded into Ki. With out Incarnum, Ki will be far too Asian-y for most DM's to really embrace. With Incarnum, Ki can become fairly generic and interesting.
You're presenting a best-case scenario, which is not often what we get. Let's face it, WotC would like to cash in on the anime dollars; I think it's a lot more likely for incarnum to get asiany than it is for ki to get more incarnum, though there would probably be a mix favoring oen or the other. Personally, I'm learning to hate "power sources," they just confuse and pigeon hole classes unnecessarily.
If you weren't trying to show us why Incarnum was broken, but were only trying to say why it might seem so, then I apologize for flipping out at you. I was trying to counter claims of "Broken!" by showing that, yeah, your basic run-of-the-mill charger was more so. We seem to be on the same page; no hard feelings.
I was pretty peeved when the DM of that game banned Incarnum based on that one build simply because we actually did have a LeapAttack/ShockTrooper Frenzied Berserker in that same group, so i thought the particular build you posted was kind of ironic. lol
I made a fairly simple druid to replace my character that was easily the worst offender at the table, in an attempt to show the DM that a lot of the core stuff was more broken that my jumpy totemist. Part of the excercise also demonstrated that maximizing damage output wasnt always the most reliable measure of "broken" in 3E anyway. ;)
So yeah, i dont feel incarnum was really up to the crazy power level of much of the stuff last edition but you could make some pretty decent low-level damage-dealers if you combined it with other classes. For the most part, it seemed like a lot of the options in the book were on the underpowered side.
Lets say that instead of picking specific at-wills, encounters, and dailies, you instead had an at-will, an encounter, and a daily for each soulmeld, and you could change after each extended rest. the encounter and dailies could scale with level. or it could be just encounters and dailies for the soulmeld. You would get more soulmelds at higher levels, or perhaps by tier.
Haven't really thought it out fully, just a preliminary idea. It would at least play with the mechanics of fourth edition, something we haven't seen a whole lot of yet.
I think for the totemist one the of main gimicks of the class would be that it does not use weapons, instead relying on natural weapons generated by souldmelds. Perhaps each build could corespond to a different form of natural attack, possibly giving us bite, claw and tail builds. There would need to be either a built-in class feature or special magic item that would allow them to scale up their to hit bonus to equal the magic weapon using characters.
Also, would incarnum classes use implements? I could see the incarnate being a controller but im at a loss at to what implements it would use, considering that it wouldnt be getting a weapon proficiency bonus to hit.
You really have to consider how the class works with multiclass feats and having sets of powers that come in a package could be problemeatic. I can imagine the incarnum classes having a feature like the wizard though, allowing them to pick multiple powers per level and decide which soulmelds they want to shape after each extended rest.
I think for the totemist one the of main gimicks of the class would be that it does not use weapons, instead relying on natural weapons generated by souldmelds. Perhaps each build could corespond to a different form of natural attack, possibly giving us bite, claw and tail builds. There would need to be either a built-in class feature or special magic item that would allow them to scale up their to hit bonus to equal the magic weapon using characters.
Also, would incarnum classes use implements? I could see the incarnate being a controller but im at a loss at to what implements it would use, considering that it wouldnt be getting a weapon proficiency bonus to hit.
Personally I am thinking that we are only going to get one class that gets "true" soulmelds, as I am in the Incarnum being absorbed by Ki camp. Anyways, I see Soulmelds working as follows:
At-Wills- Semi-permenant soul melds that the incanrum user has on basically whenever they are awake
Encounter- Soulmelds that are inert on the incarnum user's body until they are triggered for a quick attack
Dailies- The most powerful soulmelds that can be made. The incarnum user can only maintain their shape for a short time. The incarnum user gets one powerful attack when creating them, and then can use a more powerful at-will attack based on the soulmeld used.
And incarnum classes would have to use implements of some kind. I honestly am also at a loss as to what they would be, best I can come up with are crystals but those will likely belong to psionic classes. Anyways, the lack of a proficiency bonus can be handled by just having them target reflex rather than AC like Druids do in wildshape.
- At-wills are the incarnum radiance/incarnum defense features of the incarnate and soulborn, but reversed--penalties to enemies' attack/AC/whatever instead of bonuses to allies'. (This is the one I'm least sure of, but I can't think of any other good at-will options. Maybe setting aside some of the simpler melds to be at-wills?)
- Each soulmeld is an encounter power. Effectively, you shape them at the beginning of the day, but you can only use them once per encounter before you'd start to draw too heavily on the meld.
- Each daily is a chakra bind. Since the number of daily powers you have and the number of chakra binds are almost the same, at a given level all of the dailies are the same chakra. So you might have, for your 1st level daily, a choice between "Crown Bind: True Sight" that would add the Force keyword to your soulmelds (a la the Crystal Helm or Diadem of Truelight) or "Crown Bind: True Thoughts" which would grant you resistance to psychic damage for 1 round whenever you used your soulmelds (a la the Enigma Helm). Basically, dailies are meta-melds.
- To represent investing essentia, every soulmeld that has a numerical effect has an essentia term, represented by [E] (so where Martial powers deal [W] + ability damage, Incarnum powers deal Xd6 + [E] damage). Normally, [E] is 0; however, at each short rest, and whenever a power/effect would let you use a healing surge, you can sacrifice a surge to make [E] equal your level/6 for one soulmeld (i.e., almost the same bonus a weapon or implement would have at that level). After each short rest, you get back any healing surges you invested in this way. For instance, let's say Incarnum Weapon deals 1d6 + Con + [E] + implement damage. Normally [E] is 0, so a 12th level incarnate with 18 Con would deal 1d6 + 4. If he thinks a battle will be tough, he can sacrifice a surge to make that 1d6 + 4 +2, plus implement bonuses. In the next encounter, he thinks there will be lots of minions, so he un-invests his Incarnum Weapon and invests something else.
- If you multiclass, the at-wills and encounters are unchanged, but the dailies add their effects to any powers you have from your other class (to make getting a daily worth it).
Now, the official version probably won't be anything like this, but how does this look for at least a rough idea?
I really don't see how WotC would have a problem converting incarnum to 4e mechanics. It's pretty well set up.
–RE: Dailies. I like the idea of dailes being chakra binds. How about we give them a unique function for the incarnum classes by giving them a static bonus as well as an attack power than unbinds/binds them. One of 2 ways we could work this would be to have the static bonus in effect and the bind in place at the begining of the day. The Landshark Boots would be in place in the morning and give you a flat bonus to jump checks all day, until you use the bind's attack power to do 4 attacks in one round and unshap the bind. The second way could be to have the bind shape when you use the daily attack power, and then have it provide a static bonus for the rest of the day after ward. In this case the Landshark Boots would only form when you use the daily attack power, after which it would come into being, granting the bonus to jump for th rest of the day. Im kinda partial to the second idea since it adds another level of strategy to when you use dailies.
–RE: Essentia. How about all incarnum dailies and encounter powers have [E] somewhere in the mechanics. At the begining of the day you choose to allocate your essentia into the various encounter and dailies that you have. It would provide a level of long term strategy over the course of the day. Do you put essentia into your encounter powers or dump them into your bid dailies for a larger effect (maybe dailies have 2[E] notations)?
–RE: Essentia. How about all incarnum dailies and encounter powers have [E] somewhere in the mechanics. At the begining of the day you choose to allocate your essentia into the various encounter and dailies that you have. It would provide a level of long term strategy over the course of the day. Do you put essentia into your encounter powers or dump them into your bid dailies for a larger effect (maybe dailies have 2[E] notations)?
1) Well, that doesn't quite make sense with the 3e rules, since you don't invest essentia into your chakras, but I agree that all of the encounter powers would have the [E] term (as I suggested).
2) I think doing it on a short-rest rather than extended-rest basis would be good; one of the mechanical draws of Incarnum was the ability ti change the investment on a round-by-round basis, and while I think that would be a bit too micromanage-y for 4e, doing it by short rest would be a good compromise.
1) Well, that doesn't quite make sense with the 3e rules, since you don't invest essentia into your chakras, but I agree that all of the encounter powers would have the [E] term (as I suggested).
2) I think doing it on a short-rest rather than extended-rest basis would be good; one of the mechanical draws of Incarnum was the ability ti change the investment on a round-by-round basis, and while I think that would be a bit too micromanage-y for 4e, doing it by short rest would be a good compromise.
Well yeah, you didnt invest essentia into chakras, but you could invest it in chakra binds. What i am proposing is that dailies are chakra binds in which you can place your essentia.
Now that im thinking about it, i can imagine the system being pretty variable depending on what role each class it. The totemist, for example, would have a number of essentia based on his level plus an additional amount based on his CON modifier. Since he would be a striker, he would be able to invest his essentia into encounters and dailies to directly boost their damage, effectively giving him a means of extra damage like the warlock, rogue or ranger. On the other hand, the incarnate could be a controller and would be able to invest his essentia into powers in order to effect other variables. For instance, an area attack might push targets a number of squares equal to the essentia invested or give a penalty to attack rolls equal to [E].
Switching essentia around could be done after each short rest. The idea that you may be using your daily soon and want to tie up more essentia in it would add a level of longer term strategy over the course of the day.
You might get chakras though. I think chakras are plausible.
I don't think any of this is plausible for an actual WOTC release. The complexity of trading around essentia isn't going to be added into the system. No other class has a resource that breaks the regular resource system, and this is a particularly extreme break.
You might get chakras though. I think chakras are plausible.
Yeah I second this. I didn't want to say anything, but that essentia idea seems unneccesarily complicated, adds needless complication, and could make incarnum characters extremely "swingy".
Yeah I second this. I didn't want to say anything, but that essentia idea seems unneccesarily complicated, adds needless complication, and could make incarnum characters extremely "swingy".
Unnecessarily complicated? No more so than choosing a mark or determining the right power for the situation.
"Okay guys, take a short rest."
"Finally. That was a tough battle, wasn't it?"
"Yeah. We really had a hard time hitting him."
"Yeah. Tell you what, I'm gonna power up my attack bonus for the next fight. Hey DM, I'll sac a healing surge for +3 to attack with my Incarnum Weapon. Aaaand...sac another one for +3 to damage on my Lightning Gauntlets."
"Okay."
*player erases 2 healing surges, adds '+3' to two spots on their character sheet*
"Done! Everyone healed? Okay, let's go."
See? That wasn't so bad. ;)
Besides, some of us like resource management. If you don't want to deal with a "swingy" character, you don't have to; just play another class instead. One of the major draws of Incarnum was the resource management aspect, and the swingy aspect that turns you off is exactly what some people loved about it. I'm not laboring under the delusion that WotC would ever do anything like what I'm suggesting. That falls too far out of their comfort zone; if they can't figure out a way to balance Wild Shape without making it purely fluff, then nothing that involves sacrificing and regaining surges is going to fly either. I'm just hoping that someone will get some ideas from this, or possibly be inspired to homebrew something for their own games in the interim.
Unnecessarily complicated? No more so than choosing a mark or determining the right power for the situation.
"Okay guys, take a short rest."
"Finally. That was a tough battle, wasn't it?"
"Yeah. We really had a hard time hitting him."
"Yeah. Tell you what, I'm gonna power up my attack bonus for the next fight. Hey DM, I'll sac a healing surge for +3 to attack with my Incarnum Weapon. Aaaand...sac another one for +3 to damage on my Lightning Gauntlets."
"Okay."
*player erases 2 healing surges, adds '+3' to two spots on their character sheet*
"Done! Everyone healed? Okay, let's go."
See? That wasn't so bad. ;)
Besides, some of us like resource management. If you don't want to deal with a "swingy" character, you don't have to; just play another class instead. One of the major draws of Incarnum was the resource management aspect, and the swingy aspect that turns you off is exactly what some people loved about it. I'm not laboring under the delusion that WotC would ever do anything like what I'm suggesting. That falls too far out of their comfort zone; if they can't figure out a way to balance Wild Shape without making it purely fluff, then nothing that involves sacrificing and regaining surges is going to fly either. I'm just hoping that someone will get some ideas from this, or possibly be inspired to homebrew something for their own games in the interim.
Eh, if all you're doing is trying to throw together something for a homebrew, make it as complex, swingy, imbalanced, and broken as you want. Let people burn multiple healing surges for combat bonuses! Its a terrible, terrible, horrible idea for a genuine WOTC release, but homebrew doesn't have to be good on paper, it just has to play well in the specific context of the homebrewer and his friends.
If you want to create an actual Incarnum mechanic that matches the format of 4e and has a chance of influencing WOTC's designs, you'll need to follow a simple adage- as far as the base rules and patterns of 4e are concerned, minimal adjustment is best.
Thats why I think that Chakras are doable- all you'd need is to add keywords to powers, and restrict players to one power per chakra. But Essentia is an entirely new resource system. They didn't even give that to the spellcasters.
Eh, if all you're doing is trying to throw together something for a homebrew, make it as complex, swingy, imbalanced, and broken as you want. Let people burn multiple healing surges for combat bonuses! Its a terrible, terrible, horrible idea for a genuine WOTC release, but homebrew doesn't have to be good on paper, it just has to play well in the specific context of the homebrewer and his friends.
Terrible, terrible, horrible idea? Any particular reason for that? There are plenty of "Spend a healing surge to do X" abilities out there already; adding one more couldn't possibly hurt. And I object to the idea that something being complex or swingy is inherently bad; complexity can be good or bad depending on what exactly is complex, and given 4e's standard of a ~50% hit chance for a baseline character, it is designed with swingyness at the heart of combat.
If you want to create an actual Incarnum mechanic that matches the format of 4e and has a chance of influencing WOTC's designs, you'll need to follow a simple adage- as far as the base rules and patterns of 4e are concerned, minimal adjustment is best.
Well, the signature phrase of 4e is "exceptions-based design," after all. Spending "healing" surges for a non-healing-related benefit is already in there; gaining benefits until your next short rest is already in there; it's not really all that different.
Besides, WotC hasn't just been making minimal adjustments. As soon as PHB1 came out, people who asked where summoning and companions were were told "Oh, summoning and animal companions don't fit with the 4e design philosophy because they're inherently broken and don't obey the economy of actions." Surprise! Beastmaster ranger and invoker.
Thats why I think that Chakras are doable- all you'd need is to add keywords to powers, and restrict players to one power per chakra. But Essentia is an entirely new resource system. They didn't even give that to the spellcasters.
That's the thing, though--it's not an entirely new resource system. The only thing new about "Spend a healing surge to gain a benefit" is the part where you get it back to do it again. That's in there to provide the feel of the 3e Incarnum system, but it could just as easily be done after an extended rest when shaping melds, and then you wouldn't have to deal with the oh-so-complex surge management that you believe can't possibly work.
Tangential question: Did you ever use Incarnum in 3e (or at least read through the system)? I can't really tell whether you'd like to adapt it to 4e and you don't think my idea will work, or that you don't think any sort of new resource management system is a good idea.
Terrible, terrible, horrible idea? Any particular reason for that? There are plenty of "Spend a healing surge to do X" abilities out there already; adding one more couldn't possibly hurt. And I object to the idea that something being complex or swingy is inherently bad; complexity can be good or bad depending on what exactly is complex, and given 4e's standard of a ~50% hit chance for a baseline character, it is designed with swingyness at the heart of combat.
Spending healing surges for combat bonuses is a bad idea because it brings back the 15 minute adventuring day. The whole point of healing surges is that you can't spend them very fast, functionally giving you one amount of hit points available per fight, and a larger amount per day across many fights.
As for there being "a lot" of "spend a healing surge to do X" abilities, you're wrong. There aren't. Unless you're counting abilities that are functionally just ways to avert or heal damage, because that doesn't count. And that's a broad category- even the Sacrificial Weapon, which lets you spend a healing surge when you hit to cause your opponent to be Weakened, is functionally a way to protect yourself from damage.
Tangential question: Did you ever use Incarnum in 3e (or at least read through the system)? I can't really tell whether you'd like to adapt it to 4e and you don't think my idea will work, or that you don't think any sort of new resource management system is a good idea.
Read it, played alongside people using it. DMed with a player using it. Never ran a character myself, because I'm almost always the DM.
In general, I don't think any sort of new resoruce management system is a good idea. I could be convinced otherwise.
But fundamentally I think that your approach is a wrongheaded one. You seem determined to preserve the mechanics of Incarnum. I think its more important to preserve the flavor of Incarnum, and to make mechanical concessions only where it genuinely serves flavor (like a wizard's ability to choose daily powers) or where it produces tactically worthwhile outcomes (the Barbarian's rage system), and to do so with as minimal an amount of rules as possible (see both of those systems for reference).
If your goal is a homebrew, make your fantasy heartbreaker. Its your game, go nuts.
If your goal is to come up with ideas that are WOTC style and plausible for WOTC release, then start by making a list of what sorts of things you want your Incarnum classes to do, and what sorts of attributes they should have. What are the key features that make Incarnum "Incarnum" to you? Once you know, figure out whether you can implement those features using existing mechanics. For those features you can't implement using existing mechanics, consider whether you can implement them with a class feature that takes no more rules text than existing class features, and with a total number of class features and lines of class feature text no longer than those possessed by existing classes. If you can't do even that for a particular feature, consider deleting it.
I hope it influences 4e in some way. It was just too good to throw away.
Spending healing surges for combat bonuses is a bad idea because it brings back the 15 minute adventuring day. The whole point of healing surges is that you can't spend them very fast, functionally giving you one amount of hit points available per fight, and a larger amount per day across many fights.
Hence why I added a clause for getting them back; I don't want a 15-minute day any more than you do. Don't think of it as spending surges, think of it as putting them in the bank, getting interest, and getting them back later. Ignoring the present financial situation, of course. ;)
As for there being "a lot" of "spend a healing surge to do X" abilities, you're wrong. There aren't. Unless you're counting abilities that are functionally just ways to avert or heal damage, because that doesn't count. And that's a broad category- even the Sacrificial Weapon, which lets you spend a healing surge when you hit to cause your opponent to be Weakened, is functionally a way to protect yourself from damage.
Maybe I just haven't been paying as close attention as I should have, but I got the impression from all the Martial Power and PHB2 talk on the boards that there are lots of powers/abilities that say "Spend a healing surge, but instead of healing, do X."
Read it, played alongside people using it. DMed with a player using it. Never ran a character myself, because I'm almost always the DM.
In general, I don't think any sort of new resoruce management system is a good idea. I could be convinced otherwise.
I think this is where we fundamentally differ. When I play an incarnum character, it's not just for the flavor, but for what I can do. If I'm an incarnate, I can choose a few "spells" at the beginning of the day and adjust them to fit the situation--move my resources to attack or defense in combat, or utility/mobility out of it--and keep using them as much as I want, all day. Vancian casters can't do that.
In all of the discussions about 4e psionics the major question is, why? The main draw of psionics in prior editions was that it felt different from magic. In 1e and 2e, you had a few inherent talents that you could use to varying degrees before exhausting yourself, and in 3e you had powers you could augment and change from the same pool of power, rather than using Vancian casting. If you use the same mechanics, and can't really get into the charm and dominate/time manipulation of prior editions, why have psionics at all? Without a mechanical difference there somewhere, there is no difference between an Enchantment specialist and a psion...and if there's no difference, why not just make more Arcane classes?
So it is with Incarnum. If you don't make the power sources mechanically different, you might as well use Arcane and Divine for everything. Now we've seen that the Primal source will be different in many respects--the barbarian's Rages can function either as stances or as damage-boosters when raging, and the druid can have several extra powers for wild shaping. Why is it too far-fetched to expect Incarnum classes to not have their own unique schtick?
On a slightly related note, I'm also almost always the DM. That's another one of the reasons I like different resource management systems--building NPC after NPC after NPC after NPC after NPC that is either "I get feats and hit stuff" or "I have a big spell list" gets monotonous after a while. Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic, and Magic of Incarnum break up that mechanical monotony.
But fundamentally I think that your approach is a wrongheaded one. You seem determined to preserve the mechanics of Incarnum. I think its more important to preserve the flavor of Incarnum, and to make mechanical concessions only where it genuinely serves flavor (like a wizard's ability to choose daily powers) or where it produces tactically worthwhile outcomes (the Barbarian's rage system), and to do so with as minimal an amount of rules as possible (see both of those systems for reference).
But that is part of the flavor. Shifting around essentia every round was a mechanic benefit, yes, but it was a flavor point as well. A wizard studies his spells to cast them and, once they are prepared, they're ready; a psion can spend as much or as little personal power on his talents that he wants, but once they're spent, they're spent; an incarnate shifts the flow of soul energy throughout his body, constantly balancing and rebalancing his personal power to achieve the effects he wants. Wizards and incarnates are as different as ancient Greek alchemists and eastern yogis--and that stems from their mechanics as much as from the fluff surrounding them.
If your goal is a homebrew, make your fantasy heartbreaker. Its your game, go nuts.
If your goal is to come up with ideas that are WOTC style and plausible for WOTC release, then start by making a list of what sorts of things you want your Incarnum classes to do, and what sorts of attributes they should have. What are the key features that make Incarnum "Incarnum" to you? Once you know, figure out whether you can implement those features using existing mechanics. For those features you can't implement using existing mechanics, consider whether you can implement them with a class feature that takes no more rules text than existing class features, and with a total number of class features and lines of class feature text no longer than those possessed by existing classes. If you can't do even that for a particular feature, consider deleting it.
If it's the only way to convince you that something different isn't badwrongfun...here goes, then:
--What I want incarnum to do: I want incarnum to have the same flavor as in 3e of controlling their personal soul energy to shift its focus among different soulmelds to fit the situation. I want incarnum powers ("soulmelds") to have different effects based on the chakras/body slots they occupy.
--Class feature: Invest Essentia
[indent]"Each soulmeld has an essentia factor, expressed as '[E]', somewhere in its description, whether it affects the power's attack roll, damage, range, or some other aspect. Usually, [E] is simply 0; however, an incarnate can invest his personal energy to empower his melds. During a short rest, or when affected by an ability that would let him spend a healing surge, he may spend a healing surge and choose one power to set its [E] to be his level divided by 5, minimum 1. The next time he takes a short rest, these healing surges are restored to him, though not any he may have used for other purposes."[/indent]
Contrast with Combat Challenge:
[indent]In combat, it’s dangerous to ignore a fighter. Every time you attack an enemy, whether the attack hits or misses, you can choose to mark that target. The mark lasts until the end of your next turn. While a target is marked, it takes a –2 penalty to attack rolls for any attack that doesn’t include you as a target. A creature can be subject to only one mark at a time. A new mark supersedes a mark that was already in place. In addition, whenever a marked enemy that is adjacent to you shifts or makes an attack that does not include you, you can make a melee basic attack against that enemy as an immediate interrupt.
[/indent]
That wasn't so bad, was it?
Please Wotc. Don't do this to us. Let Incarnum exist through Ki. And listen to the expert homebrewers.
Maybe I just haven't been paying as close attention as I should have, but I got the impression from all the Martial Power and PHB2 talk on the boards that there are lots of powers/abilities that say "Spend a healing surge, but instead of healing, do X."
There aren't. There are particularly few if we disallow item powers that let you spend a healing surge to obtain quasi healing, since that's still fundamentally the same mechanism for spacing action across multiple encounters in a single day.
I think this is where we fundamentally differ. When I play an incarnum character, it's not just for the flavor, but for what I can do. If I'm an incarnate, I can choose a few "spells" at the beginning of the day and adjust them to fit the situation--move my resources to attack or defense in combat, or utility/mobility out of it--and keep using them as much as I want, all day. Vancian casters can't do that.
Right, but rebelling against Vancian casting is no longer a legitimate reason for a class to exist, as you acknowledge later in your post. So the question is, why should Incarnum exist in 4e? To rebel against something else?
In all of the discussions about 4e psionics the major question is, why? The main draw of psionics in prior editions was that it felt different from magic. In 1e and 2e, you had a few inherent talents that you could use to varying degrees before exhausting yourself, and in 3e you had powers you could augment and change from the same pool of power, rather than using Vancian casting. If you use the same mechanics, and can't really get into the charm and dominate/time manipulation of prior editions, why have psionics at all? Without a mechanical difference there somewhere, there is no difference between an Enchantment specialist and a psion...and if there's no difference, why not just make more Arcane classes?
Why have psionics at all? Because flavor matters.
I definitely agree with one of your main points in the quoted paragraph. One of the main draws to psionics in 3e was that it wasn't Vancian casting, and that it was a spell point system. I think we can all agree that its not going to be a spell point system in 4e. Instead, its going to have to be a system that takes those parts of psionics that are thematically different from arcane magic, and emphasizes them while also creating thematically coherent classes. I'm sure psionics will lose some fans in the process! As I've told Ausolium, when you do this to something from 3e like psionics (or incarnum) you may lose the people who loved it for its mechanics. And its natural that you will, because changing the mechanics is exactly what you're doing as you switch editions. The question is whether there's something left behind that's worth keeping- some flavor, some reason for existing, that remains present after the change. I think psionics will surprise you- I'd expect to see some emphasis on psionic focus, and more importantly, collections of thematically linked powers that give the class a unique flavor.
On a certain level, you could argue that this is all semantics, and we could just make new arcane classes to replace the psionic ones. But that won't happen, for the same reason that Incarnum and Psionics weren't just declared to be a new and different form of arcane magic in 3e. Because flavor counts.
So it is with Incarnum. If you don't make the power sources mechanically different, you might as well use Arcane and Divine for everything. Now we've seen that the Primal source will be different in many respects--the barbarian's Rages can function either as stances or as damage-boosters when raging, and the druid can have several extra powers for wild shaping. Why is it too far-fetched to expect Incarnum classes to not have their own unique schtick?
I don't think its too far-fetched to expect Incarnum classes to have their own shtick. I think its too far-fetched to expect Incarnum classes to have any shtick that takes more rules text to explain than is required for the Barbarian's Rage or the Druid's Wild Shape. And I think its too far-fetched to expect Incarnum classes to have any shtick that breaks the overall architecture of the game more than those abilities.
Also, a quibble- there isn't one "primal" shtick. There's a primal theme, expressed in several shticks that appear to be divied out, one amongst each Primal class. There's a thematic similarity between Rage and Wild Shape- each lets you transform yourself in a particular way. But there is little or no mechanical similarity.
But that is part of the flavor. Shifting around essentia every round was a mechanic benefit, yes, but it was a flavor point as well. A wizard studies his spells to cast them and, once they are prepared, they're ready; a psion can spend as much or as little personal power on his talents that he wants, but once they're spent, they're spent; an incarnate shifts the flow of soul energy throughout his body, constantly balancing and rebalancing his personal power to achieve the effects he wants. Wizards and incarnates are as different as ancient Greek alchemists and eastern yogis--and that stems from their mechanics as much as from the fluff surrounding them.
Then go for it! I just don't think you can expect to get an Essentia system from WOTC that doesn't follow my two rules: 1. The existing game architecture and resource structures create an overall system, and WOTC isn't going to break that system any more than existing classes already do under exceptions based design, and 2. Class abilities should be definable in small amounts of rules text, possibly in conjunction with mino augmentations to certain powers.
If it's the only way to convince you that something different isn't badwrongfun...here goes, then:
Its not a question of badwrongfun, its a question of adhering to 4e design principles. Which, as I believe I've clearly stated above, you don't have to do in a homebrew if you don't want.
--What I want incarnum to do: I want incarnum to have the same flavor as in 3e of controlling their personal soul energy to shift its focus among different soulmelds to fit the situation. I want incarnum powers ("soulmelds") to have different effects based on the chakras/body slots they occupy.
That's several things, ironically none of which are the things I like about Incarnum.
Let me break your statement down the way I do when I'm writing.1. Flavor- Soul energy empowers your abilities.
2. Flavor- Soul energy can shift to make abilities more or less powerful.
3. Mechanics- This shift can be performed on short notice.
4. Mechanics- Powers manifest as occupying chakras or body slots or both.
5. Therefore- Need mechanism for soul energy.
6. Therefore- Need mechanism for changing soul energy allocation.
7. Therefore- Need mechanism to stop chakras and body slots from overlapping.
8. Therefore- Need mechanism to balance loss of magic items due to chakras in their slots.
9. Issue- You receive more powers in your career than you have Chakras in 3e (counting paragon path and epic destiny, 2 or 3 at will, 4 encounter, 4 daily, 8 utility, equals around 18).
10 . Can any of the above be done through powers rather than through class abilities?
11. The flavor question has been ignored- what makes Incarnum anything other than "different magic?" What is an Incarnum user better at in comparison to other power sources? At what is she worse?
12. Does eliminating any of the above traits drastically simplify this task?
That's how my reasoning would go if I were you. Personally, my list of "what makes Incarnum Incarnum" is different, so my analysis would be different as well. And don't bridle at 12. You HAVE to have that in professional writing.
--Class feature: Invest Essentia
[indent]"Each soulmeld has an essentia factor, expressed as '[E]', somewhere in its description, whether it affects the power's attack roll, damage, range, or some other aspect. Usually, [E] is simply 0; however, an incarnate can invest his personal energy to empower his melds. During a short rest, or when affected by an ability that would let him spend a healing surge, he may spend a healing surge and choose one power to set its [E] to be his level divided by 5, minimum 1. The next time he takes a short rest, these healing surges are restored to him, though not any he may have used for other purposes."[/indent]
I think this is unnecessarily complex. If you want the Incarnum user to be able to power up one power per encounter, just let him do it.
Contrast with Combat Challenge:
[indent]In combat, it’s dangerous to ignore a fighter. Every time you attack an enemy, whether the attack hits or misses, you can choose to mark that target. The mark lasts until the end of your next turn. While a target is marked, it takes a –2 penalty to attack rolls for any attack that doesn’t include you as a target. A creature can be subject to only one mark at a time. A new mark supersedes a mark that was already in place. In addition, whenever a marked enemy that is adjacent to you shifts or makes an attack that does not include you, you can make a melee basic attack against that enemy as an immediate interrupt.
[/indent]
That wasn't so bad, was it?
Actually, your system functionally subtracts a number of healing surges from the Incarnum user, and requires new, additional text to be added to every power the Incarnum user has. Unlike this ability, which is a simple, bite sized piece of text.
And you really shouldn't breach that blood/brain barrier between healing surges and offense except in the most dire of emergencies.
There aren't. There are particularly few if we disallow item powers that let you spend a healing surge to obtain quasi healing, since that's still fundamentally the same mechanism for spacing action across multiple encounters in a single day.
Then I seem to have been mislead. Point retracted.
Right, but rebelling against Vancian casting is no longer a legitimate reason for a class to exist, as you acknowledge later in your post. So the question is, why should Incarnum exist in 4e? To rebel against something else?
I'm not expecting it to rebel against anything, but rather to have something that sets it apart from Arcane and Divine. Arcane has its affinity with connections--wizards with their implements, warlocks with their pacts; Divine has its affinity with Channel Divinity; Incarnum could have an affinity with healing surges.
Why have psionics at all? Because flavor matters.
However, without some sort of mechanical differentiation, there's no difference between an Enchanter and a psion if psionics focuses on mind-affecting effects, or a Conjurer and a psion if it focuses on teleportation, etc. Flavor-wise, this isn't a problem, but mechanically...why would you go to the trouble of adding a whole new power source when you could just use Arcane? You wouldn't; you'd make something up mechanically so you can say "See? That is what sets psionics apart"--and that's my point with incarnum.
I definitely agree with one of your main points in the quoted paragraph. One of the main draws to psionics in 3e was that it wasn't Vancian casting, and that it was a spell point system. I think we can all agree that its not going to be a spell point system in 4e. Instead, its going to have to be a system that takes those parts of psionics that are thematically different from arcane magic, and emphasizes them while also creating thematically coherent classes. I'm sure psionics will lose some fans in the process! As I've told Ausolium, when you do this to something from 3e like psionics (or incarnum) you may lose the people who loved it for its mechanics. And its natural that you will, because changing the mechanics is exactly what you're doing as you switch editions. The question is whether there's something left behind that's worth keeping- some flavor, some reason for existing, that remains present after the change. I think psionics will surprise you- I'd expect to see some emphasis on psionic focus, and more importantly, collections of thematically linked powers that give the class a unique flavor.
Again, thematic difference isn't really enough to distinguish classes when the power scheme is so uniform. Psionic focus is a mechanical difference I'd love to see, but it's still a mechanical difference that sets it apart from Arcane magic.
I don't think its too far-fetched to expect Incarnum classes to have their own shtick. I think its too far-fetched to expect Incarnum classes to have any shtick that takes more rules text to explain than is required for the Barbarian's Rage or the Druid's Wild Shape. And I think its too far-fetched to expect Incarnum classes to have any shtick that breaks the overall architecture of the game more than those abilities.
Spend a healing surge to add +X to some aspect of a power (incarnate) vs. spend a daily power to add +X to some aspect of a power (barbarian)...?
Also, a quibble- there isn't one "primal" shtick. There's a primal theme, expressed in several shticks that appear to be divied out, one amongst each Primal class. There's a thematic similarity between Rage and Wild Shape- each lets you transform yourself in a particular way. But there is little or no mechanical similarity.
I'm calling it a schtick for shorthand; the barbarian's and druid's schticks are subsets of the Primal schtick. Theme, whatever; you know what I mean.
Then go for it! I just don't think you can expect to get an Essentia system from WOTC that doesn't follow my two rules: 1. The existing game architecture and resource structures create an overall system, and WOTC isn't going to break that system any more than existing classes already do under exceptions based design, and 2. Class abilities should be definable in small amounts of rules text, possibly in conjunction with mino augmentations to certain powers.
But that's exactly my point--my proposal does fit within the existing architecture, and it doesn't require any more text than existing powers (example coming up).
That's several things, ironically none of which are the things I like about Incarnum.
I was going for lowest common denominator, but apparently I was off the mark a bit. ;) Let me see if I can answer each of these issues:
Let me break your statement down the way I do when I'm writing.
1. Flavor- Soul energy empowers your abilities.
Soul energy = healing surges. Check.
2. Flavor- Soul energy can shift to make abilities more or less powerful.
Spend healing surges for +X to something. Check.
3. Mechanics- This shift can be performed on short notice.
Done at short rest or when affected by a "spend a healing surge" power. Check.
4. Mechanics- Powers manifest as occupying chakras or body slots or both.
Daily powers are chakra binds. Check.
5. Therefore- Need mechanism for soul energy.
See 1.
6. Therefore- Need mechanism for changing soul energy allocation.
See 2.
7. Therefore- Need mechanism to stop chakras and body slots from overlapping.
See 4.
8. Therefore- Need mechanism to balance loss of magic items due to chakras in their slots.
Unnecessary; material components for Arcane are gone, thus so is soulmelds taking up body slots. If Wizards get a free Eschew Materials, incarnates get free Double Chakra.
9. Issue- You receive more powers in your career than you have Chakras in 3e (counting paragon path and epic destiny, 2 or 3 at will, 4 encounter, 4 daily, 8 utility, equals around 18).
Chakras are split up into separate daily powers to account for varied bind affects. Check.
10 . Can any of the above be done through powers rather than through class abilities?
Chakra binds as daily powers, [E] in others. Check.
11. The flavor question has been ignored- what makes Incarnum anything other than "different magic?" What is an Incarnum user better at in comparison to other power sources? At what is she worse?
Depends on the class. Incarnum classes probably will have more "until end of encounter" powers, but specialties can't really be determined until you get to the individual class powers. Based on the soulmeld descriptions and class abilities, I'd say Incarnum will tend towards close bursts and auras, with an emphasis on buffing/debuffing over damage (kind of giving them a minor in Leader/Controller). The totemist would have more disparate, monster-themed powers; the incarnate might have a few weapon powers, a few energy powers, a few others, to let it dabble in various abilities.
12. Does eliminating any of the above traits drastically simplify this task?
Looks like eliminating anything isn't necessary, at least so far.
I think this is unnecessarily complex. If you want the Incarnum user to be able to power up one power per encounter, just let him do it.
This way, he can (A) do as many as he wants up to his number of healing surges (and would probably have Defender-ish healing surges to compensate), and (B) can power up in the middle of the encounter if others have healing abilities.
Actually, your system functionally subtracts a number of healing surges from the Incarnum user, and requires new, additional text to be added to every power the Incarnum user has. Unlike this ability, which is a simple, bite sized piece of text.
Every power would simply incorporate the [E] just like barbarian dailies have the rage mechanic--seamlessly, not under some sort of Special tag.
For instance, another Fighter comparison: If you were making this power...
[indent]Covering Attack Fighter Encounter 1
[...]
Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage, and an ally adjacent to the target can shift 2 squares[/indent]
...for the incarnate, you might make it...
[indent]Blink Shirt Totemist Encounter 1
[...]
Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage, and an ally adjacent to the target can shift [E] squares[/indent]
...or perhaps...
[indent]Incarnate Weapon Incarnate Encounter 1
[...]
Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier + [E] damage, and an ally adjacent to the target can shift 2 squares[/indent]
...which doesn't add more than a few characters to each power. (The Blink Shirt and Incarnate Weapon powers wouldn't look anything like Covering Attack, but you get the idea.)
And you really shouldn't breach that blood/brain barrier between healing surges and offense except in the most dire of emergencies.
Eh, I don't know; it didn't take people that long to accept that a cleric could heal by attacking, so an incarnate that can "attack by healing" shouldn't be all that bad. ;)
I hope I don't seem adversarial here; talking this through with you has helped me refine my off-the-cuff idea to something workable (at least, I think it's workable). And of course a discussion of design principles is always interesting.
Spend a healing surge to add +X to some aspect of a power (incarnate) vs. spend a daily power to add +X to some aspect of a power (barbarian)...?
That's... really different. The Barbarian's Rage system is really just stances with a new name, and some infinitessimally small mechanical differences. But it works, because flavor and power choices (and the ways that flavor influences power choice) set the Barbarian apart from other classes.
However, without some sort of mechanical differentiation, there's no difference between an Enchanter and a psion if psionics focuses on mind-affecting effects, or a Conjurer and a psion if it focuses on teleportation, etc. Flavor-wise, this isn't a problem, but mechanically...why would you go to the trouble of adding a whole new power source when you could just use Arcane? You wouldn't; you'd make something up mechanically so you can say "See? That is what sets psionics apart"--and that's my point with incarnum.
1. 4e doesn't have Enchanters or Conjurers, making this argument frustratingly abstract.
2. Other power sources don't have this. They have trends and similarities, which is what you would expect from a flavor matter like power sources. The closest you can come to a mechanical similarity might be the way that the three divine classes so far can all channel divinity. But what mechanical link connects arcane classes? Or martial classes? Its flavor. And even as far as Channel Divinity is concerned, are you REALLY willing to argue that Channel Divinity gives the Divine power source its flavor? Its the smallest, blandest, most ignored aspect of the divine classes. The overall flavor of the power list is a much, much bigger issue.
3. I completely expect psionic classes to have class abilities that are different from those possessed by arcane classes (I've even written some). I also expect them to have different power lists, with powers influenced by the theme of "psionics" rather than the theme of "arcanism." I do not expect any universal mechanisms for the whole power source. It could happen, but given that it didn't happen to the martial, arcane, or primal classes, and it happened only minimally to the divine classes, I'd be surprised.
This way, he can (A) do as many as he wants up to his number of healing surges (and would probably have Defender-ish healing surges to compensate), and (B) can power up in the middle of the encounter if others have healing abilities.
Yeah, this is the part that I think is a horrible idea that brings back the 15 minute adventuring day. The designers went through a lot of effort to make sure that you fight at close to full strength as long as you have healing surges remaining. By making healing surges into an offensive ability that exists until the healing surge is consumed, you make a class that degrades in power with every fight and every bit of damage it takes. I think this is a bad idea.
Eh, I don't know; it didn't take people that long to accept that a cleric could heal by attacking, so an incarnate that can "attack by healing" shouldn't be all that bad. ;)
I'm not worried about people "accepting" it, I'm worried about it being a bad idea on its merits in terms of impact on gameplay, and in terms of adding more math and record keeping into the system with one power source mechanic than exist previously with basically all class attributes combined.
I think your view of Incarnum as a power source has three flaws.
1. The "mechanics-first" focus is wrongheaded. Power sources are fundamentally flavor. Mechanics tend to be class specific. You've basically inverted the system. Power sources give flavor and inspiration for designing mechanics. You instead have mechanics you want, and you're trying to come up with a way to turn them into a power source. In a way, this is the same mistake that the actual Incarnum book made. It had a mechanism, and tried to tie it together thematically, but failed, and ended up with only one unique class out of three: the Totemist. Which is why my plan for preserving Incarnum is so radical. I haven't posted it in this thread, so I'll put it in the next post in short form.
2. You are creating an additional mechanism by which a character's strength degrades over the course of the day. You're doing so by tying offense to healing surges because you desperately need a resource mechanism and there aren't many resource mechanisms up for grabs, so you latched on to the only one there was. Well, its a bad one for this.
3. You're adding an entire layer of record keeping that doesn't exist with any other class and which doesn't mimic the existing record keeping for powers for every other class (ie, checking off dailies per day, and encounters per encounter).
Try this- instead of coming up with an entirely new resource, something that I think is safe to call verboten in 4e, come up with a way to make a class power that functions like Essentia. Come up with the Incarnum version of Channel Divinity.
That's... really different. The Barbarian's Rage system is really just stances with a new name, and some infinitessimally small mechanical differences. But it works, because flavor and power choices (and the ways that flavor influences power choice) set the Barbarian apart from other classes.
I suppose. I just don't see it as such a huge difference; both dailies and healing surges are limited by extended rests, are important contributions to a fight, and are being used by a class to gain benefits in other areas.
1. 4e doesn't have Enchanters or Conjurers, making this argument frustratingly abstract.
True; however, that's part of my point. If you are put in charge of designing "the mind control class" and your boss says "Make it different!" would you be more likely to call it an Enchanter, make it Arcane, and call it a day, or call it a Psion, make it Psionic, and say "Yeah...mechanically it's an enchanter wizard...but there's crystals and stuff, so the fluff is cooler!" The latter likely would not fly.
But we seem to agree on the mechanical differentiation of psionics, so we can abandon this line of argument in favor of the others.
2. Other power sources don't have this. They have trends and similarities, which is what you would expect from a flavor matter like power sources. The closest you can come to a mechanical similarity might be the way that the three divine classes so far can all channel divinity. But what mechanical link connects arcane classes? Or martial classes? Its flavor. And even as far as Channel Divinity is concerned, are you REALLY willing to argue that Channel Divinity gives the Divine power source its flavor? Its the smallest, blandest, most ignored aspect of the divine classes. The overall flavor of the power list is a much, much bigger issue.
I'm not talking about a flavor trend, but rather a mechanical trend. The flavor trend of the cleric and paladin are lots of radiant powers, connection to a deity, etc. The mechanical trend is Channel Divinity. In the Invoker preview, the fluff changes quite a bit--instead of being part of an established church they're direct conduits of divine power, and they have a major summoning aspect to them where the cleric and paladin are closer to templars. The mechanics, however, are similar: The Invoker, like the cleric and paladin, gets Channel Divinity.
So the mechanical trend is not the defining feature of the fluff, no. However, it does influence the fluff. The only mechanical way to differentiate a cleric of Pelor from one of Erathis is the Channel Divinity power you can pick up, which will be vastly different because the deities' portfolios are vastly different. Thus, while you might rarely use your deity's Channel Divinity power, when you do use it you're set apart. Likewise, an incarnate could go his entire career without investing essentia, but when he does, he's doing something that classes from other power sources just can't do.
Yeah, this is the part that I think is a horrible idea that brings back the 15 minute adventuring day. The designers went through a lot of effort to make sure that you fight at close to full strength as long as you have healing surges remaining. By making healing surges into an offensive ability that exists until the healing surge is consumed, you make a class that degrades in power with every fight and every bit of damage it takes. I think this is a bad idea.
Once again, I understand the problems with the 15-minute adventuring day. You don't spend a surge, get +X to something, and wave goodbye to the surge for the rest of the day. You spend a surge, get +X to something, and get it back at the next short rest. So you might not have that healing surge to use for that encounter, but (A) you will for the next, if you feel it's more important to heal, and (B) if you have a higher-than-normal amount of surges like the paladin does, you won't feel the loss as much as you'd think.
I'm not worried about people "accepting" it, I'm worried about it being a bad idea on its merits in terms of impact on gameplay, and in terms of adding more math and record keeping into the system with one power source mechanic than exist previously with basically all class attributes combined.
See, this is the part I don't get at all. How is subtracting one healing surge and adding +X to one power at the beginning of the encounter, then adding one healing surge at the end, more math and record-keeping than "all class attributes combined"? I mean, is it a huge amount of math that a wizard can give a -Wis penalty to someone's saves? Is it a huge amount of math that a rogue gets +1d6 damage against some targets? At least with this ability you scribble something on your sheet and then don't have to think about it; it's a passive ability during the encounter unless you want it to be active. In contrast, a rogue's sneak attack can be on or off; a warlock's curse constantly changes; a wizard has to remember to use his implement ability; a cleric has to choose among his Channel Divinity abilities; and so forth.
I think your view of Incarnum as a power source has three flaws.
1. The "mechanics-first" focus is wrongheaded. Power sources are fundamentally flavor. Mechanics tend to be class specific. You've basically inverted the system. Power sources give flavor and inspiration for designing mechanics. You instead have mechanics you want, and you're trying to come up with a way to turn them into a power source. In a way, this is the same mistake that the actual Incarnum book made. It had a mechanism, and tried to tie it together thematically, but failed, and ended up with only one unique class out of three: the Totemist. Which is why my plan for preserving Incarnum is so radical. I haven't posted it in this thread, so I'll put it in the next post in short form.
The 4e druid was designed by asking "What was the druid's signature ability? How did we represent it mechanically in 3e? How do we represent it mechanically in 4e?" The answers were "Wild Shape; turn into whatever animal you want; have a separate set of powers for your wild shape." The 4e barbarian was designed by asking "What was the barbarian's signature ability? How did we represent it mechanically in 3e? How do we represent it mechanically in 4e?" The answers were "Rage; gain stat bonuses for an encounter; use daily powers as rages."
I came up with my idea for 4e incarnum by asking "What was incarnum's signature ability? How did they represent it mechanically in 3e? How could I represent it mechanically in 4e?" The answers were "Essentia and Chakra binds; introduce a separate resource for essentia and a separate system for chakras; use an existing resource for essentia and daily powers for chakras." I personally find that intuitive and logical, but if you find it horribly wrongheaded, there's nothing I can do to change your mind.
2. You are creating an additional mechanism by which a character's strength degrades over the course of the day. You're doing so by tying offense to healing surges because you desperately need a resource mechanism and there aren't many resource mechanisms up for grabs, so you latched on to the only one there was. Well, its a bad one for this.
1) His strength degrades for one encounter and then it comes back. And it only counts as degrading ability if you don't consider it a fair trade--and I will readily admit that in some circumstances it will be beneficial and in some it won't, which is why you can choose.
2) 4e is seemingly allergic to resource management and any math more complicated than addition and subtraction, as you have so eloquently pointed out. Assuming for a moment that you did want to preserve the essentia mechanic in 4e, would you introduce a new resource?
3. You're adding an entire layer of record keeping that doesn't exist with any other class and which doesn't mimic the existing record keeping for powers for every other class (ie, checking off dailies per day, and encounters per encounter).
...or checking off healing surges when they're used?
Try this- instead of coming up with an entirely new resource, something that I think is safe to call verboten in 4e, come up with a way to make a class power that functions like Essentia. Come up with the Incarnum version of Channel Divinity.
Okay then. Let's see...
1) "Invest Essentia" as a bunch of encounter powers. Well, Channel Divinity already does that.
2) Investing essentia as a general numerical bonus against a particular target. Well, every Striker class already does that.
3) Investing essentia as selection of class abilities chosen at creation. Well, warlocks already do that.
4) Investing essentia as an existing component of class powers. Well, wizards already do that.
5) Investing essentia as expending a daily resource....yeah....
Maybe lack of sleep is interfering with my creativity, but I'm not seeing a solution that isn't simply a rehash of something some other class already does. Any ideas from your end?
If you look at the powers of fighters, rogues, beastmaster rangers and warlords you will notice that some of them have extra effects when the proper conditions are met: Fighter powers get better when wielding the appropriate weapon type, Rogue and Warlord powers gain benefits depending on what type of Rogue or Warlord is using it, and Beastmaster Ranger powers gain benefits based on which animal companion is being used.
Suppose having focus on a chakra effected powers in a similar way. If the chakra linked to speed is focused on some powers make extra attacks and other let you move farther than normal. You could make changing which chakra is focused on something normally done after an extended rest, but some utilities powers can change it on the fly.