# Iron Heroes...what's your opinion?



## Gundark (Aug 11, 2005)

I'm looking at Iron Heroes by Malhavoc press. I think something like this would be cool. However I'm wondering what those who have it think? Does it slow down combat? Is it worthwhile? What do those who know think?


----------



## Morrus (Aug 11, 2005)

I haven't had chance to play it yet, but I have it and have read it.  I think it's fantastic, at least from a combat point of view.  I'm not convinced by the magic system, though I must admit I haven't seen it in operation.

It's what I wanted D&D to be, almost. 

I think that the GM book is going to be a necessity.  I'm assuming it contains rules for NPCs etc. which don't involve using the complexity of the PC's token system.

It has no unarmed combat types in it though.  Don't know whether that's deliberate or not, or whether it's planned for another book.  I'd have liked to see one unarmed combat class and to see it addressed in the feat mastery section.  Would be simple to homebrew that aspect, though.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 11, 2005)

My enthusiasm has dimmed a little in the past week. I still maintain that Iron Heroes is an amazing work, but I'm not sure if it's _quite _what I thought it would be.

The jury is still out.


----------



## Talath (Aug 11, 2005)

It's an awesome book, and I stand by the idea that I believe it's one of the best RPG purchases I have made this year. That said, it can use some work in the magic area, but everything else is spectacular.


----------



## Lucias (Aug 11, 2005)

Aside from the magic system, which even Mearls admits was rushed, the book is nothing except excellent.  It's the only d20 product in two years to really grab my imagination and run.

Of course, you've got to love combat a bit to enjoy it.


----------



## Particle_Man (Aug 11, 2005)

It is taking a long time for me to digest.  There is 4 phb's worth of crunch in here.  Still, I am happy with it.  It seems to give the player more crunchy options but makes the DM's life a bit easier.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 11, 2005)

Wow, I'm obviously in the minority here but I finally got a chance to read it and I don't like it all.  Seriously.

Constantly while I read through it I had the feeling that it was suffering from an identity crisis and was rushed.  It so wants to be Conan but it isn't.  The book feels like mechanics without a home.  

And then there is that Roleplaying chapter.  What is this?  Is this some kind of joke?

No unarmed combat abilities, an unnecessarily clunky reserve point system (why not just use VP/WP?), a token system that rewards players to spend actions to do nothing, a low-magic system in which armor grants DR but is overcome by magic weapons, a throwaway caster class and magic system, and quotes like:

"Players can get so caught up in the game's exciting combat and action that they forget to stress other key aspects of their characters, such as personality and background."

You have got to be kidding me.

Ugh, I just don't know what my problem is.  Why does everyone like this and not me?

I so want to write a complete review but knowing myself, I'm afraid it will end up being 10 pages long.


----------



## Gundark (Aug 11, 2005)

could i instert the combat options into normal d20 D&D? Or do I have to adopt the whole thing?


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 11, 2005)

There are a few simple conversion guidelines in the last few pages - for instance, Mike suggests doubling the token costs for class abilities if _Iron Heroes_ PCs get magical gear, since the whole point of the token-powered abilities is to compensate for the absence of magical equipment.

There's a lot in _Iron Heroes_ that would be very useful in a D&D campaign, but it's not necessarily something a novice DM could easily incorporate.


----------



## Psion (Aug 11, 2005)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Ugh, I just don't know what my problem is.  Why does everyone like this and not me?




Nothing a frontal lobotomy can't fix. 

Seriously, diff'rent strokes and all that.

I think it's interesting, but I'm not exactly rushing to run a game of it (the way I am Spycraft 2.0.  ). But I certainly can understand those who are crazy over it. And I'd certainly play it if offered.

If you are interested in what the hubbub is all about, it's only 14 bucks on DTRPG.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 11, 2005)

I really like _Iron Heroes_. Mike has been very upfront about the problems with the magic system and the editing, but Malhavoc rushed the errata out as soon as possible, which was very responsible of them. As for the magic system, it's not impossible to fix. I would probably prefer to run a game of _Iron Heroes_ without arcanists in the party anyway . . .

_Iron Heroes_ can't do everything, and it's not low-powered or grim-n-gritty or any of that. It's a straight-up D&D-level action-oriented heroic fantasy game, and it's damn good at it.

(It also has surprisingly useful social mechanics.)


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Aug 11, 2005)

I like it a lot.  I might say that I love it.  

In my limited experience with it, thus far, combat has, in fact, sped up.

Mind you this is clocking the number of combats in a session not the length of individual combats, but I am confident in saying that combat is now a much more effecient aspect of my game than it has been in the past.  

Potential factors for why this is so:

- Recovery time from an individual combat is much faster and does not take place within combat.
- Skills are more potent, useful, and spread throughout the party.  This means that everyone is useful throughout an individual encounter and thus everyone tends to help out at every aspect and things go faster.
- Stunts make it much easier to deal with rules questions and unusual situations.
- The characters are just more robust and players feel much more confident about using them.  It should be noted that things are just as deadly for players resource-wise, they just take less time deciding how to spend those resources.
- The token system together with its request pausing is probably saving us time.  A player who drops out of the action for a round and then comes back with a very effective attack is a very effecient user of playing time.  In many ways it's sort of institutionalized the player pause, I no longer have to wait for someone to decide since gathering tokens is always a good default decision.

It should be noted that thus far I have run normal DnD characters against IH characters.  

In terms of Glassjaw's critique.  I find the IH version of Conan to be slightly better than the one in the Conan OGL, though they emphasize different aspects of the character and get different things right, and I think the IH version of something like Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser is very very close to the mark.  I think Glassjaw is likely bringing a different set of experiences with prior gaming systems and their justifications to the table than I am and as such IH is competing against a different crowd for me.  Figuring out why we differ would take a goodly long discussion and a good amount of free benevolence.  Some of his critiques I would likely agree with but not consider a high priority.  Others I would likely not agree with but probably only out of different goals or measuring parameters for an RPG system.

The reserve system, for instance, strikes me as far more elegant than a VP/WP system.  I recognize, as I assume Glassjaw does, that it provides one solution to a number of different questions implied by the hit point system in game play where VP/WP provides a number of solutions to a couple of distinct questions.  For me going from many to one is a benefit as it reduces the scope of the debate, for others I'm certain it seems like a dodge since some of those questions could have used individual answers.

I have not yet messed with magic.  I like the Arcanist class, but I pretty much always intended to convert it into an AE class or XPH class for their magic systems and then bring it back into the game.  Noone in my game is playing a magic-user thus far.

My players love it.  It's been very inspiring to me.  That's what I got.

Large portions of it will be freely portable others less so.  Still not certain what the specific logic for deciding on feat masteries for classes converting to IH would be.


----------



## Gold Roger (Aug 11, 2005)

I like it a lot. I haven't actually played it, but I've run through a cupple of test fights, to get familiar with the system and to see how good it really is.
Combats are reasonably fast, defenitely not slower than 3.5 once you know the rules. The Mastery system and classes are genious as is the skill use. Token are great, though sometimes not necesarry. I scraped the magic system and still have some problems with the stunt system. Traits are a great thing as well, though I think of those presented as examples. I advice on creating your own traits and just pic up those from the book you like/find appropiate for your campaign. They are a great tool for world-building.
Iron heroes isn't perfect, but it's a great system and a deffinite alternative to 3.5. Most of the content should be easy to export to other systems, expect for the classes, those should be left where they are.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 11, 2005)

> I think Glassjaw is likely bringing a different set of experiences with prior gaming systems and their justifications to the table than I am and as such IH is competing against a different crowd for me.




As soon as IH was announced, the comparisons began.  When I read through it, I tried to be as unbiased as possible.  I wanted to read through the book for what it was, not what I wanted it to be or what it wasn't.  While my comments in my post reflect my overall view (and obviously I made comparisons to other products), I didn't start out not liking IH.

From a purely mechanical standpoint, I was disappointed, plain and simple.  Disappointed doesn't mean I completely hated it - there's a lot of cool stuff in there - but on the whole, I felt it lacking.

Again, IH pats itself on the back multiple times throughout the book for being action-packed and fast-paced yet many of the classes are required to spend actions doing nothing to gain tokens.  That's poor design IMO.  IH points out that instant-death spells are much more deadly in IH.  Yeah, duh.  The solution?  Reduce the number of times per day the creature can use its ability.  How is that a solution?  Why doesn't the author merely tell the user not to use those creatures?  Again, I feel IH doesn't know what it wants to be.



> I find the IH version of Conan to be slightly better than the one in the Conan OGL




Well I'm not sure if you've actually read any Conan stuff but I couldn't disagree more.  If you took Conan and IH and printed out the mechanics only and removed all references to setting or publisher, Conan's ruleset immediately answers up the "why" and "how" the mechanics are what they are.  If a set of mechanics can intuitively evoke the mood and feel of a genre or setting, it gets my praise.  Conan does this.  If you just had the mechanics from the Conan book and nothing else, you _know_ what the style of play is.

I didn't get that feeling when reading IH.

Is it trying to be normal D&D?  Is it a gritty setting like Conan?  It is like Errol Flynn/Robin Hood?


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Aug 11, 2005)

I agree with Glassjaw.

I was very much looking forward to this book. When I saw it in my FLGS, I bought immediately.

Now, I'm lukewarm, for very much the reasons Glassjaw mentions. 
Haven't finished with all the skills yet, but I think that the treatment of Diplomacy, where if you haggle with a merchant, you keep on rolling and rolling until someone tires out, really isn't fastpaced action... YMMV.

I have a feeling that I will snatch some of the rules, and then sell the book. I also sold off my copy of AU. Do I see a pattern  :\


----------



## JimAde (Aug 11, 2005)

For those who like IH, but not the magic system: Could you reasonably use regular D&D spellcasters in an IH game?  Or do you think it would mesh well with Elements of Magic (Revised)?  That sounds like a good combination but I haven't seen IH yet so it's hard to say.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 11, 2005)

JimAde said:
			
		

> For those who like IH, but not the magic system: Could you reasonably use regular D&D spellcasters in an IH game?  Or do you think it would mesh well with Elements of Magic (Revised)?  That sounds like a good combination but I haven't seen IH yet so it's hard to say.




I honestly don't know why IH didn't just use the sorcerer and alter the stats to be in line with the IH mechanics.


----------



## Denaes (Aug 11, 2005)

*asdf*

I purchased the PDF for IH last week as well as Spycraft 2.0. 

I've only skimmed the IH PDF and noted that the art/layout utterly turn me off.

Spycraft 2.0 has captured my attention and is a really deep read, so I'm stuck on that right now. 

I really hope I at least get some milage from the Skill section and using skills for stunts. Those are what intrigued me the most out of the book.


----------



## Khairn (Aug 11, 2005)

JimAde said:
			
		

> For those who like IH, but not the magic system: Could you reasonably use regular D&D spellcasters in an IH game?  Or do you think it would mesh well with Elements of Magic (Revised)?  That sounds like a good combination but I haven't seen IH yet so it's hard to say.




IH just like original AU is presented with only a skeletal setting.  This does IH a diservice IMHO as it doesn't provide the hooks to really draw in the readers.  The book is full of crunch, and unless you can visualize it in your head as you're reading it, its hard to get excited about "just rules".

That being said I really do like what IH has done with the skills, tokens and combat.

Regarding the magic system, I was not too "enthralled" with what was presented (much like everyone else) but I've been pulling together some idea's about using EoM, and I'm begining to get really stoked about the possibilities.


----------



## Stormborn (Aug 11, 2005)

I think that the combat system and most of the classes, as well as the skills and stunts and manuvers, are over all the thing that my group has wanted.  It will def require some sample combats to work it out, but I think they will like it.  They are always wanting to do things "like in that movie" or "that book" and I think the system has a better chance of doing that than standard d20.

I, like others, don't care for the magic system.  And would replace it with something else escept that I honestly don't expect any of my players to want to be a spellcaster in this system.  Instead I will likely just use standard d20 NPC spellcasters as villains, replacing their magic items with tattoos, grafts, or demonic boons or something.

If I did have a player who wanted to play a caster I would likely take the Arcanist class and adapt the spell mechanics using a homebrew, Black Company, Conan, or something else that fits the style of the campaign.


I too am not really please with the setting as given.  I feel like mechanics and setting have to drive one another, and that obviously isn't the case here - although the "Swordlands" do seem to fit there isn't enough of it to be sure.  But, I have never ran a published campaign setting, so for me that isn't as big an issue.  But having a model would be nice.


----------



## Malachias Invictus (Aug 11, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> I haven't had chance to play it yet, but I have it and have read it.  I think it's fantastic, at least from a combat point of view.




I have run it once, and it is amazingly fun.  I will be introducing more combat options as we go along (I am starting the whole group, some veteran D&Ders, some new, from 1st).



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> I'm not convinced by the magic system, though I must admit I haven't seen it in operation.




The magic system is, well, poop.  Even Mike (Mearls) isn't happy with it.  It needs extreme tweaking and/or replacement.  A substantial group of us are working on this, and hopefully Mike will throw his expertise in; he has been very supportive of the idea of fixing this part of an otherwise awesome system.



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> It's what I wanted D&D to be, almost.




You know, that is a great way to put it.



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> I think that the GM book is going to be a necessity.  I'm assuming it contains rules for NPCs etc. which don't involve using the complexity of the PC's token system.




Some shortcutting tips for "PC class" NPCs would be nice.



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> It has no unarmed combat types in it though.  Don't know whether that's deliberate or not, or whether it's planned for another book.




Mike said he wanted to do it right, with the full treatment, or not at all (in fact, he really wanted to excise the magic system and leave it for another book, once it had been given proper treatment).  I know of no plans for an unarmed combat book, though.



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> I'd have liked to see one unarmed combat class and to see it addressed in the feat mastery section.  Would be simple to homebrew that aspect, though.




Several have already tried.  To be frank, the Monk would not be too hard to port.  I would love to see an expanded treatment, though.


----------



## Malachias Invictus (Aug 11, 2005)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> There's a lot in _Iron Heroes_ that would be very useful in a D&D campaign, but it's not necessarily something a novice DM could easily incorporate.




I would put doing so into the "Advanced Intermediate" category.  A few things are easier, but you could find things getting out of hand quickly if you are not careful.


----------



## Malachias Invictus (Aug 11, 2005)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Wow, I'm obviously in the minority here but I finally got a chance to read it and I don't like it all.  Seriously.
> 
> Constantly while I read through it I had the feeling that it was suffering from an identity crisis and was rushed.  It so wants to be Conan but it isn't.  The book feels like mechanics without a home.




I don't mind that, really.  It is the mechanics that I bought the book for in the first place.  If I want a setting, I buy a setting book (I already have about a dozen different settings with a few books each, and I am always buying more).  As for Conan, I think it can do that just fine (not that I want to use it for such).



			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> And then there is that Roleplaying chapter.  What is this?  Is this some kind of joke?




I have not really read it, as I don't really need tips on roleplaying.  What specifically is the issue?



			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> No unarmed combat abilities,




Untrue.  There are unarmed combat abilities.  There is no Monk class, though.  Is that what you meant?



			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> an unnecessarily clunky reserve point system (why not just use VP/WP?),




VP/WP replaces hit points.  The Reserve Point system replaces the need for clerical healing, while still keeping the standard hit point system.  The goals of each are totally dissimilar.



			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> a token system that rewards players to spend actions to do nothing,




It rewards players for taking strategic advantages.  Hell, it is better than Delaying when you have nothing better to do, and it also allows things like Bard's downing of Smaug, which is otherwise impossible to emulate in D&D.  That said, if you do not like it, you could always not bother with using it.



			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> a low-magic system in which armor grants DR but is overcome by magic weapons,




I don't like this either.  I am replacing "/Magic" with "/-".  If I want a special magical McGuffin or the like to be able to penetrate DR, I will give it that ability.



			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> a throwaway caster class and magic system,




The magic system is poop, true.  The Arcanist is a great class, though; it just needs a good magic system tacked on.



			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> and quotes like:
> 
> "Players can get so caught up in the game's exciting combat and action that they forget to stress other key aspects of their characters, such as personality and background."
> 
> You have got to be kidding me.




You have never seen this happen in a game?  That is why it is important for the GM to help stress those things by bringing up situations that involve them.



			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Ugh, I just don't know what my problem is.  Why does everyone like this and not me?




Different strokes?


----------



## Khairn (Aug 11, 2005)

What AU initially did for D20 magic, IH does for D20 combat & skills.  (except for monks)


----------



## Malachias Invictus (Aug 11, 2005)

JimAde said:
			
		

> For those who like IH, but not the magic system: Could you reasonably use regular D&D spellcasters in an IH game?  Or do you think it would mesh well with Elements of Magic (Revised)?  That sounds like a good combination but I haven't seen IH yet so it's hard to say.




I am currently working on a Skill-based version of Elements of Magic for Iron Heroes.  I think it will be a good fit.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 11, 2005)

Malachias Invictus said:
			
		

> I have not really read it, as I don't really need tips on roleplaying.  What specifically is the issue?




It insults my intelligence quite frankly.



			
				Malachias Invictus said:
			
		

> Untrue.  There are unarmed combat abilities.  There is no Monk class, though.  Is that what you meant?




Nope.  Why no Mastery based on Improved Unarmed Strike?  Is IUS what you meant by an unarmed combat ability?



			
				Malachias Invictus said:
			
		

> VP/WP replaces hit points.  The Reserve Point system replaces the need for clerical healing, while still keeping the standard hit point system.  The goals of each are totally dissimilar.




They both replace the need for clerical healing and allow the characters to recover more quickly from a battle.  The goals are quite the same actually.



			
				Malachias Invictus said:
			
		

> It rewards players for taking strategic advantages.  Hell, it is better than Delaying when you have nothing better to do, and it also allows things like Bard's downing of Smaug, which is otherwise impossible to emulate in D&D.  That said, if you do not like it, you could always not bother with using it.




If by strategic advantage you mean stand there and bite your shield so you can build up your Final Fantasy frenzy meter, then yes, it does reward the players.



			
				Malachias Invictus said:
			
		

> Different strokes?




Or certain publishers getting more of the benefit of the doubt sometimes?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 11, 2005)

Now, I understand most of your complaints, and agree with many of them, though I still love _Iron Heros_, but that last statement looks a bit unprofessional and might be construed as bitterness. You might want to rethink that.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 11, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Now, I understand most of your complaints, and agree with many of them, though I still love _Iron Heros_, but that last statement looks a bit unprofessional and might be construed as bitterness. You might want to rethink that.




No rethinking needed.  Just an opinion.  I'm not even saying it happens - just suggesting that it may be possible...

Any what does the statement have to do with being unprofessional or bitter anyway?  What am I bitter about?  I'm not a publisher nor have I done any RPG work that I've gotten paid for.  I'm just one gamer with an opinion.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 11, 2005)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> No rethinking needed. Just an opinion. I'm not even saying it happens - just suggesting that it may be possible...
> 
> Any what does the statement have to do with being unprofessional or bitter anyway? What am I bitter about? I'm not a publisher nor have I done any RPG work that I've gotten paid for. I'm just one gamer with an opinion.




Okay, unprofessional makes no sense, I'll give that. A lot of people have shown... erm... disfavor toward Malhavok though, for whatever reason, even if they arn't publishers or have connections to the publishing industry. I'm just saying somebody might think that your statement is saying that Iron Heroes is popular because Malhavok wrote it. _I'm not saying that._ Please don't think I'm implying that. I have no reason to think that, since your statements about the book for the most part have been spot on. I think it just does a disservice to your previous posts.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 11, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Okay, unprofessional makes no sense, I'll give that. A lot of people have shown... erm... disfavor toward Malhavok though, for whatever reason, even if they arn't publishers or have connections to the publishing industry. I'm just saying somebody might think that your statement is saying that Iron Heroes is popular because Malhavok wrote it. _I'm not saying that._ Please don't think I'm implying that. I have no reason to think that, since your statements about the book for the most part have been spot on. I think it just does a disservice to your previous posts.




Fair enough.  I hesitated to post it in the first place.  It was kind of one of those things that you think but don't necessarily say out loud but every once in a while you do.  Oh well.  

If nothing else, Malhavoc certainly gets more attention than other publsihers when they release something new just because of their name alone.  I'm not saying that's a bad thing at all.  Much of that attention is earned though - the vast majority of Malhavoc's stuff is great.  Even if you don't necessarily like the overall style of Malhavoc's products, they are some of the highest quality RPG products out there.

That said, I have also noticed a trend that when someone criticizes a Malhavoc product, that person is potentially opening themselves up to a more lot of flack from other posters (some might refer to them as fanboys) than if they criticized a product from another publisher.  I do think that Malhavoc gets more slack if they release a substandard product though.  But again, I don't think that's necessarily a bad statement to make.  You can make the argument that their proven track record cuts them that slack.  If I was a small publisher and poured my heart and soul into a product and got nowhere near the attention that Malhavoc gets, then yeah, I can see how that would be frustrating.  But that situation isn't limited to the RPG industry alone.

Having one so-so product in an otherwise great library of products doesn't a bad company make.  I love Chaositech and the Temple of Mysteries module.  I was disappointed with Iron Heroes.  Life goes on.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 11, 2005)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Having one so-so product in an otherwise great library of products doesn't a bad company make. I love Chaositech and the Temple of Mysteries module. I was disappointed with Iron Heroes. Life goes on.




You have made me more dissapointed with _Iron Heroes_ than I was an hour ago, if that makes you feel any better.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 11, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> You have made me more dissapointed with _Iron Heroes_ than I was an hour ago, if that makes you feel any better.




Victory!!


----------



## Malachias Invictus (Aug 11, 2005)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> It insults my intelligence quite frankly.




The roleplaying section *insults your intelligence*?  If you recall, I asked for specifics.  Specifically, how does it insult your intelligence.



			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Nope.  Why no Mastery based on Improved Unarmed Strike?  Is IUS what you meant by an unarmed combat ability?




Who said you could not use other Mastery feats with Improved Unarmed Strike?  It sounds like you are upset that there is no Monk equivalent.  That is a legitimate complaint, I suppose, but let's be clear on what we are complaining about.



			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> They both replace the need for clerical healing and allow the characters to recover more quickly from a battle.  The goals are quite the same actually.




Perhaps I am just ignorant as to the specific way VP/WP systems work.  Please educate me on exactly how they fulfill this function, if you have the time.  My impression was that such systems are quite a bit more deadly than a D&D-like hit point system, because of the effects of critical hits and the like. 



			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> If by strategic advantage you mean stand there and bite your shield so you can build up your Final Fantasy frenzy meter, then yes, it does reward the players.




Sometimes, doing something like stoking rage or aiming or taking the lay of the land is appropriate, and a better choice than hacking away.  Why is it bad that such a choice is available?  No one is forcing you to choose to do so, and there are a few classes that have no tokens at all.



			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Or certain publishers getting more of the benefit of the doubt sometimes?




That is simply nonsense.  I spend a ton of money on gaming-related stuff, and I don't waste it on "benefit of the doubt".  Iron Heroes was well worth every penny, and then some.  I wish I got as much utility and pleasure out of all my gaming purchases.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Aug 11, 2005)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Well I'm not sure if you've actually read any Conan stuff but I couldn't disagree more.  If you took Conan and IH and printed out the mechanics only and removed all references to setting or publisher, Conan's ruleset immediately answers up the "why" and "how" the mechanics are what they are.  If a set of mechanics can intuitively evoke the mood and feel of a genre or setting, it gets my praise.  Conan does this.  If you just had the mechanics from the Conan book and nothing else, you _know_ what the style of play is.
> 
> I didn't get that feeling when reading IH.
> 
> Is it trying to be normal D&D?  Is it a gritty setting like Conan?  It is like Errol Flynn/Robin Hood?




I think this is the essence of the difference I was trying to get at, but first let me apologize.

At no point did I mean to imply that you were basing your opinion off a comparison that ignored what IH was in favor of what you wanted it to be.  I respect your critical faculties.  My only point was that I suspect you and I bring different knowledge sets to the game in terms of the RPGs we play and read.  Certainly we have a lot in common but I would describe my knowledge of Grim Tales, for instance, as paltry in comparison to yours. And where you have made comparison, and I am in complete understanding that they are purely illustrative, to mechanics that originated in Star Wars D20, for instance, my immediate points of comparison actually tend to be non-D20 rules sets such as Feng Shui or Exalted.

As I said, over the course of the many conversations on this product I have come to respect your critical opinion and I think that though there are things I might disagree with you on on a very basic level as a fan of IH I'm very happy to have your critique around since I think it is a legitimate perspective.

Now:

My problem with Conan as a system is the very thing you bring up as a feature.  Every new change it made to the system was in regard to a specific question.  Each answer was tailored.

This is not my preferred style of game design.  To me it feels too modular and grainy.

IH does a better job precisely because it is not question specific.  The How and Why is only referenced to other parts of the system.  It feels more like a complete text and it's easier to get a picture of how the different parts of the system relate to each other than it is something with an organization like Conan where instead of letting the play style demonstrate itself it tells you what it's doing.

For me it's the difference between a song that 'is' punk and a song that 'says' it's punk.  There's nothing necessarilly wrong with the second style and there's no reason that saying your punk invalidates your being punk, but the first one I think is more likely to be interesting on its own and more likely to change the nature of being punk productively.

I read IH and I don't know what it wants to be, I know what it is.

Essentially, this is a difference in how much you value elegance, the techinal idea that you incorporate several functions into the same engine rather than creating specialized components, in design.  If you don't like elegant design that's fine, it's not like it's a universally acknowledged necessary element, but it's sort of hard to deny that as a whole IH has a far more elegant design style than Conan.

And I like elegance.

It's also worth pointing out that I think the Conan OGL was trying to make the Conan stories a lot grittier than they actually are and that it sort of hurt them in trying to make a coherent game system out of it.  But that's a pure tangent from what we're talking about here.

I'm sorry if I made this a lot more abstract than it is.

A simpler answer to your question of what IH wants to be is that it wants to be Heroic Fantasy which means it's going to end up on the boundaries of most current gaming aesthetics rather than solidly within most of the more current camps which combine Heroic Fantasty with other aesthetics.

Exalted, for instance, combines HF with Epics.

DnD combines HF with High fantasy.

Conan combines HF with Gritty fantasy.

This is in the nature of Heroic Fantasy as it is, on many levels, an inherently satirical form and thus incorporates a broad array of elements, most designers therefore look to another aesthetic to provide some limitation on the content available.

IH was able to avoid this directly by using the most Heroic Fantasy element of a High Fantasy game, the MM of DnD, to provide a cannonized standard of madness for the madness.

It's an interesting project since RPGs tend to view themselves as literary and IH/Heroic fantasy is always going to be sort of liminal to that.  Some of Borges short stories would be the ones I would go to for the purest sense of that feeling, but equally I would add any reading of Leiber or Howard that was unaware of the direction those franchises would appear to take over the whole course of their work.  The sort of thing that produces excited authors producing excited pastiches rather than the sort of thing that produces satisfied critics producing insightful elaborations.  And, I would argue, the sort of thing that probably produced the works themselves.

On the other hand, it's also the sort of thing that produced He Man.  So it's not like I don't appreciate someone calling out against the darkside.


----------



## Lobo Lurker (Aug 11, 2005)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Wow, I'm obviously in the minority here but I finally got a chance to read it and I don't like it all.  Seriously.



That's cool. You're entitled to your own opinion. 



> No unarmed combat abilities, an unnecessarily clunky reserve point system (why not just use VP/WP?), a token system that rewards players to spend actions to do nothing, a low-magic system in which armor grants DR but is overcome by magic weapons, a throwaway caster class and magic system, and quotes like:
> 
> "Players can get so caught up in the game's exciting combat and action that they forget to stress other key aspects of their characters, such as personality and background."




1) You can take Improved Unarmed Strike if you like. And no one is stopping you from coming up with your own Unarmed Combat Mastery tree.

While reading through the feats chapter, I constantly got the feeling that Mike was trying to provide a bunch of really useful examples of how to do your own feats. I anticipate further Mastery feats either online or in one of the other Iron Heroes releases (_no proof of this though_).

2) One of the stated design goals of Iron Heroes was to make the combat more tactical. Sometimes, doing nothing is better than doing something. The fact that Iron Heroes rewards players for doing nothing is great. The Player gets to make the choice of whether they'll press an attack, or pause to gather thier resources so that they can do something special (and oft-times it's worth it to gather tokens instead of just attacking).

3) Not all of use are, nor want to be "_leet role players_". Some of us like throwing the dice around so that we can hack and slash our way to victory and then on to the next fight. 

4) Keep in mind that the book is also intended to be read and easily understood by RPG (or at lease, D20) virgins. The fact that is has a roleplaying chapter is commendable.

5) It is my understanding that the Vitality Point/Wound Point system was developed specifically for Star Wars D20. No one else was supposed to use it. But the people who made SpyCraft did and WotC granted them permission to continue to use it.  I'm not a lawyer, but it may be possible that no other company CAN use that system.

_EDIT: And then I remember that this system made it's way into Unearthed Arcana, possibly invalidating point #5..._

I know that I personally have not seen any of the Conan rpgs that are out there. But it seems to me that Iron Heroes does a good job of delivering upon it's promise of a "low/rare" magic ruleset. The fact that it seems to be balanced with the rest of D20 (dnd) material is just an added bonus.

If you don't like it then cool, don't like it. But don't blast a product for doing what it sets out to do and for not being something that it doesn't claim to be.

*Disclaimer*: _I have not read the rulebook in it's entirety. _


----------



## Nellisir (Aug 11, 2005)

I've only skimmed the book so far, but I'm lukewarm on it.  It's certainly not the Second Coming of Dungeons & Dragons, but I probably won't sell it either.  Traits are my favorite part of the book so far, and it's disappointing that they weren't opened up as OGC, but I've come to expect that from Malhavoc.


----------



## Lobo Lurker (Aug 11, 2005)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> On the other hand, it's also the sort of thing that produced He Man.  So it's not like I don't appreciate someone calling out against the darkside.



 HEY! I *_liked_* He-Man... Dad got me castle Grey-Skull and everything. I even liked Dolph Ludgren's movie. I'm not quite sure I like the new animated series, but I'd give it a shot if it ever showed at an hour when I had time to watch tv.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 11, 2005)

Lobo Lurker said:
			
		

> I even liked Dolph Ludgren's movie.




 *stunned*

(even though I can quote from the movie...)


----------



## Azurecrusader (Aug 11, 2005)

Thread jacking in process:

Actually, the new He-Man cartoon was quite good if you liked the old stuff.  I'm sad that it got canned (or at least seems to have been canned, I'm not up on my He-Man lore).

Thread jacking done.

I'm sort of so-so on Iron Heroes.  I think I *want* to like it too much and it's making me not like it so much if that makes any sense.  I'm a little dissapointed in how poorly edited it is, certainly not what I expect from Monte and Mike.

There are great parts about it and parts that could stand some improvement.  In my opinion that's pretty much just like every other game out there.


----------



## Particle_Man (Aug 11, 2005)

From page 4: "It should be noted that this book is intened for those who have already played roleplaying games in the past.  Beginners looking for a simplistic, tutorial-style game book should look elsewhere.  This is an advanced rulebook."

That said, 7th Sea had both "beginners" and "advanced" roleplay advice, and the "don't ruin other peoples' fun just because you are trying to be 'in character': Pick a different 'character' to 'be in' instead " advice was in the "Advanced" section of the 7th Sea game, so maybe it officially counts as "advanced roleplaying advice".

Personally, I like Iron Heroes a lot, but am still absorbing it.  I think I might simply try the magic system out at first and see what happens.  Another option is simply to ban evocation, conjuration and transmutation and see what develops from that.  

But the traits, skill challenges, combat challenges, multiple choice class abilities, multiple choice token use, feat mastery feats, and stunts are all cool to me.  I like that there is the emphasis on combat.  I also like that the "do nothing" options are there, because some players will "do nothing" in any case -- they might as well provide something useful to the party for doing what they will do anyhow, by gathering tokens.

I think the DR/magic was just short-hand for "some monsters go through your armor like tissue paper" since there are no magic weapons (or if there are, they are rare and cursed).  Even the transmutation method doesn't make weapons magical.  It just makes them better weapons.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 12, 2005)

Wow, lots for me to respond to!  Perhaps I would undertake the challenge now but alas, I have a belly fully of ribs and cornbread and a solid buzz so I will wait until tomorrow.  I hope everyone can wait that long.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Aug 12, 2005)

How I wish my FLGS had a nice bench I could sit on and read the darn thing.

I flipped through it at the FLGS and came within an inch of buying it, since it looked cool, but decided not to, as my purchase stack was already nearing $100.  And then I remembered BoIM looked cool on first read, too.

Brad


----------



## Skywalker (Aug 12, 2005)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Wow, I'm obviously in the minority here but I finally got a chance to read it and I don't like it all.  Seriously.




Well, if you are then I am in the minority too. I must admit I had my suspicions from the teasers but I found myself underwhelmed by IH for the same reasons you have stated and this feeling got worse the more I read. I found that the book had a sprinkling of good ideas (most of these were stated in the early teaser material) but the product overall was very uneven and, on further exploration, incomplete. 

*sigh*


----------



## Kaos (Aug 12, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> I haven't had chance to play it yet, but I have it and have read it. I think it's fantastic, at least from a combat point of view. I'm not convinced by the magic system, though I must admit I haven't seen it in operation.
> 
> It's what I wanted D&D to be, almost.




Aside from errata (most of which is typo-oriented, but occasionally leaves some clarity problems) and some issues with the magic system, I'd echo Morrus' words.  

Combat... I wouldn't say it slows down.  Takes a bit longer, perhaps, but it stays interesting enough that it doesn't qualify as slow IMO.

I'm unclear on this idea that the VP/WP system is supposed to have the same 'goal' as the HP/reserves system, though.  AIUI, VP/WP  are an attempt to subdivide the hitpoint abstraction (allowing for, among other things, more lethality or lasting damage out of single strikes,) while HP/reserves are there to maintain it.


----------



## Dragonblade (Aug 12, 2005)

I thought Iron Heroes was good with some reservations. I agree that IH characters are on par with magic item wielding characters until about level 15 or so. After that I think the power balance begins to shift back to standard D&D characters with magic items. I don't necessarily think thats a bad thing. Just an observation.

Although, I liked what they were attempting with the magic system, I think they failed in the end. The implementation felt clunky. I also expected the Arcanist to be on par with a D&D caster with magic items, just like the IH warrior classes are on par with D&D warrior classes with magic items. Not even close. Arcanist's are not only weaker than D&D casters with magic items, they are weaker than D&D casters who have no magic items!

This makes them significantly weaker than the other IH classes and in my opinion renders the class largely unplayable as a PC class. Since the power level and balance was supposed to be on par with standard D&D sans magic items, I was extremely disappointed. A 10th level Arcanist should be able to drop the equivalent of at least one 10d6 Fireball per encounter without difficulty, IMO.

I also didn't like how the Arcanist's magic fell back to the tired D&D standard of being balanced per day instead of per encounter. If anything, some sort of mana token pool would have been perfect for the Arcanist.

Anyway, warrior classes get a big thumbs up! Magic system and Arcanist class get a big thumbs down.


----------



## Particle_Man (Aug 12, 2005)

Is it just me, or are Berserkers that choose the ability to increase their con while in a temporary rage in big trouble?  There is no healing magic to help them out when they go unconscious, and when the rage runs out...


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 12, 2005)

Malachias Invictus said:
			
		

> The roleplaying section *insults your intelligence*?  If you recall, I asked for specifics.  Specifically, how does it insult your intelligence.




Because in the intro it states that the book is an advanced ruleset for people familiar with RPG's.  If that's the case, I don't need a chapter telling me that I'm going to forgot how to role-play my character because of the orgasmic combat experience Iron Heroes provides.  It's just foolish.



			
				Malachias Invictus said:
			
		

> That is simply nonsense.  I spend a ton of money on gaming-related stuff, and I don't waste it on "benefit of the doubt".  Iron Heroes was well worth every penny, and then some.  I wish I got as much utility and pleasure out of all my gaming purchases.




Well if you read my last post on this issue, I think I explained myself quite well.  I don't think the topic needs further discussion.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 12, 2005)

Lobo Lurker said:
			
		

> 4) Keep in mind that the book is also intended to be read and easily understood by RPG (or at lease, D20) virgins. The fact that is has a roleplaying chapter is commendable.




Absolutely untrue, as proven by the text in the intro.  The author states it is an advanced rulebook for those familiar with RPG's.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 12, 2005)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> I think this is the essence of the difference I was trying to get at, but first let me apologize.




No apologies necessary.



			
				Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> My problem with Conan as a system is the very thing you bring up as a feature.  Every new change it made to the system was in regard to a specific question.  Each answer was tailored.
> 
> This is not my preferred style of game design.  To me it feels too modular and grainy.




I'm not sure what you mean by "modular and grainy" but the difference for me is that Conan has a purpose.  Again, I'm still not sure what IH's purpose is.



			
				Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> IH does a better job precisely because it is not question specific.  The How and Why is only referenced to other parts of the system.  It feels more like a complete text and it's easier to get a picture of how the different parts of the system relate to each other than it is something with an organization like Conan where instead of letting the play style demonstrate itself it tells you what it's doing.




I lost you after the first sentence so I will address that.  While I agree IH is not advertised as setting-specific, I feel that's one of the problems.  The ruleset is VERY specific to _something_, the reader just doesn't know what.  Honestly, as a DM, I wouldn't really know how to run an IH game.  The mechanics are clear and precise but what do you do with them in an actual campaign?

You say IH is a generic system and I say it's not.  The ruleset is too hard-coded to be generic.  It's even more inflexible than standard D&D.  If you want a generic system, you have to go the other way.

Now, if you want to discuss a ruleset that is completely non-specific (and yes, I'm going to bring into this thread), I have to direct your attention to Grim Tales.  GT is a completely generic system.  The difference with GT is that is truely allows you to use it for any setting that you can imagine.  And the cool thing about GT is that if you give it to 10 different people, each person will be inspired to create 10 different settings _just by reading the mechanics_.

I don't get that feeling from IH.  Conan knows what it wants to be, it tells the reader what it is, and it delivers.  Grim Tales know what it is and lets the reader decide what to make of it.  I don't think IH does any of that.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 12, 2005)

Kaos said:
			
		

> I'm unclear on this idea that the VP/WP system is supposed to have the same 'goal' as the HP/reserves system, though.




Regardless of the means in which they acheive it, the "goal" of each system is the same: to allow character to recover more quickly between battles in a setting in which magical healing is rare or non-existant.  Yes, the VP/WP system does have a higher degree of lethality built-in (which I prefer, but that's neither here nor there in this thread) but I feel the mechanics are much cleaner.


----------



## Illvillainy (Aug 12, 2005)

I feel underwhelmed by IH. Then again, I was by AE too. I'm begining to feel that Malhavoc and I have totally different approaches to game design.

Yeah, that's it. The BoVD was subpar in my opinion too. Sorry Monte and co. We're not really meant to be together.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Aug 12, 2005)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> No apologies necessary.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by "modular and grainy" but the difference for me is that Conan has a purpose.  Again, I'm still not sure what IH's purpose is.
> 
> ...




Hmm, I'm sorry I lost you where I did.

I only think IH is generic in the sense that it evokes a specific Genre, and I do think it's a big G genre not a little g genre in the sense of how much it can incorporate from specific mediums.  Something more along the lines of prosody than plot.

In terms of the GT comparison, I think if you look at the reception that IH is getting you can see how much setting based creativity the mechanics alone element of IH inspires.  So from a reception standpoint I think IH is doing fine.  On the flip side I'm certain if you showed GT to twenty different people there would be someone who wouldn't 'get' it and would be inspired to do nothing at all.  So I'd argue from your comparison that they certainly seem to be on the same page in terms of audience guidance, though I don't know for certain given my very limited experience of Grim Tales.

Reading your response I am struck by how much my experience of Conan is pushing my argument in this debate.  I just really had the impression that Conan was telling me it was doing something, doing a little bit of something in that regard, and then contradicting itself later.  Two mechanical examples: Armor as DR and Multiple Attackers.  Armor as DR in Conan drove me mad.  The game was very proud of it as a feature and it was integrated into everything, but then it got ridiculous.  Armor as DR was too static and so the game evolved two distinct methods for ignoring Armor as DR.  And the complexity of the defense systems of the game just seemed to snowball from there with dodging and parrying becoming two distinct mechanics that were initially too distinct and then just seemed to become a means of inflicting pain on confused players.  Multiple attackers was a simpler annoyance in that it was billed as a huge component of a gritty game and then only delivered a potential +5 bonus to attack, excepting of course a swarm of tiny creatures who were now insanely mighty.  So in that sense I think my argument and, indeed, my very like for IH is that for the most part I feel it actually delivered.  And in that sense I meant very literally that IH provided a better Conan than Conan OGL did, though don't get me wrong there were a number of things that Conan OGL did dead right.

If I hadn't been dissatisfied with the prior Heroic Fantasy systems out there I don't know that I'd be as into this.  That said I don't think that dissatisfaction rested entirely on the mechanical elements of the game.  I've been needing something with the genre understanding that IH has for some time.  A sort of Feng Shui, there's my comparison, for DnD both in the sense of 'furious action' and in the sense of a genre hopping fusion machine.

That said, I'm a little uncertain as to how this ruleset is more hard-coded than DnD.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Aug 12, 2005)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Regardless of the means in which they acheive it, the "goal" of each system is the same: to allow character to recover more quickly between battles in a setting in which magical healing is rare or non-existant.  Yes, the VP/WP system does have a higher degree of lethality built-in (which I prefer, but that's neither here nor there in this thread) but I feel the mechanics are much cleaner.




How?

This is sort of a cognitive dissonance issue for me.  I don't know how you could get messier than VP/WP.*


*ok, I do, but among the legitimate means of accomplishing this VP/WP seems distinctly silly and harder to explain.


----------



## Odhanan (Aug 12, 2005)

> *ok, I do, but among the legitimate means of accomplishing this VP/WP seems distinctly silly and harder to explain.




It is, I can say it. I was using VP/WP in my campaign, and the double standard just confused the players to no end. What it was doing was just satisfying a secret wish of mine to come back to a "believable" health system. And I was wrong. 

As for Grim Tales and other stuff people call "low magic", "realistic" or whatever: I'm sick and tired of games that propose daaark environments and repeat the words "grim" and "gritty" mechanically in the text, without any other elements that make you feel the grim. Examples: Midnight, Warhammer2. I'm tired of despair and shakespearian woe in role-playing games products. This is an extreme, just like others fall in the opposite, namely fake, over-the-top fantasies (don't start me on the topic of elves in D&D settings...). 

Anyway, the point I'm trying to reach is that IH adresses a precise, told G Genre, like Dr. S was saying. This Genre is, to put it simply, and for a lack of a better word, Sword and Sorcery. 

You know, *THE* Sword and Sorcery of the Grey Mouser and Conan with a strong emphasis on "sword". *THE* Sword and Sorcery where characters aren't all-knowing wizards but sellswords using their wits and daring to outplay their opponents. The guys swinging on the chandelier of the tavern to crash on the guards of the Cardinal. Yeah, these guys with the funny hats and needle-blades. 

I mean, I'm trying to understand GlassJaw, but I don't get what you're seeing as vague in IH (I'll let the "insulting" RP chapter aside on this one: if you're an advanced roleplayer, you won't be offended at being reminded of some key elements about the game from time to time). 

I see Conan RPG as a game that feels a lot like various OGL games: games taking bits and pieces from the SRD, modifying this or that, and offering all these houserules in a single volume. There's a lack of coherence in the end. 

I wouldn't say that for IH. 



> the cool thing about GT is that if you give it to 10 different people, each person will be inspired to create 10 different settings just by reading the mechanics.




Seriously, I'm glad for the fans of GT. I can't say that I know GT enough. What I can tell you, however, is that I already know a lot of fans of IH feeling this exact same thing you describe here. And I'm among them. So I guess it's "to each their own," don't you think?


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 12, 2005)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> So I guess it's "to each their own," don't you think?




That's a little convenient but does strike true.  By the nature of the posts in this thread (which are starting to go around in circles IMO and I'm losing interest to respond to them), I think we are getting at at underlying difference in style.  

In Illvillainy's short but spot-on post, he says,



			
				Illvillainy said:
			
		

> I'm begining to feel that Malhavoc and I have totally different approaches to game design.



and 


			
				Illvillainy said:
			
		

> Sorry Monte and co. We're not really meant to be together.




I wouldn't go so far to say you are either with Monte or you're against him, but I think most people will admit there is a distinctive style throughout most of the Malhavoc products.  Now I know Monte didn't write IH but I think the style comes through.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I generally like Malhavoc's stuff overall but it certainly isn't my preferred style.  They are usually very heavy on the mechanics and character options and very high-fantasy.  I also get the feeling with some Malhavoc products that the actual abilities and options are the stars of the show, not the story or characters themselves.  IH certainly has these elements.

How these elements are perceived, however (be it with IH, Grim Tales, Conan, whatever), is where the reader's personal opinion takes over.  I "get" Grim Tales and Conan; I didn't really "get" IH.  But I'm ok with that.


----------



## Odhanan (Aug 12, 2005)

> I wouldn't go so far to say you are either with Monte or you're against him, but I think most people will admit there is a distinctive style throughout most of the Malhavoc products. Now I know Monte didn't write IH but I think the style comes through.




I agree on this. Absolutely, there is a distinctive feel that people either like or don't. Much like Planescape "back in the day", when I think about it.



> I also get the feeling with some Malhavoc products that the actual abilities and options are the stars of the show, not the story or characters themselves. IH certainly has these elements.




I see what you mean, but don't see it the same way. For me, options and abilities help you get your original character concept to show through game mechanics. That is, mechanics support your ideas instead of hindering them. They add up instead of being deemed opponents in the designer's mind. At least, that's how I feel about this, and that's a big part of what I like about Malhavoc Press.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 12, 2005)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> They are usually very heavy on the mechanics and character options and very high-fantasy. I also get the feeling with some Malhavoc products that the actual abilities and options are the stars of the show, not the story or characters themselves. IH certainly has these elements.




Huh... you seem to be saying that more options means less roleplaying and less options means more roleplaying, which I can't help but find to be silly. Just because you're getting extra feats and skills doesn't mean that it becomes any harder to flesh out a character. Indeed, the first thing to do when building a character in IH is to figure out what kind of character you want to play, not in mechanical terms, but in roleplaying terms.


Grim Tales and Conan are completely different games than IH, though. Perhaps you are looking for something similar? I know lots of people were. In any case, IH is basically a D&D game without magical items. There's no big thing to it beyond that, and trying to look deeper is only going to leave you wanting. No big secret. Just High Fantasy with Sword and Sworcery, and Medium Magic to Low Magic depending on the DM and game.


----------



## Sadrik (Aug 12, 2005)

IH is about having characters without the need to have magic items and still be able to go against the appropriate CR. You decide if they succeeded or failed.

Of course there are a few things thrown in too:
Character Traits
Token pools to power abilities
Skill Groups
Magic system (that is almost excellent)
Feat system (masteries)

Overall, I rate it an 8 or 9 out of 10.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 12, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Huh... you seem to be saying that more options means less roleplaying and less options means more roleplaying, which I can't help but find to be silly. Just because you're getting extra feats and skills doesn't mean that it becomes any harder to flesh out a character. Indeed, the first thing to do when building a character in IH is to figure out what kind of character you want to play, not in mechanical terms, but in roleplaying terms.




Seem to be and what I actually said are two different things.  More options = less role-playing is silly, and again, that's not what I said.  To clarify, it's my opinion that when I read a Malhavoc product, the _emphasis_ is on the new mechanics and character options, not necessarily the fluff or story behind them.

For example, I like AU/AE but the plethora of character options seems to be attraction moreso than the campaign or story that binds them together.  With AU/AE, and IH for that matter, I think it's very important that the DM clearly set the stage for the campaign background.  Otherwise, I think it could be easy for the game to dissolve into just a bunch of rules and mechanics.  With Conan, much of the background and story is already done for you.  With GT, _nothing_ is done for you so the GM has to flesh it all out.  With AU/AE and IH, the _illusion_ of a campaign setting is there but it's not clearly defined.



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Grim Tales and Conan are completely different games than IH, though. Perhaps you are looking for something similar?




Perhaps on some level I was.  And I could be guilty of having some preconceived notion of what it was going to be even though I tried to stay as impartial as I could be while I read it.  I still think I was but it's tough to not have some personal opinion spillover into everything you read.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 12, 2005)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> I see what you mean, but don't see it the same way. For me, options and abilities help you get your original character concept to show through game mechanics. That is, mechanics support your ideas instead of hindering them. They add up instead of being deemed opponents in the designer's mind. At least, that's how I feel about this, and that's a big part of what I like about Malhavoc Press.




Another excellent example of different play styles.  I definitely think a book chock full of options and abilities can get in the way of creative thought.  Instead of creating a cool character concept, some players get their heads stuck in the books and analyze ever ability combination.  That's why I like Grim Tales so much.  It's completely generic so I can use the rules to flesh out my concept, not the other way around.  

Once again, different strokes (this seems to be a recurring theme in this thread   ).


----------



## Henry (Aug 12, 2005)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> How?
> 
> This is sort of a cognitive dissonance issue for me.  I don't know how you could get messier than VP/WP.*
> 
> ...




YOu said you weren't that familiar with the VP/WP mechanic, and I think no one has spelled it out here, but Vitality points regenerate at a rate of 1 pt. per hour per level. Therefore,it's a harsher version of the reserve point system, with the occasional "gut shot" built in. A character involved in heavy combat, no matter their level, a CON 10 character will regain all their VP's within a 6 to 12 hour timeframe (longer if you're hardier).


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 12, 2005)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> To clarify, it's my opinion that when I read a Malhavoc product, the _emphasis_ is on the new mechanics and character options, not necessarily the fluff or story behind them.




Ah, but wouldn't you say that there is more emphasis on fluff and story in IH than in the D&D Core books? At least I personally think so.



			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> I definitely think a book chock full of options and abilities can get in the way of creative thought. Instead of creating a cool character concept, some players get their heads stuck in the books and analyze ever ability combination.




Now we _are_ going in circles. You think the emphasis on combat options and abilities can get in the way of character concept, but you don't like Iron Heroes warning that combat options and abilities can get in the way of character concept.



			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Perhaps on some level I was. And I could be guilty of having some preconceived notion of what it was going to be even though I tried to stay as impartial as I could be while I read it. I still think I was but it's tough to not have some personal opinion spillover into everything you read.




Well, one of the telling statements by you in this thread is "It so wants to be Conan but it isn't." Because it really really doesn't want to be Conan. If you had realized this before you read it, perhaps that would have helped. It wants to be D&D. It wants to be High Fantasy with a cinematic flair and a pinache for daring do an danger. It wants to face off against dragon and demons and all sorts of giant monstrocities like purple worms in the same way that any D&D characters would. It wants to be concievably _less _deadly than D&D, too. While preserving that old notion of a sense of wonder at the magical.

So comparing it to Grim Tales or Conan is one of the biggest flaws in logic you make. Lots of people made this mistake, so its an easy one to make, though. Wanting to go "low magic" and "low power" seems to be the hip thing these days. Mearls just didn't agree.

Now onto something else:

One of your main complaints, if you will indulge me, seems to be that there is a theoretical structure of a campaign setting inside. It's as if Mearls has a campaign setting detailed somewhere but is only sharing bits and pieces with us when he sees fit. Thus, you feel like there is supposed to be a substantial world to run this game in, but we have no knowledge of what that world actually is. 

In fact, I can't tell if that is the case, and he detailed a setting during playtest that got added in as fluffy bits in the book, or if he's just making it up as he goes along. Personally, I plan on scrapping it all and going with my own thing, but I can see how that would be frustrating. It leads to a certain expectation that isn't met. Of all your discussion against Iron Heroes, this is what I agree with most. It's not, to me, that the mechanics are disjoined from each other in the game, but that the implied setting is disjointed from itself (and possibly the underlying mechanics - its hard to tell).


----------



## Malachias Invictus (Aug 12, 2005)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Although, I liked what they were attempting with the magic system, I think they failed in the end. The implementation felt clunky. I also expected the Arcanist to be on par with a D&D caster with magic items, just like the IH warrior classes are on par with D&D warrior classes with magic items. Not even close. Arcanist's are not only weaker than D&D casters with magic items, they are weaker than D&D casters who have no magic items!




*Big* agreement here.  I think what a lot of us really want to see is an Arcanist that can kick ass along with the rest of the group, but who cannot overshadow the *skills* of the other characters with magic.  I am trying to work on a good adaptation of Elements of Magic (with the help of a few folks here, at the Malhavoc boards, and at rec.games.frp.dnd) so that the Arcanist can be used for the most part as written with the modified magic system appended.




			
				Dragonblade said:
			
		

> This makes them significantly weaker than the other IH classes and in my opinion renders the class largely unplayable as a PC class. Since the power level and balance was supposed to be on par with standard D&D sans magic items, I was extremely disappointed. A 10th level Arcanist should be able to drop the equivalent of at least one 10d6 Fireball per encounter without difficulty, IMO.




Agreed on all points.  Hell, I think the Arcanist should be able to *exceed* that if he wants to take a risk.



			
				Dragonblade said:
			
		

> I also didn't like how the Arcanist's magic fell back to the tired D&D standard of being balanced per day instead of per encounter.




Agreed, although I am not sure how to tackle that problem.  I also dislike the fact that the same old, tired, unbalanced D&D schools of magic were used.



			
				Dragonblade said:
			
		

> If anything, some sort of mana token pool would have been perfect for the Arcanist.




I am open to any ideas about how to implement this with Elements of Magic.


----------



## Malachias Invictus (Aug 12, 2005)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Regardless of the means in which they acheive it, the "goal" of each system is the same: to allow character to recover more quickly between battles in a setting in which magical healing is rare or non-existant.




Perhaps I just disagree as to the primary goal you assign to VP/WP systems.  In my opinion, the primary goal is to provide increased lethality in a hit point system.  Given that VP/WP are completely compatable with magical healing (for example, they are a suggested variant for D&D in Unearthed Arcana), I don't see the recovery sans healing magic as the primary goal, but rather a feature.  For the reserve point system, it is *clearly* the goal, since other than having a different method of hit point recovery, the hit point system is identical to the standard D&D hit point system.



			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Yes, the VP/WP system does have a higher degree of lethality built-in (which I prefer, but that's neither here nor there in this thread) but I feel the mechanics are much cleaner.




"Cleaner" is irrelevant when the mechanic does not serve its function.  VP/WP, with its increased lethality, would be an extremely poor fit for Iron Heroes.


----------



## Malachias Invictus (Aug 12, 2005)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> While I agree IH is not advertised as setting-specific, I feel that's one of the problems.  The ruleset is VERY specific to _something_, the reader just doesn't know what.




*This* reader does.  Apparently, quite a few others feel the same way.



			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Honestly, as a DM, I wouldn't really know how to run an IH game.  The mechanics are clear and precise but what do you do with them in an actual campaign?




Personally, I am running a magic-item free (more or less) D&D game.  Quite frankly, the "medieval town/city" setup prevalent in most campiagn material fits Iron Heroes *better* than it fits D&D, due to the differences in magic.  It is also far easier to promote actual travelling from place to place, which is a good way to introduce side treks and the like.



			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> You say IH is a generic system and I say it's not.  The ruleset is too hard-coded to be generic.  It's even more inflexible than standard D&D.  If you want a generic system, you have to go the other way.




I have yet to find a truly generic system (that includes GURPS, which I have played a fair bit).



			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> The difference with GT is that is truely allows you to use it for any setting that you can imagine.




Although I have not read Grim Tales, I have found that statement to prove untrue with every other system I have experienced.  Then again, this depends upon your definition of "setting".



			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> And the cool thing about GT is that if you give it to 10 different people, each person will be inspired to create 10 different settings _just by reading the mechanics_.




That *does* sound intriguing.



			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> I don't get that feeling from IH.  Conan knows what it wants to be, it tells the reader what it is, and it delivers.  Grim Tales know what it is and lets the reader decide what to make of it.  I don't think IH does any of that.




I, obviously, disagree.  Magic system aside, Iron Heroes delivered what I wanted.


----------



## Ruvion (Aug 12, 2005)

[ignore please...]carry on


----------



## Ruvion (Aug 12, 2005)

Malachias Invictus said:
			
		

> I, obviously, disagree.  Magic system aside, Iron Heroes delivered what I wanted.




Ditto.   
One of the best find I've seen within the last few years.


----------



## Malachias Invictus (Aug 12, 2005)

Originally Posted by Malachias Invictus
The roleplaying section *insults your intelligence*? If you recall, I asked for specifics. Specifically, how does it insult your intelligence.



			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Because in the intro it states that the book is an advanced ruleset for people familiar with RPG's.




Okay.  I am pretty certain they are referring to the relative complexity of integrating stunts, skill challenges, and Feat Masteries into the system, but okay.



			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> If that's the case, I don't need a chapter telling me that I'm going to forgot how to role-play my character because of the orgasmic combat experience Iron Heroes provides.  It's just foolish.




I feel you are being quite disingenuous with the above.  That is one sentence in the introduction, not the whole chapter.  Did you fail to notice the sample, suggested setting?  I assume that you did, since you were complaining about the lack of setting in another post.  Did you miss the part about how to integrate religion?  There are plenty of folks who are experienced at roleplaying but have never operated without the guideline of alignment, particularly in Iron Heroes' target market.  I think the roleplaying section (which I just got through reading) is fine.  Claiming it insults your intelligence makes you come off as being far too easy to offend.


----------



## Victim (Aug 12, 2005)

Quite frankly, it sounds to me that IH does Conan better than the Conan RPG does.  Multiple attacker bonus?!   A Conan RPG should have a lone wolf bonus, if anything, since a true warrior relies on the strength and speed of his sword arm, not having lots of friends.  And a vitality system is inappropriate when Conan emerges from his fights wounded all the time.

The classses in Iron Heroes also tend to strongly suggest certain encounter structures.  Beserkers and Armigers thrive on swarms of guys.  Archers, weapon masters, and executioners like few tough guys.  Hunters and Archers probably want some terrain they can exploit.  Each class is like a vote towards certain encounter types.


----------



## Malachias Invictus (Aug 12, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> One of your main complaints, if you will indulge me, seems to be that there is a theoretical structure of a campaign setting inside. It's as if Mearls has a campaign setting detailed somewhere but is only sharing bits and pieces with us when he sees fit. Thus, you feel like there is supposed to be a substantial world to run this game in, but we have no knowledge of what that world actually is.




Pages 153-155 detail a sample setting.


----------



## melon-neko (Aug 12, 2005)

Well, I have not played IH and i probably never will. Not for lack of wanting to, just how things turn out. I liked alot about IH and as far as i know, all it was meant to deliver was a bunch of kick ass fighters that continue to kick ass without a plethora of magic artifacts. I did that wonderfully. I do not, however, think it makes for a good campaign. The main reason is because all the classes have very few options. I prefer many options, i know others don't. I don't like D&D classes either. I do think it is very good for short term adventures and for those games where you play kinda like a miniature wargame =)  The thing i like the least, is tokens. They are an interesting idea, but until everyone memorizes how you get them and what they do it's going to slow down combat alot. If its with a hardcore group that doesn't mind memorizing all that, it's fine. If its with a more 'part time gamer' group, it would be difficult.

I have not read conan or grim tales so i cannot comment on how it compares.

I guess i am with the group of "i think it is good for what it does, but what it does is not really what i want"

Melon-neko


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 12, 2005)

Victim said:
			
		

> Multiple attacker bonus?!   A Conan RPG should have a lone wolf bonus, if anything, since a true warrior relies on the strength and speed of his sword arm, not having lots of friends.




The bad guys can benefit from the multiple attacker bonuses as well.



> And a vitality system is inappropriate when Conan emerges from his fights wounded all the time.




Conan doesn't use the VP/Wp system.  It uses the standard hp system with a brutal MDS.

The Conan book rules.  I think it's my favorite d20 book next to Grim Tales.


----------



## Malachias Invictus (Aug 12, 2005)

melon-neko said:
			
		

> I liked alot about IH and as far as i know, all it was meant to deliver was a bunch of kick ass fighters that continue to kick ass without a plethora of magic artifacts. I did that wonderfully. I do not, however, think it makes for a good campaign. The main reason is because all the classes have very few options. I prefer many options, i know others don't. I don't like D&D classes either.




Do you have a class-based system that *does* give enough options?  Compared to D&D, IH gives a *ton* of character options, and without Prestige Class/Feat bloat.  That is one of the things I really liked about it.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 13, 2005)

Malachias Invictus said:
			
		

> Pages 153-155 detail a sample setting.




Somewhat. We're talking very very bare bones, though. Two people playing IH could have very dissimilar world. Like I said, I don't care. I'm dropping all that First and other stuff. No Ghostlands either. It's been a while since I homebrewed.



On options: It gives more options than D&D. Skill groups, cross class skills are gone, more feats, traits, free multiclassing... it goes on. Options galore in this game. You want to be able to swing a sword and woo a damsel in distress? No problem. And on the list goes. As far as options go, IH is great.


----------



## Dragonblade (Aug 13, 2005)

Malachias Invictus said:
			
		

> I am open to any ideas about how to implement this with Elements of Magic.




I must admit that I don't have Elements of Magic, so I'm not familiar with it all. I have heard good things though.

What I had in mind was a mana token pool similar to the how the Archer class has his Aim token pool. For example:

-------
An Arcanist has a base mana token pool equal to his Int, Wis, or Cha bonus, whichever is higher. This base mana token pool auto replenishes once per round as a free action on the Arcanist's turn.

The Arcanist can gather additional mana from the ambient mana around him. He can gather X mana tokens (some level dependant number) by concentrating as a Move action. He can gather X+2 as a standard action, and X + 5 as a full round action.

He can use these mana tokens to cast spells. The base mana token cost to cast a spell is the spell DC/2 (round up). An Arcanist can decrease the DC by 1 per additional token spent. If the Arcanist does not have enough tokens, he can try to cast the spell anyway and the DC increases by 1 for every token he is short.
----

I just threw that together, so it may or may be balanced. But that is the sort of system I really wanted to see. As soon as I read IH cover to cover, I loaned it out to a friend, so I no longer have it in my possession to check my house ruled mana token system. But as soon as I get my book back, I'll take the system I just came up with and play around with it to make sure its balanced.

Let me know what you all think.


----------



## melon-neko (Aug 13, 2005)

Malachias Invictus said:
			
		

> Do you have a class-based system that *does* give enough options? Compared to D&D, IH gives a *ton* of character options, and without Prestige Class/Feat bloat. That is one of the things I really liked about it.




No, i don't think i have ever seen a class based system that gives enough options
And i agree, i think that compared to D&D, IH classes are better and the mastery tree's were really quite nice. However, no matter how many options you have, the class abilities force you into roles, so you choose your class based on what you want to do. Which is what its supposed to do i guess. You don't want an Armiger that doesn't put all his effort into his armor, that would be silly. 

I suppose it comes down to, i would prefer to look at feats and decide how my character can do what i want, then have to look at feats and 8 different class abilities. Not that i didn't make characters for IH already just to see how they work out =)

I admit, that i will never be satisfied, i am not even satisfied with the stuff  *I* write -_-  I absolutely HATE the amount of prestige classes around, but i do understand why they exist.


Sorry if my post lacks coherancy. So does my brain.

Melon-neko


----------



## med stud (Aug 13, 2005)

I love it so far! First of all the options make it possible to make the PC you want, more or less; I toyed around with Man-at-Arms builds and came up with a crusader, an Indiana Jones-type and a frontier warrior. The feats, stunts and combat challenges mean that you put the tactical dimension of combats in the hands of everyone in the party. IME regular D&D combat tactics often depend very heavily on casters and magic items. This is the first version of a D&D-like game that actually inspires tactics in all players that I have found.

My favourite thing about IH, though, I found out when creating a Weapon Master at lvl 20. After creating a good to go lvl 20 character in about 15 minutes I realized that he had lots of options and were really dangerous with his sword. Someone could see the Weapon master cutting down frost giants like wheat with his famous sword, but if they stole the sword from the Weapon master they would see that it was just a regular sword.

The sword was not dangerous because it's +4 Keen Vorpal with Shocking burst and Flame burst but because it has a bad ass wielder. I absolutely love that part.


----------



## Azgulor (Aug 13, 2005)

Victim said:
			
		

> Quite frankly, it sounds to me that IH does Conan better than the Conan RPG does.  Multiple attacker bonus?!   A Conan RPG should have a lone wolf bonus, if anything, since a true warrior relies on the strength and speed of his sword arm, not having lots of friends.  And a vitality system is inappropriate when Conan emerges from his fights wounded all the time.
> 
> The classses in Iron Heroes also tend to strongly suggest certain encounter structures.  Beserkers and Armigers thrive on swarms of guys.  Archers, weapon masters, and executioners like few tough guys.  Hunters and Archers probably want some terrain they can exploit.  Each class is like a vote towards certain encounter types.




Since I wholeheartedly disagree that IH does Conan better than Conan RPG, I'm forced to weigh in - and with one of the IH elements that was beaten to death a few months ago.

When was the last time Conan fired arrows into a tree to make an impromptu ladder in order to lay an ambush?

IH is HIGH FANTASY WITHOUT MAGIC ITEMS (per Mearls, btw) - hence the ability to handle equivalent D&D CR encounters.  Conan is Swords-n-Sorcery.  You can conceivably hammer either system to suit the other genre, but it's not their default styles of play.

Azgulor


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Aug 13, 2005)

Not to get into the arguments with the IH fans, but I'll just say that I saw it and found it wanting in several places.  

I just grabbed the Shackled City AP and a Dungeon sub so my gaming dollar was tapped out, so I didn't pick it up.

Going to mine it for a few things, though.  I RE-he-heally like some things in IH, but it just wasn't full enough to be a shaking-handed must-have.  I'm glad alot of people like it, but it's like C&C, I think.  When C&C came out, this part of the messageboards had about seven threads at a run going full out with "dude, C&C is the best EVAR".  It filled some peoples' needs.  IH is doing the same thing.  GT did the same for some people when it came out.

I'm a picky picky bastage, so I've got crap strapped together from here to next week.   

--fje


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Aug 13, 2005)

> I wouldn't go so far to say you are either with Monte or you're against him, but I think most people will admit there is a distinctive style throughout most of the Malhavoc products. Now I know Monte didn't write IH but I think the style comes through.




In many ways I'd say I've noticed the opposite.  I'd say the difference in style is most likely a difference in critical style more than anything else.  That may cross-over into other things, but that certainly seems to be the most appropos given the distinctions between the messages on these boards.

RPG.net is having a rather different conversation on this subject from what I've seen.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 13, 2005)

melon-neko said:
			
		

> I suppose it comes down to, i would prefer to look at feats and decide how my character can do what i want, then have to look at feats and 8 different class abilities.



Never have I seen a man more in need of HERO.

Am I right, people?


----------



## Particle_Man (Aug 13, 2005)

melon-neko said:
			
		

> No, i don't think i have ever seen a class based system that gives enough options
> And i agree, i think that compared to D&D, IH classes are better and the mastery tree's were really quite nice. However, no matter how many options you have, the class abilities force you into roles, so you choose your class based on what you want to do. Which is what its supposed to do i guess. You don't want an Armiger that doesn't put all his effort into his armor, that would be silly.
> 
> I suppose it comes down to, i would prefer to look at feats and decide how my character can do what i want, then have to look at feats and 8 different class abilities. Not that i didn't make characters for IH already just to see how they work out =)




The Man at Arms in IH has nothing but feats.  A few feats can be changed every single day.  If this doesn't do what you want, I suggest you look at GURPS.


----------



## Kaos (Aug 13, 2005)

Just one random comment here...



> When was the last time Conan fired arrows into a tree to make an impromptu ladder in order to lay an ambush?




Probably about the same time as someone saw Conan craft an magical illusory wall to help with the ambush...


----------



## Malachias Invictus (Aug 13, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Somewhat. We're talking very very bare bones, though. Two people playing IH could have very dissimilar world. Like I said, I don't care. I'm dropping all that First and other stuff. No Ghostlands either. It's been a while since I homebrewed.




Oh, I am not using it either.  I am just saying that there is some minimal setting information there.  More than the D&D PHB, anyway ;-)



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> On options: It gives more options than D&D. Skill groups, cross class skills are gone, more feats, traits, free multiclassing... it goes on. Options galore in this game. You want to be able to swing a sword and woo a damsel in distress? No problem. And on the list goes. As far as options go, IH is great.




Agreed, although to be fair, there are multiclassing kinks to be worked out, and even when they are, multiclassing seems like it will be pretty suboptimal.


----------



## Turanil (Aug 13, 2005)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> That said, I have also noticed a trend that when someone criticizes a Malhavoc product, that person is potentially opening themselves up to a more lot of flack from other posters (some might refer to them as fanboys) than if they criticized a product from another publisher.



True! I experienced that when criticizing _Beyond Countless Doorways_, even while I tried to write a fair (although opiniated) review...


----------



## melon-neko (Aug 13, 2005)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> The Man at Arms in IH has nothing but feats. A few feats can be changed every single day. If this doesn't do what you want, I suggest you look at GURPS.




That is true. The man at arms is nifty, if i played IH i would use that or the Hunter. I do not like GURPS, although the last time i looked at it was like 15 yrs ago or something @_@


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 13, 2005)

There's a new edition of GURPS, you might like to check it out. Seems to me that a point-buy based game is what you really want - GURPS and HERO are the two big ones.


----------



## melon-neko (Aug 13, 2005)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> There's a new edition of GURPS, you might like to check it out. Seems to me that a point-buy based game is what you really want - GURPS and HERO are the two big ones.




Maybe, it depends on the combat system. I really like the D&D combat system, that is possibly all i like about it, but i like it alot. Also, i have a hard enough time getting D20 games, trying to get my friends to learn a new system besides white wolf would be impossible. I like whitewolf too, but it is completely different, so comparing is pointless. Actually, i rather like greenronins true20 character building, that is customizable enough for me.  Anyways, this is divering from the topic!

Oh, one thing i did reallly like about IH was the random DR for armor, i thought that was nice.


----------



## philreed (Aug 13, 2005)

I think it's a very neat approach to D20 roleplaying that looks at the game from more of a "tabletop combat" angle than a "sit around on the floor and use funny voices" angle. There are some very good bits in there (I _like_ the reserve point system) and it could definitely be mined for ideas.

I think I'm reserving any real solid judgement for the game until I see the "Mastering" book. But at this point I'd recommend the PDF to someone that's on the fence about the concepts. If you like what you're hearing just go ahead and buy the printed version.


----------



## Malachias Invictus (Aug 13, 2005)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> There's a new edition of GURPS, you might like to check it out. Seems to me that a point-buy based game is what you really want - GURPS and HERO are the two big ones.




Agreed on that.  I really like the new GURPS system.  However, I am very turned off by the fact that Steve Jackson Games' production schedule seems to be "when we get to it".


----------



## Turjan (Aug 13, 2005)

Denaes said:
			
		

> I've only skimmed the IH PDF and noted that the art/layout utterly turn me off.



Heh, funny ! I'm aware that the appreciation of art always boils down to personal preference (and I find it quite nice), but I cannot really understand the discontent with the book's layout. IMO, the layout is a definite high point for me.

As far as the contents is concerned, I'm not overly excited, but this was to be expected. I bought the book out of mild curiosity, fully aware of the fact that the direction the book goes is not really what I expect from a D&D style game. Therefore, that's not the book's fault . I'm really looking forward to seeing how the NPC generation will be streamlined in the DM's book .


----------



## Shieldhaven (Aug 14, 2005)

Apparently my take on Iron Heroes is not one shared by anyone else here, unless I missed a post or two in skimming.  In its heart of hearts, this rules system wants to be used for a Middle Earth campaign.  It doesn't matter that arcanists have to be super high level to accomplish anything - in Middle Earth, only the Istari have significant magic, and they're _immortals_.  The elves?  Same deal, but with much less power.  This rules system actually embraces the rarity (but not nonexistence) of magic items that you see in LotR.

Aragorn?  Hunter.
Legolas? Archer.
Gimli? Armiger.
Boromir? Man-at-Arms, maybe.
Sam?  Definitely a man-at-arms.
Frodo and the Indistinguishable Backup Hobbits? Thief.  Eventually multiclassing, probably.

Haven


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 15, 2005)

Last night, I was visiting some friends and while I relaxed on the couch and waited for them to finish playing _Heroes of Might and Magic IV_, I was thinking about _Sin City_.

Specifically, about the bit where Marv thinks in voice-over, "Impossible. No-one can sneak up on me -" and gets bushwhacked by Kevin.

That, right there, is Improved Uncanny Dodge being beaten by someone higher-level. So if Marv is a berserker (with the Bloodthirsty and Strong traits?) - he even gets inspired to greater and greater efforts (i.e. tokens) when his allies fall - Kevin is clearly an executioner.

The action throughout _Sin City_ is very much what I think of when I think of _Iron Heroes_. Jumping off a second-story window ledge and running to your car; throwing a littler slug with pinpoint accuracy into a gun barrel; grenades exploding at your feet and just throwing you back; leaping towards a car hurtling at you and slamming your feet through the windshield to kill the occupants.


----------



## Particle_Man (Aug 15, 2005)

Ever watch Warner Bros. cartoons where Bugs Bunny takes Elmer Fudd/Yosemite Sam/Tazmanian Devil/insert bad guy/etc. and starts feeding him a line of absolute b.s., but the bad guy believes it for a while, giving Bugs time to slip away *yet again*?

Bug Bunny is a *very* high level Thief with Bluff maxed out.  Daffy Duck is lower level, as evidenced by the infamous "It's Rabbit Season!  It's Duck Season bit."  

Mind you, toons have INFINITE reserve points.


----------



## wizofice (Aug 15, 2005)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Bug Bunny is a *very* high level Thief with Bluff maxed out.  Daffy Duck is lower level, as evidenced by the infamous "It's Rabbit Season!  It's Duck Season bit."



Hm.  I would have said he made Daffy think he heard the opposite, giving him a few levels of arcanist, but I think yours makes more sense.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Aug 15, 2005)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> The action throughout _Sin City_ is very much what I think of when I think of _Iron Heroes_. Jumping off a second-story window ledge and running to your car; throwing a littler slug with pinpoint accuracy into a gun barrel; grenades exploding at your feet and just throwing you back; leaping towards a car hurtling at you and slamming your feet through the windshield to kill the occupants.




I thought of this as well.


----------



## Tharen the Damned (Aug 15, 2005)

Now I really love the combat mechanics. I haven´t played IH yet, but am preparing a one shot for my Players.
What I do not like is the "unfinished" or "sloppy work" feeling the magic system has.
This is the first time I feel like that with a Malhavoc product.
And this leaves me disappointed, because I am used to the high Malhavoc standards.

What I do not understand: Every mechanic was playtested. The magic system too. Did the playtesters not point out, that it was flawed? And if they did, why was it incorporated?

This is my gripe. Not the great new IH system (except magic of course) itself.


----------



## Odhanan (Aug 15, 2005)

> True! I experienced that when criticizing Beyond Countless Doorways, even while I tried to write a fair (although opiniated) review...




Aww... come on, Turanil! You mean the review filled of "childish"s and "foolish"s ? When you write an "opinionated review", you shouldn't be surprised if some people discuss/reject your "arguments", especially if it is a product like _Beyond Countless Doorways_ which seems to have pleased a lot of its customers.


----------



## Malachias Invictus (Aug 15, 2005)

Tharen the Damned said:
			
		

> What I do not understand: Every mechanic was playtested. The magic system too. Did the playtesters not point out, that it was flawed? And if they did, why was it incorporated?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## wizofice (Aug 15, 2005)

Malachias Invictus said:
			
		

> Mike himself said that he wanted it excised (presumably to be done right in another book).  Of course, that is not his sole decision.




Essentially, he didn't have the time to devote to it to get it to the point he was happy with it, as you'll read in our exclusive interview with him this Thursday at the Iron-League (shameless plug).


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Aug 15, 2005)

Tharen the Damned said:
			
		

> Now I really love the combat mechanics. I haven´t played IH yet, but am preparing a one shot for my Players.
> What I do not like is the "unfinished" or "sloppy work" feeling the magic system has.
> This is the first time I feel like that with a Malhavoc product.
> And this leaves me disappointed, because I am used to the high Malhavoc standards.
> ...




What's interesting to me is how much of the playtesting commentary on the arcanist seems positive.  I suspect the features showed up better then flaws when it was in development.


----------



## wizofice (Aug 15, 2005)

While I wouldn't deny there are some very loyal Malhavoc fans (perhaps in part because of the smaller, get-to-know-everyone online community over there), the people who post the most over there with regards to _Iron Heroes _ aren't at all the usual suspects.  I think _IH _ is drawing a different crowd.


----------



## Yuan-Ti (Aug 15, 2005)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> Never have I seen a man more in need of HERO.




Or _Grim Tales_, the most flexible class system for d20 to date.


----------



## Malachias Invictus (Aug 15, 2005)

wizofice said:
			
		

> Essentially, he didn't have the time to devote to it to get it to the point he was happy with it, as you'll read in our exclusive interview with him this Thursday at the Iron-League (shameless plug).




I'll be there.  I have chatted with him on the boards a bit, but I am looking forward to reading a comprehensive interview.


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 16, 2005)

wizofice said:
			
		

> While I wouldn't deny there are some very loyal Malhavoc fans (perhaps in part because of the smaller, get-to-know-everyone online community over there), the people who post the most over there with regards to Iron Heroes aren't at all the usual suspects. I think IH is drawing a different crowd.




Just to stress this point...I'm certainly part of that "different crowd." I'm also one of the major _Iron Heroes_ advocates/fans both here and on the ezboard site. I confess to having bought two previous Malhavoc products, both for their changes to magic - as I loathe the default D&D magic system and always have. I have the _Book of Eldritch Might_ containing the variant sorcerer and bard in .pdf format. I also bought (again, mostly for its magic system) _Arcana Unearthed_. Both were, IMO, okay, but I was disappointed, and began to suspect that Monte and I had very different "goals" for our games. I certainly disagreed with his critiques of the changes that were made to 3e magic (particularly "buff" spell durations). I had not purchased another Malhavoc product SINCE.

So I'm far from being a Malhavoc "fanboy." Then I heard about _Iron Heroes_ (back when it was still known as _Iron Lore_). I was intrigued. Then I started reading about it, and reading Mike Mearls' comments about it. And I became more intrigued. After becoming convinced it would do what I wanted done (which is allow me to play D&D without ubiquitous magic items), I pre-ordered the book through Amazon, and I bought the pdf when it was released on drivethrurpg.

I have NOT been disappointed. Well, except with the magic system not living up to the rest of this otherwise excellent product. I'd really like to see what Mike's ideal of the _Iron Heroes_ magic system is. But I have hope that those of us who want to will be able to work with him and Malhavoc to help something very similar see the light of day. But I digress...

As far as what it's "trying to be," Mike commented in his design diaries that the creation of _Iron Heroes_ was inspired by his somewhat garbled understanding of Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd & Grey Mouser stories based on reading the _Nehwon Mythos_ chapter in the 1st Edition _Deities & Demigods_ when he was 10. Now, I admit I'm a little older than Mike, but I understood that feel VERY well as I got the same one myself.

So what is _Iron Heroes?_ It's Sword & Sorcery fiction or D&D without the reliable magic (especially magic _items_). In _Iron Heroes_, the stuff you find at the Bazaar of the Bizarre really is...bizarre. Basically, it's truer to D&D's fantasy, legendary, and mythical roots than the basic game is.

At least, that's how I see it.


----------



## Tharen the Damned (Aug 16, 2005)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> What's interesting to me is how much of the playtesting commentary on the arcanist seems positive.  I suspect the features showed up better then flaws when it was in development.




Hmm,

I have yet to try out the Arcanist in actual play. I only read the rules and comments ond this and Montes boards.

Maybe the Arcanist is a blast in actual play. I will have to see this for myself.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 16, 2005)

Yuan-Ti said:
			
		

> Or _Grim Tales_, the most flexible class system for d20 to date.



I can't speak to that, since I haven't looked at any "rules light" OGL games.

I tend to think that you shouldn't take half measures, though. I'm sure _Grim Tales_ is a fun game for those who play it, but if my problems with D&D were its class-level system, I'd just go straight to a point-buy system, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.


----------



## Malachias Invictus (Aug 16, 2005)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> I can't speak to that, since I haven't looked at any "rules light" OGL games.
> 
> I tend to think that you shouldn't take half measures, though. I'm sure _Grim Tales_ is a fun game for those who play it, but if my problems with D&D were its class-level system, I'd just go straight to a point-buy system, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.




Seconded.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 16, 2005)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> I can't speak to that, since I haven't looked at any "rules light" OGL games.
> 
> I tend to think that you shouldn't take half measures, though. I'm sure _Grim Tales_ is a fun game for those who play it, but if my problems with D&D were its class-level system, I'd just go straight to a point-buy system, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.




Since when is Grim Tales "rules light"?  You would probably be quite happy with GT if you like the class-level system actually since it gives you many more options within that system as compared to standard D&D.

Regardless, rules-light it's not.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 17, 2005)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Since when is Grim Tales "rules light"?



Oh, I'm sorry. I just figured that since everybody who talks about it calls it a simpler, lighter system than D&D, it must be. 

Regardless, my point remains: People who describe the class-level acquisition of powers as a problem should probably just be playing a point-buy game. There are plenty of excellent choices out there.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 17, 2005)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> Oh, I'm sorry. I just figured that since everybody who talks about it calls it a simpler, lighter system than D&D, it must be.




I don't call it that, and I'm one of its primary advocates around here.  *shrugs*



> Regardless, my point remains: People who describe the class-level acquisition of powers as a problem should probably just be playing a point-buy game. There are plenty of excellent choices out there.




I have no problem with classes and levels.  I just like GT because the classes aren't specific archetypes.  My Strong Hero will be vastly different than your Strong Hero.  I get the impression that there will be less deviation as to how people play the various IH characters.  They are very specific (even moreso than the core D&D classes) archetypes IMO.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 17, 2005)

Relevant to this discussion is a quote from Mike Mearls' LiveJournal from ages ago. To paraphrase:

"You should design your game so that it actively discourages the people who don't like what you're trying to do from buying it."

I think this is the flipside of "A game which is designed to do a specific thing will generally do it much better than any generic game could."


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 17, 2005)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> I have no problem with classes and levels.  I just like GT because the classes aren't specific archetypes.



Perhaps you're missing it, but . . . you're not the person for whom I recommended point-buy games, and his problem didn't seem to be overly-strong archetypes, it seemed to be the fact that D&D-style games cause automatic acquisition of certain abilities to the exclusion of others, because of the class-level system.


----------



## Dark Psion (Aug 17, 2005)

So far, I like it!

As to not having a "Setting", I am thinking of using Legend of the Five Rings setting but Iron Heroes rules. The new 3rd edition AEG L5R just left me cold, but using these rules will be interesting.

With Iron Heroes rules, Samurai is just a title, like Duke or Baron. They would actually use all of the classes here so you are not sure if that Crab blocking your path is a Armiger, Berzerker, Weaponmaster (Tetsubo) or just a Man-at-arms.

I will add a new trait: Clan as well as Clan feats. 

The Arcanist will require a little work to change it into a Shukenja, but changing the four schools to the four elements should be easy. 

I do think a Martial Artist can be made from the Weapon Master. I would make most Monks weaponmansters, retired from another class or use the Man-at-arms to represent their unpredictability.

Also, I think Martial Arts Mastery feats can be made for each type of martial art, Blood and Fists from RPG Objects should help with that.

The Courtier does present a problem, maybe a variant Hunter that could use his Tactics feats in court and change his woodland bonuses to Courtly Senses. The Thief does have best access to Social feats and has some very good defensive abilities.

Other variant ideas would be a Unicorn Mounted Harrier and a Crab Kaiu Armiger who is a master at building fortifications.


----------



## TimSmith (Aug 17, 2005)

*Question about standard D&D adventure compatibility with Iron Heroes*

I like the sound of IH. For those who are into it:-

1) Could I run IH characters through a "standard" D&D adventure just by altering/removing magic items' availability? 

2)Or are existing NPC spellcasters for example going to be too dangerous to the players now? 

3)Would it be possible to use NPCs virtually unchanged (whether magic users or otherwise) if IH is supposed to be balanced for existing D&D CR's? 

4)What about monsters etc (eg demons and dragons)?

5) Any other compatibility issues that leap to your minds.


----------



## wizofice (Aug 17, 2005)

Two things that spring to mind: no alignments (and therefore no [Good] or [Evil] weapons, no effect for protection from alignment spells on PCs) and DR (metals are still good as is —, but Good, Evil, etc. would need to be changed).

I believe the CRs are supposed to be close, however, I think a low-level _IH_ party would slaughter a low-level wizard or sorcerer in short order, but that's just a guess.  I'd like to see what happens with a higher-level one.

Another issue might be that the NPCs would have far fewer skills and therefore far fewer options in combat (even Appraise has a use!), but that in some ways just makes the DM's job easier since he won't have to deal with too many options and it'd be easy enough to give them some beforehand or on the fly.


----------



## Staffan (Aug 17, 2005)

wizofice said:
			
		

> Two things that spring to mind: no alignments (and therefore no [Good] or [Evil] weapons, no effect for protection from alignment spells on PCs) and DR (metals are still good as is —, but Good, Evil, etc. would need to be changed).




Note that in most cases, the CRs for creatures with DR assumes that the PCs will NOT have the weaponry necessary to bypass the DR. The exceptions are DR X/magic, and I think DR X/damage type. That's why DR values are much lower in 3.5e than they are in 3.0.

It would be more troublesome with regenerating outsiders, though - most of those have both DR X/something and regeneration that's stopped by that same something. A 20th level Iron Heroes character should be able to punch through a Balor's DR 15, but the DR combined with the 5 points of regeneration might be harder, especially with no way of dealing lethal damage.


----------



## wingsandsword (Aug 17, 2005)

Now that I have had the chance to read through the book and play a game or two, here's what I've got to say:

In many ways, it's better at being D&D than D&D is.  This is much closer to my ideal of a fantasy RPG.  Not perfect, but a lot closer.  In terms of houseruling and homebrewing to come up with my ideal game, I'd definitely start from here and move on, instead of D&D 3.x

What they did right:
Making characters playable without hoardes of magic items.
Restoring the focus of being a PC to being a fighter-type instead of a spellcaster (yes, spellcasters are cool and important, but Gandalf was only one person in the fellowship, not to mention Conan had that wizard sidekick, but he was also just one person, by 4th level everyone in the party should NOT have spellcasting). 

Now, as for what I'd do differently:
Replace the Arcanist with another class, either the D&D Sorcerer (and with a broader spell list to incorporate what is traditionally divine and arcane in D&D) or the AE Magister.
Go with WP/VP instead of Reserve Points.


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 17, 2005)

If you go with Vitality/Wounds the Armiger is completely nerf'ed (like it needed to me made any weaker) since DR is only applied against Critical Hits (or after you have no VP left) in a VP/WP system. The Armiger will virtually never be gaining any tokens until the round before he dies.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Aug 17, 2005)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> If you go with Vitality/Wounds the Armiger is completely nerf'ed (like it needed to me made any weaker) since DR is only applied against Critical Hits (or after you have no VP left) in a VP/WP system. The Armiger will virtually never be gaining any tokens until the round before he dies.




One could use strain a la Psychic's Handbook instead of tokens. That way, the Armiger would have plenty of tokens to use, and some rules for the fast recovery from strain would keep the 'usable per encounter' scheme.

Hell, all of the IH token abilities could use strain.


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 17, 2005)

How does strain work?


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 17, 2005)

Sorcica said:
			
		

> One could use strain a la Psychic's Handbook instead of tokens. That way, the Armiger would have plenty of tokens to use, and some rules for the fast recovery from strain would keep the 'usable per encounter' scheme.
> 
> Hell, all of the IH token abilities could use strain.




Except it would have to be renamed. _Iron Heroes_ already has 2 mechanics called "Strain." In IH, strain is temporary damage (to hit points, ability scores or ability checks) that the character suffers under certain conditions. One of its effects is to simulate the mighty hero (Conan, say) pushing his strength to his uttermost to accomplish a great feat, in exchange for taking hit-point damage from muscle strain. Other ability scores take penalties - Con goes down, etc. 

However, Arcanists who exceed their mana limit also suffer strain. In this case, strain is temporary ability score damage to all their ability scores equal to their negative mana. Personally I think this is a bit excessive, but it reminds me of the control (temporary Con damage) that FFG put on Channelers in _Midnight_.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 18, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> Go with WP/VP instead of Reserve Points.



Wound/Vitality Points makes combat more deadly. This is not, I think, appropriate for _Iron Heroes_.

I like the idea of using the magister - those who have considered this option, give me your advice: would you bump up their saves to +1/level? Would you remove healing and similar effect-removing spells from the game?


----------



## nharwell (Aug 18, 2005)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> Wound/Vitality Points makes combat more deadly. This is not, I think, appropriate for _Iron Heroes_.
> 
> I like the idea of using the magister - those who have considered this option, give me your advice: would you bump up their saves to +1/level? Would you remove healing and similar effect-removing spells from the game?




I would definitely boost the saves -- all PC classes should follow the standard chart (p. 29). I'd use the same for feats and make hit point 1d4+2. I don't the magister's healing magics are that big a deal (it's much weaker than a clerics, for ex.), but if you're concerned just use the Transfer Wounds spells and drop the Battle Healing spells (or make them Exotic, if you're keeping the simple/complex/exotic division).


----------



## Will (Aug 19, 2005)

I am not quite finished reading IH, but I love it. It follows some lines I was thinking about with lower magic fantasy.

Oddly, the one thing I don't like... while I think the classes are really neat, I find them... dense. Maybe I'm strange, but I'd almost rather have something simpler. Though perhaps it's simply familiarity at work.

But I _adore_ the skills and feats.

Magic... meh. Honestly, even if he did have it polished well, I probably still wouldn't like it; I have very particular ideas on what low fantasy mages should be like.


----------



## Will (Aug 19, 2005)

Oh, question... I found it a little odd that highborn and religious background (forget the name) were background traits; that is, you can't have both a noble title and a religious title.

Did that strike anyone as odd?


----------



## Malachias Invictus (Aug 19, 2005)

Will said:
			
		

> Oh, question... I found it a little odd that highborn and religious background (forget the name) were background traits; that is, you can't have both a noble title and a religious title.
> 
> Did that strike anyone as odd?




Yes.  I think "you cannot have more than one background trait" should be "you cannot have more than one background trait without GM approval."

MI


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 19, 2005)

Well historically it tended to be you gave up any worldly title when you joined a religious order so personally I have no problem with only being allowed one.


----------



## Kaos (Aug 20, 2005)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Well historically it tended to be you gave up any worldly title when you joined a religious order so personally I have no problem with only being allowed one.




It's not as common, but sometimes one's worldly title gave one a religious ordination as well.
(Particularly with concepts of divine rights...)


----------



## Selganor (Aug 20, 2005)

Wouldn't this sort of special exception be part of the setting you're playing and therefore be written in the "house rules" section of your setting, so there's no need to put that in the "main" rules.


----------



## Will (Aug 20, 2005)

Well, personally, I would argue about just how universal that is.

But it's not the only example... consider 'arctic born.' Someone can't be a religiously ordained character from the arctic/jungle/wherever?

Or Highborn, or...


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 20, 2005)

yes but I think the point is you can be from an arctic area without taking arctic born as a traint.


----------



## Will (Aug 20, 2005)

Of course, but I can easily imagine someone for whom artic-born is as important as highborn. Or whatnot.

Though I will grant 'artic and jungle born' doesn't make sense. I think I'll go with 'GM call.'


----------



## Acid_crash (Aug 21, 2005)

My opinion of Iron Heroes: I Like It!  

I even like the magic system.


----------



## sinmissing (Aug 26, 2005)

I gotta say, this will probably be the last Malhavoc purchase I ever make.  I found IH to have the least Fun to Dollar ratio of any of the MP products.  I guess I just have a different style of play, and for all the effort to make a well written, pleasing game, it just doesn't jive with me.  I'm not even sure what I can take from IH to port to my game.  It doesn't suck, don't get me wrong, but I just don't like it.


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 27, 2005)

Yeah it is probably less portable than even Arcana Evolved, since the classes can't really be ported into a standard D&D high magic campaign. The challenges and stunts are about all that's worth taking for a standard game, and perhaps converting some of the new feats, or the skill system.

I think the zones and some of the ideas in the next book might be easier to transfer, but its a case of wait and see.

I wouldn't buy it if I wanted to add something to my existing homebrew based on D&D. But this is just the thing for a low(no) magic campaign I've always wanted to run.


----------



## ddougan (Aug 27, 2005)

Does anyone know if the upcoming Mastering Iron Heroes fixes the magic system?

If so, I'll consider buying it, otherwise I'm going to wait for Iron Heroes Evolved - there's a player in my group who always loves playing a spellcaster, so I can't play IH without a better magic system (she's my wife, so there's no chance of me having any say in her character choice  )


----------



## wizofice (Aug 27, 2005)

It won't.

There are several people at work on various solutions, including using ENWorld's own _Elements of Magic_, Green Ronin's _Black Company_, and many others.  Some folks are porting in the Hexblade, I think.


----------



## iwatt (Aug 27, 2005)

wizofice said:
			
		

> It won't.
> 
> There are several people at work on various solutions, including using ENWorld's own _Elements of Magic_, Green Ronin's _Black Company_, and many others.  Some folks are porting in the Hexblade, I think.





the warlock port is very simple as well. There is work to create a Wiki with all the different systems. I ahven't decided what solution I'm gonna ripoff    , since some pretty cool ideas by many people have come up.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 28, 2005)

Yesterday, we had our first Iron Heroes game (only a short one). 
The game was fun, though we weren´t even remotely able to experiment with all options available to us. (And some of us would have prefered better dice rolls - the Master of Arms with the best AC suffered a critical hit in 2 of the 3 fights, and dropped unconcious in these fights (great for my Berserker - free 5 Tokens!) - he eventually died bleeding in the last fight. And the Executioner and Archer constantly missed (or failed class-related skill checks)  )


----------



## BenBrown (Aug 28, 2005)

I rather like it.

It does what it says it does, which happens to be something I like.

Som of my biggest problems with D&D:

1) too many magic items

2) clerics and healing have very few paralells in the fantasy literature I love and would like to emulate the feel of.

3) it takes a lot of levels and usually a prestige class to get a really distinct fighting style.

IH addresses these, and I think it addresses them well.  there are a few residual D&D-isms I could do without (money, for example), but overall I like it.  Being D20, it's a game I'd much rather play than run, but I may end up running a session or two just to see how it works.  I am looking forward to the mastering book.


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 7, 2005)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Is it just me, or are Berserkers that choose the ability to increase their con while in a temporary rage in big trouble?  There is no healing magic to help them out when they go unconscious, and when the rage runs out...




That is the way it supposed to be. You fight, keep fighting past death, then you die.


----------



## swrushing (Sep 7, 2005)

On multiple backgrounds... IIRC in Thieve's world or maybe it was black company, who used backgrounds too, they had a feat that gave you a second background. So at first level lose a feat and keep your arctic nobleman happy.

As for my impression, i want to like the game and see lots of good things but the overall package is a level or so too much complexity heaped on. i will steal from it, perhaps, but never run it.


----------



## Kesh (Sep 7, 2005)

After reading through some previews, I just can't get around the tokens. :/ That turns me off the system there.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 7, 2005)

Excellent, but could be better organized. The token systems are basically "warrior magic" and should have been organized like that instead of in the body of class descriptions.


----------



## Particle_Man (Sep 8, 2005)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> That is the way it supposed to be. You fight, keep fighting past death, then you die.




This does not sound like fun to play.  I want berserkers to live to level 20.  I will house rule it away to give temp. hp instead (and a bonus to fort saves).


----------



## Geoff Watson (Sep 8, 2005)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> That is the way it supposed to be. You fight, keep fighting past death, then you die.




In Iron Heroes, you don't automatically die at -10, you get a Fort save.

Geoff.


----------



## wolff96 (Sep 8, 2005)

Also, keep in mind that another beserker ability allows you to use tokens to move HP from Reserve to actual HP pool.  

So the beserker that lives long enough could literally save his own skin.


----------



## AIM-54 (Sep 8, 2005)

Having read through this thread, as well as the Mearls interview on Iron League, it sounds like this is really something that will address some of the things I don't like about D&D.  The idea of combat where warriors do more than prevent bad guys from closing on the spellcasters really appeals to me, especially because I think magic tends to take away from the tactically interesting aspects of medieval combat (if I want serious stand-off, big explosion fighting, I'll play BattleTech, thank you very much   ).  It sounds like Iron Heroes is ideal for that.  

One thing:  in the interview on Iron League, Mearls says: 







			
				Mearls said:
			
		

> I wanted a game that rewarded maneuver, speed, and motion.




I want to ask those that have had an opportunity to playtest it a bit, does combat become more fluid?  Or does it just break down to stand and bash like D&D fights tend to?


----------



## wizofice (Sep 8, 2005)

Everytime I think about it, I get a Billy Idol tune (with different words) stuck in my head: "flanking by myself."  That alone gets people moving on the battlefield.  If you move from 1 to 2 and attack at 2, you gain flanking and all the associated benefits against A:

1A2

Then there's the harrier, whose main job is to run around attacking as many enemies as possible.  And there might be objects throughout that you can topple on your enemies, so running over to that shaky pillar and dropping it on them behooves you.


----------



## AIM-54 (Sep 8, 2005)

wizofice said:
			
		

> Everytime I think about it, I get a Billy Idol tune (with different words) stuck in my head: "flanking by myself."  That alone gets people moving on the battlefield.  If you move from 1 to 2 and attack at 2, you gain flanking and all the associated benefits against A:
> 
> 1A2
> 
> Then there's the harrier, whose main job is to run around attacking as many enemies as possible.  And there might be objects throughout that you can topple on your enemies, so running over to that shaky pillar and dropping it on them behooves you.




Sweet!  The more I hear, the more I think I'll like it!   

Sorta gets at what the Scout is able to do, but for everyone.  I like that.  I like that a lot.


----------



## JamesDJarvis (Sep 8, 2005)

I'd have been happy to see the Skill Groups rewritten to be the skills of the game.  That way there'd only be 11 or so skills to  keep track of , putting a little more emphasis on quick flowing action instead of picky detail.

The Token concept/mechanic i'm fine with, i just can't stand that they are called tokens.


----------



## Virtue (Sep 9, 2005)

*Monte Cook And his high horse*

I think Monte Cook is a gaming genius but i belive he has gone over board with all these varriant rules i dont have enough time in my game for the base rules sometimes he has extra varrient rules for everything 
I still love alot of Montes old work but some of his new stuff is just way to much


----------



## wizofice (Sep 9, 2005)

_Iron Heroes_ was actually written by Mike Mearls, who now works for Wizards of the Coast.  He is definitely into playing with the engine, which I guess is a matter of taste.


----------



## AIM-54 (Sep 10, 2005)

I think the idea is that the base rules have certain assumptions that don't fit what some people desire out of their fantasy gaming.  Thus, alternate rulesets that allow those people to have a ruleset that better matches what they want out of their game.

For gamers that want tactically interesting combat without overly powerful magical characters to hog the action, _Iron Heroes_ provides options to run it, without coming up with their own house rules.

Ultimately, to each their own.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 11, 2005)

Kesh said:
			
		

> After reading through some previews, I just can't get around the tokens. :/ That turns me off the system there.



There are a few classes that go without them - Man at Arms, Harrier, Arcanist. 
If it´s just your dislike of using micro-management, they might be sufficient. Otherwise, you´re probably right and it´s not suited for you.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Sep 11, 2005)

Virtue said:
			
		

> I think Monte Cook is a gaming genius but i belive he has gone over board with all these varriant rules i dont have enough time in my game for the base rules sometimes he has extra varrient rules for everything
> I still love alot of Montes old work but some of his new stuff is just way to much




There's nothing saying you have to use them all. It's all about choice. Pick what you like and leave the rest. I've seen a lot of people complain about D&D as having way too many rules, as well, as if somehow every single splat book that's put out _has_ to be used or you're not playing D&D. I mean, the Gaming Police aren't gonna kick in your door if you only use the core books. Everything beyond the core is optional - you don't have to use it. Same principle applies here - just because Malhavoc prints it doesn't mean it needs to be added to your game.

And as wizofice said, this is a Mike Mearls book we're talking about anyway.


----------



## Odhanan (Sep 12, 2005)

> I think the idea is that the base rules have certain assumptions that don't fit what some people desire out of their fantasy gaming. Thus, alternate rulesets that allow those people to have a ruleset that better matches what they want out of their game.




I think Iron Heroes is a game that reveals its inner qualities when in the hands of RPG groups who like to tinker the rules. These groups will greatly appreciate some elements and not like others that they will houserule according to their playstyle. 

The prime example of this is the Armiger. You will find people who think the Armiger is perfectly okay if played smart with the RAW, while others will think of many modifications to bring to the class. This is because the Armiger is a subtle class that works best with stunts and challenges. You've got to think tactically and know the right rules to shine with it. Others don't want to have to do that to play the cool protective tank, and that's their right - they then houserule the Armiger. Fair enough. 

I think it all comes down to playstyles, and there's nothing wrong in modifying the RAW to make it fit what you want out of an Iron Heroes' session.


----------



## Malachias Invictus (Sep 12, 2005)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> I think Iron Heroes is a game that reveals its inner qualities when in the hands of RPG groups who like to tinker the rules. These groups will greatly appreciate some elements and not like others that they will houserule according to their playstyle.




Absolutely.



			
				Odhanan said:
			
		

> The prime example of this is the Armiger.




I thought the prime example was the magic system ;-)



			
				Odhanan said:
			
		

> I think it all comes down to playstyles, and there's nothing wrong in modifying the RAW to make it fit what you want out of an Iron Heroes' session.




Bingo.  I would like to add that it is not just playstyles, but also play *settings*.  Some folks are using Iron Heroes as a post-Apocalyptic setting, some as an ancient setting, some as a Conan/Conanesque setting, and some as a "D&D the way it oughta be" setting.  I am using it for Greyhawk, and it *rocks*.

MI


----------



## Odhanan (Sep 13, 2005)

> I thought the prime example was the magic system ;-)




LOL
A large majority agree that the magic system is either unfinished or flawed. Personally I like it and would use it as a base for a more developed, flavourful spellcasting (we are discussing of a variant with Wiz of Ice and other friends using spirits and possession for spellcasting. Really a cool idea. I'd like us to develop it and build on the existing system rather than destroy it, but haven't been tinkering the idea enough just as of yet - too much material to read for the 14th). 



> Bingo. I would like to add that it is not just playstyles, but also play *settings*




Yep. It's about gameplay and game settings. You're right.


----------



## Bagpuss (Sep 13, 2005)

Personally I'm removing magic (as spell casters) from the players hands altogether. In my campaign only outsiders can work magic (or people possessed by outsiders) and there are only evil outsiders. That solves all the problems with the magic system.   

The Mastering Iron Heroes book (pdf) that just came out adds a load of ideas that also make combat more thrilling and would be much easier to intergrate to normal D&D than the stuff in the IH alternate players handbook.


----------



## Edheldur (Sep 13, 2005)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> The Mastering Iron Heroes book (pdf) that just came out adds a load of ideas that also make combat more thrilling and would be much easier to intergrate to normal D&D than the stuff in the IH alternate players handbook.



Care to the elaborate for the curious about the new PDF?


----------



## Bagpuss (Sep 13, 2005)

Certainly.

It introduces Zones (Condition, Event and Action) for what these are like you are better checking the Monte's Site where there is two sample adventures that use them, and perview page about them. This is probably useful for spicing up and D&D combat.

New Villan Classes, which are sort of iconic villans, like Demonic Brute, Warleader and Dreaded Sorcerer which make the DM's work a bit less for manufacturing challenging NPC's without using the PC class with their heavier book-keeping requirement. More are planned for the monster book.

New ideas for using wealth now the PC's aren't paying for magic items, wealth feats, buying favours and the like. Very useful for Iron Heroes but could certainly benifit some standard D&D games.

Glory points which reward heroic behaviour with an action point plus bonus. Up to and including returning from the grave for one final battle.

Alternate XP award system.

Magic items with some serious draw backs, like invisibility potions made from demon's blood that are poisones. Or Con draining (to the user) magic swords.

Its a lot cheaper than the PHB and easier to intergrate IMHO, if I was a GM with an ongoing standard D&D campaign I think I would get more useful ideas from this than the Iron Heroes PHB.


----------



## jcfiala (Sep 13, 2005)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> LOL
> A large majority agree that the magic system is either unfinished or flawed. Personally I like it and would use it as a base for a more developed, flavourful spellcasting (we are discussing of a variant with Wiz of Ice and other friends using spirits and possession for spellcasting. Really a cool idea. I'd like us to develop it and build on the existing system rather than destroy it, but haven't been tinkering the idea enough just as of yet - too much material to read for the 14th).




So, what exactly is the problem with the magic system?  I'm curious about Iron Heros, but I'm allergic to buying books that were published with the author knowing that part of it was unfinished.


----------



## ken-ichi (Sep 13, 2005)

I agree. The Mastering Iron Heroes pdf could be named masting D20 fantasy in Iron Heroes style.
There is little that is specific to the Iron Heroes ruleset, but there are some real good ideas and rules that can be adapted to almost any game. 
I like the wealth feat idea as it gives the characters a method and reason to set up a home base somewhere. Property, contacts, servants and henchmen. All the good stuff that original D&D had you do when you reached the higher levels are possible with structure to help you rule it.
Rules for bribery and buying your way out of dangerous or embarasing situations is great. Plus it works well as a means to drain excess money from the PCs without being an arbitrary ale & wenches tax.
I like the villain classes and would love to see more of them, I don't really care if the enemy is built HD by HD with appropriate skill points to their monster type. I just want a decent enemy with useful and easy to use abilities, even if the PCs are not able to use the same abilities. But I am still a little uncertain how they are supposed to work with monstrous races. When you have a bugbear war leader, do you add the bugbear HD and stat bonuses or are they just replaced and being a bugbear is just flavor (I suppose you could just pick a higher CR warleader if it is a bugbear than you would if it is a human, as that is what would happen using the normal class rules)?


----------



## Bagpuss (Sep 13, 2005)

jcfiala said:
			
		

> So, what exactly is the problem with the magic system?




Pick your answer from the following.

a) There isn't one.
b) The various schools of which one you specialise in arn't balanced against each other.
c) Magic is too weak.
d) Magic is too strong.
e) Does fit well with the other classes.

There are lots of houserule fixes and complete rebuilds available if you check Monte's board, but personally I think Iron Heroes works best if there are no spell caster PC's, and magic of that nature is reserved for villans and non-PC races. Sure players can have access to magic through dangerous magic items with their own drawbacks, but I think it suits the feel of the game if magic is so dangerous, twisted or mysterious that everyday use is out of the players hands.

I imagine if the game had been published without the magic rules and no arcanist that there would actually have been less complaints...


----------



## Edheldur (Sep 13, 2005)

Thanks for your answers, Bagpuss and ken-ichi! 

It really sounds interesting and being that I'm already a Mearls fan I might just get it within a few days.


----------



## Iron_Chef (Sep 13, 2005)

Edheldur said:
			
		

> Thanks for your answers, Bagpuss and ken-ichi!
> 
> It really sounds interesting and being that I'm already a Mearls fan I might just get it within a few days.




Conan OGL is a much better gritty rules set IMO, plus you get a complete setting and magic system with it (although I'm not a fan of the magic system). However, after trying the Star Wars d20 game, I'm absolutely committed to the VP/WP mechanic, which Conan, AGOT and IH lack. I also prefer Star Wars "magic" (the Force), which makes "schools of magic" feats (some of which are tactical, in that they provide more than just access to spells) and each spell a separate skill. If I was going to run a fantasy game, I would go with the Star Wars model. YMMV.


----------



## wizofice (Sep 13, 2005)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> Conan OGL is a much better gritty rules set IMO, plus you get a complete setting and magic system with it (although I'm not a fan of the magic system).



What can you tell us about the Conan magic system?  What's the basis?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 13, 2005)

I was vaguely disappointed with Iron Heroes, and I think part of it is that I missed stuff which was placed in the separate "DMG" book. I would prefer to have paid one higher price and had the two things in one (like I did with M&M, Spycraft 2 etc, effectively).

I'll certainly look at the pdf of the "DMG" though, if the price is right.

I've not played it yet to give a real opinion, but from what I've read through IH so far I'm not taken by the huge array of token pools which are all gained in different ways and spent in different ways (I prefer mechanics that are a little more uniform). It seems like it isn't too difficult to get players who are managing half a dozen different token pools (<-exaggerating), and I'm wondering how difficult it would be for my players to get their heads around it all (let alone me!)

Still thinking...


----------



## Iron_Chef (Sep 13, 2005)

wizofice said:
			
		

> What can you tell us about the Conan magic system?  What's the basis?




Spellcasting in Conan is fueled by Power Points; spells are placed in sorcerous traditions (schools). To learn an advanced spell, you must learn the basic spell it is based upon, IIRC. 

Only one spellcasting class: The Scholar (which can represent a non-magical scholarly type or any kind of wizard). Spellcasters are rather weak to start, but can gain some very nasty spells later on. Corruption (like Dark Side Points in Star Wars) serve as a controlling factor in using black magic and making pacts with demons. Most who use "dark" spells eventually become evil, genetically mutated and insane megalomaniacs, just like Star Wars and Call of Cthulhu.    I think the Conan system works, but I just don't care for it much. YMMV.

Of the variant magic systems I've seen, my favorites are Call of Cthulhu d20, where anybody who takes the time can learn to cast spells regardless of class (casting damages ability scores and inflicts Sanity Loss to cast, similar to Vile/Corrupt spells in D&D which were based on CoC d20) and Star Wars (spells are skills and what effects you can achieve are limited by how many ranks you have in the spell).

The bedst part about CoC is you can just use it as is to replace all magic in D&D. This eliminates all spellcasting classes. You may need to add a Scholar class as per Conan, however.

With a Star Wars derivative magic system (my current pet project), for example, you could have one "fire magic" skill. Depending on how many ranks you have in Fire Magic, you can create Burning Hands, Dancing Lights, Fireball, Wall of Fire, etc. Now, each such effect has a flat or variable Vitality Point cost to cast and/or maintain. VP work just like HP in D&D, a variable number gained per character level based on class pursued. So, this serves as the controlling factor in how much magic any character can cast. A number of VP = to your character level are regained per hour. Now remember, VP are also used to evade taking wound point damage in battle. If you burn all your VP casting spells, you are probably going to die if you take damage, because that damage will go immediately to wound points! Wound Points (or WP) equal your CON stat + Toughness feats. Critical hits (when confirmed) are applied to WP, not VP, but the highest damage multiplier is x2. This makes the game much deadlier, and more realistic. Defense replaces AC, and Armor provides Damage Reduction. Shields provide a Defense bonus. Each class gains a Defense bonus variable by level similar to BAB.

When you cast a spell in a Star Wars derived magic system, you roll a d20 to set the DC of the save vs. your spell, or the efficacy of your casting (for spells with no saves or those that have beneficial effects such as heal or bull's strength). Spells that do damage _always _ deliver damage, but targets can save for half.


----------



## Iron_Chef (Sep 13, 2005)

_A Game of Thrones_ RPG (available in d20 and TriStat versions) will feature a new rules set for running gritty (mostly) non-magical fantasy. This comes out in early October from White Wolf/Guardians of Order. I have the advance deluxe pdf and while I haven't read it thoroughly yet (waiting on my hard copy to arrive), it looks fantastic. If you are familiar with George R.R. Martin's _A Song of Ice and Fire_ series that this RPG is based on, you know the incredible level of medieval setting detail you are getting in this book and the d20 system has been tweaked to fit just like it was for Conan). AGOT uses reduced HP gain like Conan rather than VP/WP. Magic will be covered in detail in a future sourcebook.


----------



## Iron_Chef (Sep 13, 2005)

Now, if all you want is regular high-powered D&D combat but with reduced or no magic, then Iron Heroes is probably the book you want. If you want deadlier combat (where high level PCs can still be cut down by low level guys and thus must _always_ be on guard), you want to run Conan, A Game of Thrones or homebrew your own rules set using Unearthed Arcana's VP/WP system, etc.


----------



## GlassJaw (Sep 13, 2005)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> Conan OGL is a much better gritty rules set IMO, plus you get a complete setting and magic system with it (although I'm not a fan of the magic system). However, after trying the Star Wars d20 game, I'm absolutely committed to the VP/WP mechanic, which Conan, AGOT and IH lack.




You might like my variant ruleset I put together (see sig).  I wrote it specifically with Grim Tales in mind but it's very universal.  Speaking of Grim Tales, have you checked it out?  It's my favorite low-magic, strike that, favorite d20 book, period.  The magic system is excellent as well - simple yet extremely elegant and highly effective.


----------



## Iron_Chef (Sep 13, 2005)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> You might like my variant ruleset I put together (see sig).  I wrote it specifically with Grim Tales in mind but it's very universal.  Speaking of Grim Tales, have you checked it out?  It's my favorite low-magic, strike that, favorite d20 book, period.  The magic system is excellent as well - simple yet extremely elegant and highly effective.




What is Grim Tales? Never heard of it. Sounds like a Fairy Tale RPG, LOL.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Sep 14, 2005)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> With a Star Wars derivative magic system (my current pet project), for example, you could have one "fire magic" skill. Depending on how many ranks you have in Fire Magic, you can create Burning Hands, Dancing Lights, Fireball, Wall of Fire, etc. Now, each such effect has a flat or variable Vitality Point cost to cast and/or maintain. VP work just like HP in D&D, a variable number gained per character level based on class pursued. So, this serves as the controlling factor in how much magic any character can cast. A number of VP = to your character level are regained per hour. Now remember, VP are also used to evade taking wound point damage in battle. If you burn all your VP casting spells, you are probably going to die if you take damage, because that damage will go immediately to wound points! Wound Points (or WP) equal your CON stat + Toughness feats. Critical hits (when confirmed) are applied to WP, not VP, but the highest damage multiplier is x2. This makes the game much deadlier, and more realistic. Defense replaces AC, and Armor provides Damage Reduction. Shields provide a Defense bonus. Each class gains a Defense bonus variable by level similar to BAB.
> 
> When you cast a spell in a Star Wars derived magic system, you roll a d20 to set the DC of the save vs. your spell, or the efficacy of your casting (for spells with no saves or those that have beneficial effects such as heal or bull's strength). Spells that do damage _always _ deliver damage, but targets can save for half.




And please post this system if you ever advance it from pet project to mostly finished


----------



## Iron_Chef (Sep 14, 2005)

Sorcica said:
			
		

> And please post this system if you ever advance it from pet project to mostly finished




Will do. It's hopefully the next fantasy game I run, although we are excited about playing A Game of Thrones d20 RPG. Right now, though, I'm hooked on Star Wars d20.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 14, 2005)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> Spellcasting in Conan is fueled by Power Points; spells are placed in sorcerous traditions (schools). To learn an advanced spell, you must learn the basic spell it is based upon, IIRC.
> 
> Only one spellcasting class: The Scholar (which can represent a non-magical scholarly type or any kind of wizard). Spellcasters are rather weak to start, but can gain some very nasty spells later on. Corruption (like Dark Side Points in Star Wars) serve as a controlling factor in using black magic and making pacts with demons.




A couple of interesting bits of additional information that add to the Conan magic flavour: You can gain additional power points by sacrificing victims. There are feats to enable impromptu sacrifices to do it quickly, torturous sacrifices to eke more pp out of the victims etc. Very nice and flavourful.

The Corruption is much more serious than StarWars dark side points, from the very beginning it starts giving you horrible nightmares and every step from there is a bad one (unlike DSP which don't matter until you get quite a few accumulated).

There is also the possibility of horrible magical accidents occuring when casting the more powerful spells.

It's one of my favourite magic systems and really captures the Conan feel nicely.

Cheers


----------



## Bagpuss (Sep 14, 2005)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> What is Grim Tales? Never heard of it. Sounds like a Fairy Tale RPG, LOL.




No, that would be Grimm easy to confuse.


----------



## Odhanan (Sep 14, 2005)

> So, what exactly is the problem with the magic system? I'm curious about Iron Heros, but I'm allergic to buying books that were published with the author knowing that part of it was unfinished.




To be frank? Nothing particularly. Just a couple of things that were clarified in the errata. But take a book written by Mike Mearls who's known for his rule tinkering, multiply this factor by a magic system that is loose enough to allow interpretations a la Call of Cthulhu, and you get lots of people thinking it's not precise enough and deserves a variant of their own. I think the magic system of IH is playable AND effective just as is.

Obviously, you will hear a majority of people disagreeing on this point. Two main critics I've heard:
- The magic system is unfinished (IMO - it is loose but not loose enough to be unplayable, and I appreciate stuff I can build on. Many people seem to think methods given in the book (methods are similar to spell lists for each school of magic) are the only ones existing. Far from it! You can add and add to the existing system, and I think that multiple methods for each school are what's missing, even if a few, like Necromancy, present multiple methods). 
- The magic system is underpowered (IMO - only if you compare it to D&D, which would be a mistake. Playing an arcanist in IH can be greatly rewarding. If you play your mana smart enough, you can be outstanding in many types of situations - after all, Armor DR isn't applying for magic and energies! Add to this the fact that the arcanist gets the benefits of all IH characters (i.e. one feat per two levels), plus bonus feats, and you get potentially one hell of a character)

So to summarize, the magic system is just fine for me. 

But now, you've got to separate my opinion from the fact I'm an Iron Liege. As such, I've got to help the fans of IH get what they want and how they want it. And many fans want variants of the Magic system. Why not? There's a spellcasting wiki available to visitors of the Iron League, by the way. The link is in the "Sorcery" section.


----------



## iwatt (Sep 14, 2005)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> It seems like it isn't too difficult to get players who are managing half a dozen different token pools (<-exaggerating), and I'm wondering how difficult it would be for my players to get their heads around it all (let alone me!)




It's daunting at first read. But then you realize that token abilities aren't that many (at first).
I really recomend not starting at high levels with your first IH game. 

Also, the character creation is slower the first time (new ruleset), but it quickly becomes easier.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 14, 2005)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Obviously, you will hear a majority of people disagreeing on this point. Two main critics I've heard:
> - The magic system is unfinished
> - The magic system is underpowered




A third criticism that I've heard is that the different schools are not well balanced against each other - a powerful evoker has difficulty doing much damage over much of an area at the same time that an equivalent summoner will be getting gold dragons to do his bidding (I forget the precise details, but it is something along those lines, it may even have come up earlier in this thread)

Cheers


----------



## wizofice (Sep 14, 2005)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> A third criticism that I've heard is that the different schools are not well balanced against each other - a powerful evoker has difficulty doing much damage over much of an area at the same time that an equivalent summoner will be getting gold dragons to do his bidding (I forget the precise details, but it is something along those lines, it may even have come up earlier in this thread)



Which goes along with being unfinished.

Check out these variant spellcasting systems for IH.  Jeremy Puckett addresses the school balance problem specifically.


----------



## Bagpuss (Sep 14, 2005)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> and I'm wondering how difficult it would be for my players to get their heads around it all (let alone me!)




If by "let alone me" you mean yourself as DM, don't worry the Mastering Iron Heroes makes it clear that PC's classes are for PC's most NPC's won't have token pools at all. The villan classes in the book don't all their abilities tend to be "at will" or "once per round", etc.


----------



## GlassJaw (Sep 14, 2005)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> What is Grim Tales? Never heard of it. Sounds like a Fairy Tale RPG, LOL.




And yet you couldn't be more wrong.

Grim Tales reviews 
www.badaxegames.com


----------



## Odhanan (Sep 14, 2005)

> A third criticism that I've heard is that the different schools are not well balanced against each other - a powerful evoker has difficulty doing much damage over much of an area at the same time that an equivalent summoner will be getting gold dragons to do his bidding (I forget the precise details, but it is something along those lines, it may even have come up earlier in this thread)




Which goes along with the unfinished allegation, like says Wiz. I think along two lines on this precise issue: 1/ methods presented in the IH book are examples, not the only methods known to arcanists, so the system could be more balanced to some criticizing DMs with other, new methods. 2/ methods could be balanced with a light modification of the methods presented in the book for these same DMs without having to rebuild the magic system from the ground up, like Jeremy's take on the subject shows (see the link given by Wiz above).

In any case, I really don't think schools of magic are _that_ unbalanced. Play a game without magic items and heavy damage devices. A fire burst of 4d6 damage (for instance) is something to be reckoned with, in such a rule set. And let's not forget the possible strain any advanced methods may create. 



> What is Grim Tales?




It really has nothing to do with "Fairy Tale RPG", and doesn't have much in common with Iron Heroes either, since Grim Tales does not propose a game where characters would be without magic but tougher to be able to fight standard D&D creatures, but proposes a ruleset based on d20 Modern for more medieval, or "low magic" settings without having the "Action" (tactical) emphasis that IH puts forward.


----------



## Iron_Chef (Sep 14, 2005)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> It really has nothing to do with "Fairy Tale RPG", and doesn't have much in common with Iron Heroes either, since Grim Tales does not propose a game where characters would be without magic but tougher to be able to fight standard D&D creatures, but proposes a ruleset based on d20 Modern for more medieval, or "low magic" settings without having the "Action" (tactical) emphasis that IH puts forward.




Thanks! The title was not precise enough to evoke anything in me other than an unpleasant thought that the game was somehow based on the Brothers Grimm Fairy Tales. Horrible title, IMO, even knowing what it's about. I'll try and give it a looksie if my FLGS even carries it. Who published/wrote it? What makes it so cool? This one just totally slipped under my radar.


----------



## GlassJaw (Sep 14, 2005)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> Who published/wrote it? What makes it so cool? This one just totally slipped under my radar.




Check out the links in my thread, above.  Hunt around in this forum as well - lots of topics on GT.


----------



## Malachias Invictus (Sep 14, 2005)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> In any case, I really don't think schools of magic are _that_ unbalanced. Play a game without magic items and heavy damage devices. A fire burst of 4d6 damage (for instance) is something to be reckoned with, in such a rule set.




I disagree strongly.  The balance between the schools is utterly atrocious.  Fortunately, the various modifications in the Spellcasting Wiki seem to handle "default Iron Heroes" magic pretty well, *and* throw in other spellcasting methods and styles to boot.  I just wish there were more of us working on variants.

Secondly, a fire burst of 4D6 damage really is *not* something to reckon with in an Iron Heroes game.  When you compare this to what other party members can dish out at those levels, and factor in the save for half, that ability is crap.  Hell, the Aspects of Power crank out more damage.  Don't forget that more often than not, you are going to be hit with a backfire which damages you rather than your opponent (and sometimes does not allow a save).

That said, I recommend my Iron Heroes/Elements of Magic system for those who want a bit more of a "D&D without the plethora of magic items"-type game, rather than a "Conan"-style game.  My variant does not really work well with the latter.

MI


----------



## Odhanan (Sep 14, 2005)

> I really recomend not starting at high levels with your first IH game.




I think iwatt's advice is worth listening. The Iron Heroes system is *not* difficult to grasp, but it does have its own particularities here and there (skills become much more important because of the Stunt System, there are Challenges by which you can accomplish, with Stunts, much more things than what standard D&D characters can do, the pools change from uses per day, attacks of opportunity as simplified but slightly different, etc).

So read the rules. Then create your characters at 1st level, and learn IH from the ground up instead of trying to master it instantly. And try not to think of IH's rules with D&D's in mind. If you haven't playtested this or that, bear in mind that you cannot be sure of this or that effect in game. Just play the game, have fun, use stunts, then challenges, create neat, exciting adventurers that are prone to act rather than overtalk (in the good ol' pulp fashion) and you'll get one hell of a campaign in the end!


----------



## Malachias Invictus (Sep 14, 2005)

iwatt said:
			
		

> I really recomend not starting at high levels with your first IH game.
> 
> Also, the character creation is slower the first time (new ruleset), but it quickly becomes easier.




Agreed 100% on both.  My first session was mostly filled with people asking questions about their characters, stunts, etc.  Even by the fourth session, we are still getting our "sea legs" with the wide variety of stunts and skill challenges that are available.

MI


----------



## iwatt (Sep 14, 2005)

> I think iwatt's advice is worth listening. The Iron Heroes system is not difficult to grasp, but it does have its own particularities here and there (skills become much more important because of the Stunt System, there are Challenges by which you can accomplish, with Stunts, much more things than what standard D&D characters can do, the pools change from uses per day, attacks of opportunity as simplified but slightly different, etc).




Exactly. I think the hardest part of IH is deciding what to play. Once you have the archetype, it's easier to build from the ground up. At first read it seems you'll have to deal with 10 differnt token pools, but the truth is unless you are a Hunter/Archer/Executioner with dodge, combat expertise, and all the tactical feats, you'll at most be dealing with 1 or 2 token pools (if any).

_Mastering Iron Heroes_ really settled down my doubts about running IH, since the Villain classes are very flexible yet easy to use at the same time.


----------



## Odhanan (Sep 14, 2005)

> I disagree strongly. The balance between the schools is utterly atrocious. Fortunately, the various modifications in the Spellcasting Wiki seem to handle "default Iron Heroes" magic pretty well, *and* throw in other spellcasting methods and styles to boot. I just wish there were more of us working on variants.




What can I say, M.I?

I can just precise that I really think, like you, that the spellcasting wiki *is* useful and an excellent asset to the IH fans out there. Or I wouldn't have supported the idea in the first place. The magic system of IH can be taken out and replaced by a variant easily: that's a strength to the game, IMO. No doubt about it. I may just adopt one of the wiki's variants at some point.*

I can also precise that I did not run any complete test of the Arcanist as written. Like with other aspects of IH, you and I could be very surprised by the results.

* About this issue:


> Don't forget that more often than not, you are going to be hit with a backfire which damages you rather than your opponent (and sometimes does not allow a save).




After writing this post, I read in depth the variant of Jeremy Puckett from the spellcasting wiki. I think of using his modifications/development of Conjuration, Evocation and Necromancy: it answers to your concerns by not counting the Mana spent on the dice of damage as double expenditure for the channeling check.


----------



## Bagpuss (Sep 15, 2005)

Malachias Invictus said:
			
		

> IDon't forget that more often than not, you are going to be hit with a backfire which damages you rather than your opponent (and sometimes does not allow a save).




I don't see how its going to be 'more often than not' if you are sensible with picking the DC value for your spells. And when things go really bad, I'ld much rather get a major disaster with a Evocation spell than an equally difficult Conjucation spell.


----------



## Malachias Invictus (Sep 15, 2005)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> LOL
> A large majority agree that the magic system is either unfinished or flawed. Personally I like it and would use it as a base for a more developed, flavourful spellcasting (we are discussing of a variant with Wiz of Ice and other friends using spirits and possession for spellcasting.




I like that idea.  Have you ever read GURPS Voodoo: The Shadow War?  It has a great magic system based upon spirits.  GURPS Spirits has a similar one.  I would not mind seeing something along these lines for Iron Heroes.



			
				Odhanan said:
			
		

> Really a cool idea. I'd like us to develop it and build on the existing system rather than destroy it,




Not me.  The system did not fall far enough from the tree, as it were.  It is still too mired in "D&D think" and not very balanced.



			
				Odhanan said:
			
		

> but haven't been tinkering the idea enough just as of yet - too much material to read for the 14th).




Great job over there, by the way.  In a year, the Iron League is going to be *huge* with fan-generated goodness.

MI


----------



## wizofice (Sep 15, 2005)

Malachias Invictus said:
			
		

> I like that idea.  Have you ever read GURPS Voodoo: The Shadow War?  It has a great magic system based upon spirits.  GURPS Spirits has a similar one.  I would not mind seeing something along these lines for Iron Heroes.



Oy!  Another book to get.


----------



## Malachias Invictus (Sep 15, 2005)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Pick your answer from the following.
> 
> a) There isn't one.
> b) The various schools of which one you specialise in arn't balanced against each other.
> ...




It scares me when some folks say there isn't a problem with the magic system.  The *author* says there is a problem with it (or, rather, multiple problems).



			
				Bagpuss said:
			
		

> There are lots of houserule fixes and complete rebuilds available if you check Monte's board,




Here, I will make it easier: Iron Heroes Spellcasting Wiki



			
				Bagpuss said:
			
		

> I imagine if the game had been published without the magic rules and no arcanist that there would actually have been less complaints...




Agreed.  I seem to recall Mike saying he wanted to dump it, actually.

MI


----------



## Malachias Invictus (Sep 15, 2005)

wizofice said:
			
		

> Oy!  Another book to get.




GURPS Voodoo: The Shadow War is probably my favorite GURPS book, and I have a ton.  It is, unfortunately, out of print.  Spirits still has the magic system, though.

MI


----------



## wizofice (Sep 15, 2005)

Malachias Invictus said:
			
		

> GURPS Voodoo: The Shadow War is probably my favorite GURPS book, and I have a ton.  It is, unfortunately, out of print.  Spirits still has the magic system, though.
> 
> MI



Spirits is by Stephen Kenson, another plus.


----------



## Malachias Invictus (Sep 15, 2005)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> I don't see how its going to be 'more often than not' if you are sensible with picking the DC value for your spells.




Without lessening the DC values for Evocation, you are far better off using your Aspect of Power.  Even at full power, you are simply not throwing around enough damage to pull your weight against other Iron Heroes characters of your level, and you will run completely out of steam *for the day* in a few rounds.



			
				Bagpuss said:
			
		

> And when things go really bad, I'ld much rather get a major disaster with a Evocation spell than an equally difficult Conjucation spell.




Sure.  However, look at the moderate disasters.  "Spell doesn't work" vs. "Become the target of your effect."  Hardly equitable.

MI


----------



## Malachias Invictus (Sep 15, 2005)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Personally I'm removing magic (as spell casters) from the players hands altogether. In my campaign only outsiders can work magic (or people possessed by outsiders) and there are only evil outsiders. That solves all the problems with the magic system.




Dark Legacies Iron Heroes?

MI


----------



## Baragos (Sep 16, 2005)

> Dark Legacies Iron Heroes?




I see I'm not the only one who's had this thought...I don't know if that's disturbing or not 

I think the Iron Heroes rules set could work excellent for a Dark Legacies campaign, with minimal work.

There needs to be a Priest obviously, and perhaps also a Soldier, though most of his abilities could be made into Feat Masteries. The Arcanist also needs looking at, but rogue, lurker, barbarian, and fighter (the remaining classes) can easily be made with the existing IH classes.

Races might need a little work, but no more than if you wanted to do FR IH or GH IH.

I'd actually be interested in working on such a project if anyone wants to do it...


----------



## Guver (Aug 18, 2013)

I'm amazed by how wrong most of the guys here are.
IRON Heroes is a system with low-to-no magic. Why would a magic-class be as powerful as the other classes? That would make being a magic-class a viable thing, and then the world would not be low-to-no magic, because many heroes would be magic-class heroes.
The arcanist, on the other hand, may be low in power compared to a wizard from D&D, but the fact that he may be the ONLY arcanist in thousand of square miles makes I'm much more powerful than a wizard.
If you want to play IRON heroes, with a special note on the iron, to be a spell-caster, then you got it all wrong.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Aug 19, 2013)

Arise Dead Thread, epic 9 year thread necromancy on 1st post, welcome.


----------



## Guver (Aug 20, 2013)

mach1.9pants said:


> Arise Dead Thread, epic 9 year thread necromancy on 1st post, welcome.




LOL! This is not my first post. All my post history got lost with EnWorld, but yes, I was very infuriated when reading all the discussions on the Arcanist and how it did "not fit" the rest of the classes...
Sorry about casting Raise Dead, I know it has been banned on most worlds .


----------



## Lwaxy (Aug 20, 2013)

Guver said:


> I'm amazed by how wrong most of the guys here are.




Don't tell anyone they are wrong. Each opinion is as valid as yours. Thank you.


----------



## Janx (Aug 20, 2013)

Lwaxy said:


> Don't tell anyone they are wrong. Each opinion is as valid as yours. Thank you.




Well, you've got the red ink, so I guess you're right... 

I do suspect our threadcromantic friend has got a valid, but over excited point.

Iron Heroes wasn't about magic, so magic wasn't supposed to be powerful.

I doubt anybody in the old thread is too emotionally invested to be offended by Guyver's enthusiastic rebuttal.

I'd be more curious of how much of Iron Heroes influenced 4e and now 5e since Mearls worked on those?


----------



## Guver (Aug 20, 2013)

I apologize. Wasn't my intention to insult other opinions. I was just reading Iron Heroes and going to the internet for opinions. I found some good ones but then I found this thread were the conversation focused on the Arcanist, and how bad the Arcanist was, and how nobody would play an Arcanist, bla bla bla, and I thought that the intention of the system was exactly that.

I plan on using Iron Heroes, with some modifications, to DM a Middle Earth game set in the 4Age, and the system got me very excited. It was the first time I could find a system that would make characters feel heroic without the need of magic or magic items, and I think it fits Middle Earth perfectly. Of course Mearls could not say so because of the crazy licensing of Tolkien's works, but I think his intention shows.


----------



## Andor (Aug 22, 2013)

Guver said:


> I plan on using Iron Heroes, with some modifications, to DM a Middle Earth game set in the 4Age, and the system got me very excited. It was the first time I could find a system that would make characters feel heroic without the need of magic or magic items, and I think it fits Middle Earth perfectly. Of course Mearls could not say so because of the crazy licensing of Tolkien's works, but I think his intention shows.




You think so? Iron Heroes to me seems much more Robert Howard or Fritz Lieber than J.R.R.Tolkein. It would be a good platform for a 4th Age game though where much of the magic has drained away with the breaking of the Ring and the passing of the Elves.


----------

