Community

and roll 2d6. If the
result is 7

you do know that the odds of that are 1 in 6
Or in other words the same as rolling a 6 on a d6

Yes, I do know that. But have you ever seen someone roll 1d6 at a gambling table? I think not.

Flavor, my friend. Flavor.

Yes, I do understand. But... hmm. How about some effect when you roll snake eyes?

Hmmm... the "Grip of Earth" level 2 utility should really be an attack power if it has a target and an attack roll. That, or it could be rewritten without the attacking mechanic.

Is it possible to change "magic jewel" into "orb," for which rules already exist? Or do you have more specific flavor in mind for this implement?

I'm a big incarnum fan, so I'm excited to see someone putting this much work into it. Cheers!

Well, I'm working on my own little conversion process, and I would be further along if I didn't have so much stuff to do. I have the 4 races and the incarnate's features done and am working on incarnate soulmelds; it'll be interesting to see where our ideas are similar and where they diverge.

Yes, I do understand. But... hmm. How about some effect when you roll snake eyes?

I'm guessing that's the Lucky Dice meld? The 3e version has you roll 2d6 and gives you a special result on a 7, so that's probably why it's there.

I like what you have so far especially how your daily attack powers come from binding a melt to your chakra. Since you will be most likely trading up your known melds when higher level ones open up try not to keep the chakras you can bind with on a similar level, by the time you learn crown melds i doubt you would still have bloodwar gauntlets so it would save you time in the creation process.

Eldritch_Lord, maybe you could post what you've made so far?

I'm still making the incarnate powers; once those are finished, I'll post what I have (probably somewhere else, so as not to derail your thread) and then move on to the other classes and some Paths. I haven't read your stuff yet, since I didn't want to be unduly influenced by your ideas, but when I post my stuff we can share notes.

and roll 2d6. If the result is 7

you do know that the odds of that are 1 in 6. Or in other words the same as rolling a 6 on a d6

Actually the odds are 3 in 21 (1/7). You're equally likely to roll 6, 7, or 8. Rolling 4, 5, 9, or 10 is less likely. You're even less likely to roll 2, 3, 11, or 12. Almost half the time (9/21) you're going to be rolling very close to 7 or 7 itself, so while it's less likely than rolling a 6 on 1d6 it will feel more likely.

Actually, combat soulmelds don't have levels. You can get all of them at level 1. What you get at higher levels is essentia, which you invest in combat soulmelds to keep up with higher level encounter powers. So you could have Bloodwar Gauntlets all the way from 1-30 if you wanted, since you keep learning better essentia to invest in them.

I don't know how i missed this but it is brilliant

As far as your Totemist go the at will attack powers look very balanced against each other
i was wondering 1: why aren't you following the same pattern as tho other Incarnum with meld shaping and where are the utility abilities you have none listed (know or usable per day)

Why do the classes each have two different entries for hp per level?

Whoa. Since the release of 4th Ed, I have been toying with the idea of converting incarnum to 4th. I just stumbled across this, and the system you are working on is pretty much EXACTLY what i was toying with as far as actually converting it to 4th ed. At the moment, i've only had a chance to skim it, as i'm at work, but I will certainly give it a full read through later.

my big suggestion would be to set them up as different paths over different classes(I do love how you did it though) I can't wait to see what you do with the skarn! Great job so far!!!

mmm pretty

All-in-all, I suppose it's not bad. I don't have much room to compare as I never got into Incarnum.

I don't mind the notion of a difference between Channels and Soulmelds, perhaps instead though making Soulmeld a keyword for most Daily and Utility powers with a worthwhile duration. Perhaps having a few of the Encounter powers with the Soulmeld keyword, with the At-wills and other Encounter powers having the effect of enhancing active Soulmelds.

I'm not sure what to do about Essentia. It really has no place in the current structure of 4e. At best, you could instead call the power source for the classes Essentia. I'm really just not sure how else you could possibly incorporate such an element into the structure of 4e's power system. If you can find a way to rig it in the fashion of an implement, go for it, but that sounds iffy to me.

Besides, it seems to "fit" just fine, even though it's different.

even the multiclassing?

To each their own...I certainly won't touch it, however. Knock yourselves out though. My point was that 4e doesn't do different in that sort of way anymore. They don't do unique mechanics for every power source under the sun. Powers are powers in 4e. The most radical they've gotten so far is the Artifice keyword for Artificers, which I'm interested in, but skeptical of as-is.

Like I said, to each their own and I have no say in anything anyone does, nor would I want such a say. As long as everyone has fun...whatever works then. I have no idea whether or not they'll ever officially do Incarnum for 4e, but I do know one thing with certainty (yes, total certainty, the same way I know that nobody who comes into my store will ever be buying the winning lotto ticket...ever), they won't be doing it that way.

One last thing, I do think they'd stick with disallowing Unaligned for any of the Incarnum classes.

Anyway, have fun.

Well, if they introduce Incarnum again, it'll be in one of the PHBs. They've pretty much stated they won't be putting classes anywhere else (and no, I'm not going looking for specific citations of the fact). Additional powers and paragon paths might pop up in books like Martial Power, Open Grave, etc., but no classes. They're also going to avoid creating the slew of splatbooks they did with 3.5. If they stick to the same rough timing of product releases, I wouldn't expect to see even a quarter of the number of splatbooks they made for 3.5 by the end of 4e.

If you plan on using your homebrew Incarnum even after they release the official version (assuming they ever do), then you're golden, but otherwise you'll be switching. That too might be alright for you. My personal view is that I hate switching from homebrew to official or vice-versa.

But, I'll quit raining on your parade and go my merry way. So long.

New issue: I want to give rilkans +2 Dexterity, +2 Charisma, but those are the two abilit scores incarnates need least, and rilkans used to have incarnate as a favored class. Maybe +2 Wisdom, +2 Charisma would work? Then they'd make good Soulborn, at least.

that didnt stop wotc from giving them +2dex -2 str originally:D

i cant complain about what youve done with/foe incarnum
i was a 3.5 incarnum fan and i like what you have done. so keep up the good work.

curiousity bump

c'mon now people, everyone seemed so interested in 4e incarnum...pick it back up.

I just posted my own take on Incarnum for 4th edition. Naturally I was fascinated to read your conversion when I discovered it. I think I understand why you've gone the route you have but it seems you've set yourself an enormous task of writing rather a lot of Soulmelds and I'm not sure how you are going to keep those melds firmly wed to a specific class role. Still it provides a great deal of flexibility which is defintiely one of the trademarks of the Incarnum concept.

I've taken another approach completely. I've always seen soulmelds as being more like utilities and so I've replaced utilities with soulmelds but left a basic power system in place. I have greatly extended the multiclassing options as well but I fully expect those to be fleshed out for the core classes in later books so I'm not expecting that to be unbalancing.

The rules as stand would probably be sufficient to play a 1st level character and they clearly outline where I'm going but its far from finished. I have a lot of powers still to write.

Anyway, if you'd like to have a look you can find the thread at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1063023

I think we've taken quite different routes to the same basic place. Although I only discovered your conversion recently its been fascinating comparing how the same basic ideas have lead to a quite different rules system. I would love to know what you think.

As I said on the other thread: thanks for the reply.

I should definitely return the favour, so here goes.

First, I'm using soulmelds as powers because I've always felt one of the cooler things about incarnum is you have access to the full list of soulmelds at first level. Of course, allowing you to pick and choose from the complete list every day is overpowered, so I have to limit it to soulmelds known, but you can pick the melds you know from the complete list. The fact that I have to write up powers, essentia effects, and chakra binds for every soulmeld doesn't bother me. I'm not going to cut corners just because it's easier. I want this system to be amazing.

Over all I think that this is a perfectly valid way to go about it. Your only two concerns are that the amount of flexibility that an Incarnum using character has quickly exceeds a wizard's by a great deal - perhaps too much - and that since all three classes have different roles its going to be difficult to blend soulmelds to class roles.

As for the first issue, its something I don't think even my current incarnation of the rules completely resolves. I stepped back from making powers completely tied ot soulmelds which does allow me to limit things to utilities which probably lessens the balance issues buts Incarnum demands flexibility - its almost like one of the keywords of the whole idea - so its not going to be an easy issue to resolve.

The second issue is more interesting. In the end this is what killed soulmelds as powers for me. I did have one half-solution you might want to try in your system. I assigned each soulmeld one of the four roles and than at least half of the soulmelds you choose for your character had to match your class roles. By strongly theming the soulmeld to the role you can than allow the players to decide how focused their particular incarnate, totemist etc. is to their assigned role without having them break away from it completely.

I chose to use real chakras, instead of the 10 item slot chakras, because really, the fact that chakra binds could take away your item slots was one of the main reason the system didn't sell before, and the real 7 chakras are much more interesting. Plus, they corrospond to the 7 levels of daily powers perfectly.

This was the thing I liked about your system as soon as I read it. I feel that the approach I've taken needs the magic item / soulmeld incompatability to be balanced but yours definitely does not. Definitely something you shouldn't let anyone talk you out of - at least as long as the soulmelds are simply a flavour for the normal powers to which your classes are entitled anyway.

Obviously I didn't use a system where magic items and soulmelds could co-exist because my soulmelds are magic items but I avoided a complicated binding system not because I don't like them but because I felt I needed to keep the complexity of the Incarnate class to a minimum. I think your system manages to stray just this side of too complicated - keeping it to only one change per day was probably wise.

I'm keeping essentia, but simplifying it because I like essentia, but the system was too complex to fit into D&D 4 correctly. It also works perfectly to allow characters to select any (combat) soulmeld at level 1, and keep that soulmeld useful through level 30.

This is actually one of the portions of your document I'm the least sure about. I completely understand what you're trying to do. Its just I find the way you've writen it very confusing. I think you should probably get someone to read this little bit of the class description and tell you what they think it says.

If I'm reading it right: when you choice a new soulmeld you learn the base encounter power plus all the advantages that are associated with the level of essentia associated with your level. So a 7th level incarnate learning bloodwar gauntlets gets bloodwar strike with the minor and lesser advantages and everytime he shapes that meld he gets that power - is that right?

I'm not sure what you intend this to say is actually what it says in your pdf - if you see what I mean.

I added channels because they're cool. They make for much easier at-wills, and I can use them to make soulborn and totemists a little differant. Same goes for primal soulmelds for totemists.

I'm still not sure this is going to let you shape the powers to the class roles as completely as the other classes benefit from. Its not going to be enough.

I threw out the alignment basis, because alignments are lame, and I don't want them to have any mechanical effect. Incarnate simply wield a type of energy. Most have very strong beliefs, but it's not universal. Soulborn follow some extreme path, but it's left to be defined by the player.

Couldn't agree more.

Anyways, I've uploaded a new version. Racial stats are complete. Any thoughts on them?

Just read through it. The races do indeed look cool. I hope you don't mind if I nick a few things when I finally get around to the races - especially your Duskling but I'll go through them:

Azurin: Its a nice write up actually but I'm still enamored of my approach with the Azurin. I think I've always felt that a simple feat was sufficient for these guys - in all ways they are just humans born touched by Incarnum. I may steal azurin defence as a racial feat though if you don't mind

Duskling: That really is one of the coolest pictures from the book isn't it. I really like this write up. I think focus essentia might be a little too powerful but I can't be sure till someone playtests it but I do like the idea. Twilight step is very stylish but I think it might be better to model it on the Kobold ability - as it stands it might be overly formidable. Perhaps say that a Duskling who uses a move action to shift can use a minor action in the same round to do so again.

Rilkin: Love daring action. Not sure its better but have you considered just giving the Rilkin Jack of all Trades as a bonus feat instead of the current rules for racial knowledge. That would clearly represent the ability to share all types of knowledge and prevents stacking problems later. Why all-in - I'm not sure I have a problem with the power but I'd love to know the reasoning that lead you to create it. The aid another thing could potentially be abused. I know this is how it worked before but it was abused in some of the games I saw being played. Have you considerd simply giving them the ability to roll a 10 on aid another checks - they reliably and consistantly help each other but give the same bonus other helpers do.

Sharn: Mind and body is powerful but not overly so. I think it would be a great "wow, did I just do that" for the player but the spines are always going to be a problem. I'm still not sure how to deal with this. What you have seems a good start but I'm sure it can be abused. There has to be a balanced way to deal with natural attack - I just wish wizards have given us a single example of a player race with natural attacks on which to base things like this. All the variations I've seen on the forums set off my 'broken' alert.

Hope some of that rambling is useful.

Maybe when they use aid another, the aided party also gains a +1 racial bonus to the action, meaning it can't be stacked from multiple rilkan, or added to something you already get a racial bonus to normally.

This is a good compromise. You get a solid benefit but its not stackable.

I'm going with Jack Of All Trades. Good call.

It's nice to be useful.

Wow, this is really cool. I think I may have spotted an error in the Incarnate at-wills, though. Soul Force begins adding Charisma to the rolled damage, but abruptly switches to Intelligence at 21st. Lucky Dice goes from Strength to Wisdom, and Soulspark from Constitution to Intelligence. Is this intentional?