# Iron Lore: Malhavoc's Surprise?



## TerraDave

I recently made an order through the WW website (for Fiery Dragon's Creature Collection Digital-woo-hoo!) and got a copy of their "Insider" catalog

It contains an interview with Mike Mearls about an upcoming product called _*Iron Lore*_. At first I thought this was the _Book of Iron Might_, but it is not.

While they don't say "low magic"--Edit: and Mearls reaffirms below it is not, it seems to be a book for campaigns where magic is less important, and players can do more with skills, feats and stunts instead. Magic itself is unpredictable and "tremendously difficult to control".

This product will deput at GenCon, and in the recent EnWorld chat with Monte Cook, he mentions this big surprise for GenCon, is this it?. I also know that a while back he had a poll on his site about a "lower magic" product.  But Iron Lore is not mentioned on the Malhavoc website.

Some quotes:



> Imagine a world where a warrior's skill and training, rather then the potency of an enchanted blade, determines his fortune. A world where magic is a force too powerful for a mere mortal to control with any confidence.  A world at the dawn of a new era, where human built cities are scarcely more then a century old.  Welcome to Iron Lore






> In Iron Lore, magic is still common in terms of weird monsters, enchanged locations...creatures other then humans can do magic...humans must create new talents to battle them






> There are three key changes from the core rules. First, the book radically expands and alters feats...second your charecters traits (which replace race) have mechanic effects similar to a bonus for a race...Finally...the skill system is more flexible then ever, allowing you to try a whole range of new stunts






> There are no spells such as fireball or cure light wounds. Instead a caster tries to create a general effect such as filling an area with searing flame...most of the time the Arcanist creates a surge of fire but it doesn't have exactly the effect she hope for.


----------



## DaveMage

I'm not a fan of low-magic fantasy settings, so this is not something I would enjoy, but I'd guess there are many who like this sort of thing.

I just don't get the appeal.

Edit - Although it looks like the "low magic" applies to humans only.  Hmmm...


----------



## TerraDave

I should note, they don't say "low magic".  The emphasis is very much on the other stuff humans (the only player race) do get.  But spell casting and magic items clearly play a smaller role


----------



## Jaws

TerraDave said:
			
		

> But Iron Lore is not mentioned on the Malhavoc website.



Expect to see it Thursday or Friday.


Peace and smiles 

j.


----------



## francisca

I came up with the term "scarce magic" the other day to describe settings like that, and my own homebrew.  I think it's a more apt fit that then "low magic" catch-all.

Iron Lore sounds kinda like Hyboria or Nehwon.


----------



## TerraDave

francisca said:
			
		

> I came up with the term "scarce magic" the other day to describe settings like that, and my own homebrew.  I think it's a more apt fit that then "low magic" catch-all.
> 
> Iron Lore sounds kinda like Hyboria or Nehwon.




Scarce magic is probably a better descriptor

And yes, when I read  it I thought: this is Malhovoc's take on Conan


----------



## Krieg

As much as this product appeals to me philosophically, I am afraid that we are possibly close to the saturation point for this category.




			
				DaveMage said:
			
		

> I just don't get the appeal.




You don't get the appeal of Conan, Fafhrd & The Grey Mouser? Heck an argument can be made that LoTR would fall into this category.


----------



## thol

Krieg said:
			
		

> You don't get the appeal of Conan, Fafhrd & The Grey Mouser? Heck an argument can be made that LoTR would fall into this category.




I don't think you could argue that it doesn't. Throw George R.R. Martin in there (and Jordan too, even though I think that series is a waste of trees).

Scarce magic makes the best fantasy.


----------



## TerraDave

Krieg said:
			
		

> As much as this product appeals to me philosophically, I am afraid that we are possibly close to the saturation point for this category.




Hmm, Grim Tales, Conan...what else?

Though again, in the *Iron Lore  * interview, the emphasis is on what players get, not what they loose.

more quotes:

FEATS:


> for instance, you want to focus on fighting with the warhammer, a variety of feats makes you different from a warrior who specializes in the great sword...plenty of feats are desinged for mighty charecters




TRAITS:


> rather than play a dwarf, littorian...you can create a tall rangy wanderer from the frozen north.  Your...traits--cultural background and great height--have mechanical effects similar to the bonuses for a race




SKILLS AND STUNTS:


> Combat, built with an emphasis on action, draws on the skill rules to form the basis of a stunt system.  Rather then maintain a static position and trade blows with an oponent, a charecter...might dive between an Ogre's feet then leap onto the brute's shoulders to drive his dagger into his neck


----------



## francisca

Well, this is certainly shaping up to be something I would be more interested in than Malhvoc's other setting, though having already invested in Conan d20, it will be a while before I give it a look.


----------



## Berandor

> There are no spells such as fireball or cure light wounds. Instead a caster tries to create a general effect such as filling an area with searing flame...most of the time the Arcanist creates a surge of fire but it doesn't have exactly the effect she hope for.



This is *exactly* what I would do as a magic system. I am already intrigued, and will buy this book 99% certain.

Wow.


----------



## Piratecat

Krieg said:
			
		

> As much as this product appeals to me philosophically, I am afraid that we are possibly close to the saturation point for this category.




I can't give any details, but we've been playtesting this - and it's a blast. Despite being a "low magic" kind of guy, I'm full of good things to say about the game. It's not low magic like Grim Tales is (grim and gritty), it's low magic like the Conan books are (heroic asskicking where the person is far more important than the gear.)


----------



## Fiery James

TerraDave said:
			
		

> I recently made an order through the WW website (for Fiery Dragon's Creature Collection Digital-woo-hoo!)





WHOO-HOO!


----------



## Krieg

TerraDave said:
			
		

> Hmm, Grim Tales, Conan...what else?:




Midnight, DarkLore, Black Company (in some respects), Dark Legacies the upcoming Games of Thrones.



			
				Piratecat said:
			
		

> I can't give any details, but we've been playtesting this - and it's a blast. Despite being a "low magic" kind of guy, I'm full of good things to say about the game. It's not low magic like Grim Tales is (grim and gritty), it's low magic like the Conan books are (heroic asskicking where the person is far more important than the gear.)




Oh no worries, this is one I will pick up sight unseen.


----------



## francisca

Berandor said:
			
		

> This is *exactly* what I would do as a magic system. I am already intrigued, and will buy this book 99% certain.
> 
> Wow.



I have a mostly completed magic system I came up with in 2001 which is based around disciplines: energy, healing, telekinisis, etc..  You learn a basic discipline like fire, which allows you to produce a flame in your hand, or set a sheet of paper on fire.  Then you augment it with something: ki, or channel power from an outer plane, or drain life energy from you or some poor sap standing next to you, whatever, it's wide open.  Anyway, with these augmentations, you can project the flame, make it hotter, etc... The concept of a spell just ins't there, you just do magic.  One neat aspect is that it drains your ability scores.  COn becomes very important to Mages at that point.  It's a kinda neat little system, though not very original.  I wish I would have stuck with it.


----------



## francisca

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I can't give any details, but we've been playtesting this - and it's a blast. Despite being a "low magic" kind of guy, I'm full of good things to say about the game. It's not low magic like Grim Tales is (grim and gritty), it's low magic like the Conan books are (heroic asskicking where the person is far more important than the gear.)



You wouldn't be running any events at GenCon, would you?


----------



## TerraDave

*Off Topic*



			
				Fiery James said:
			
		

> WHOO-HOO!




I just got the Battle Box, and made heavy use of the Burning Hands template for the last big battle in NeMoren's vault (you know what I am talking about)

Yes, I am a big fan of _*Fiery Dragon*_

*Thank You*


----------



## DaveMage

Krieg said:
			
		

> You don't get the appeal of Conan, Fafhrd & The Grey Mouser? Heck an argument can be made that LoTR would fall into this category.




Nope.  I enjoyed reading some of the Leiber stories, but playing an RPG in those universes does not appeal to me.  (Although I did buy all of the 2nd Edition D&D Lankhmar books to mine for maps and ideas.)

And, were I to play Midnight, I would house-rule to increase the magic in the setting.


----------



## TerraDave

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I can't give any details, but we've been playtesting this - and it's a blast. Despite being a "low magic" kind of guy, I'm full of good things to say about the game. It's not low magic like Grim Tales is (grim and gritty), it's low magic like the Conan books are (heroic asskicking where the person is far more important than the gear.)





I thought this looked cool, but now I know:

Heroic Asskicking certified by Piratecat.

Quite an endorsement. They should put it on the cover.


----------



## Fiery James

TerraDave said:
			
		

> I just got the Battle Box, and made heavy use of the Burning Hands template for the last big battle in NeMoren's vault (you know what I am talking about)
> 
> Yes, I am a big fan of _*Fiery Dragon*_
> 
> *Thank You*





Hey, thank you!

(Side note: If you like the idea of Iron Lore... and you like the BattleBox... I think you'll be happy with a product coming out later this year....) 

- James


----------



## TerraDave

Fiery James said:
			
		

> Hey, thank you!
> 
> (Side note: If you like the idea of Iron Lore... and you like the BattleBox... I think you'll be happy with a product coming out later this year....)
> 
> - James




Now, if it is what you seem to be saying it is, then it is just too much! too much!


----------



## mearls

I was wondering when the word would finally get out. Iron Lore will be officially announced at the GAMA trade show in Las Vegas. Technically, the show has already started, so I can answer a few questions.

Iron Lore is a game of high action and adventure. Like most fantasy games, it draws inspiration from a variety of classic sources - Robert Howard, Fritz Leiber, Clark Ashton Smith, and so on. However, if you were to ask me which movie most closely embodies Iron Lore's design, I'd say Die Hard. John McClain is the prototypical Iron Lore PC - he's tough, resourceful, clever, and he takes a beating but keeps on going.

Iron Lore is *not* low magic - there are plenty of powerful spellcasters in the world, it's just that not many (if any) of them are PCs.

The key design concept of Iron Lore is that you can use *any* D&D monster book with this game. 10th-level Iron Lore characters can fight demons, beholders, frost giants, and so forth, with the same lethality/resource curve as their D&D counterparts. While the PCs don't normally cast spells or carry a lot of magical gear, they're just as powerful as their D&D counterparts.

This has a variety of interesting changes for the system - Iron Lore combat tends to be much more tactically rich. Players have more options and class abilities that are more interactive than D&D ones.

As a consequence of the changes to the core d20 engine, you can now stat up an 18th-level NPC from any class in about 5 to 15 minutes, tops, once you're familiar with the system. I estimate that Iron Lore adventure prep takes about half, if not less, time than adventure prep for D&D. The time savings become even more pronounced at high levels. Yet, the game still supports all the cool, weird, fun action of D&D - trips to other planes, battles against dragons, demons, and other powerful monsters, and so forth.

We'll be doing a lot of previews, design diaries, and other stuff on the website leading up to the game's release.


----------



## TerraDave

mearls said:
			
		

> However, if you were to ask me which movie most closely embodies Iron Lore's design, I'd say Die Hard. John McClain is the prototypical Iron Lore PC - he's tough, resourceful, clever, and he takes a beating but keeps on going.
> 
> 
> The key design concept of Iron Lore is that you can use *any* D&D monster book with this game. 10th-level Iron Lore characters can fight demons, beholders, frost giants, and so forth, with the same lethality/resource curve as their D&D counterparts. While the PCs don't normally cast spells or carry a lot of magical gear, they're just as powerful as their D&D counterparts.
> 
> As a consequence of the changes to the core d20 engine, you can now stat up an 18th-level NPC from any class in about 5 to 15 minutes, tops, once you're familiar with the system. I estimate that Iron Lore adventure prep takes about half, if not less, time than adventure prep for D&D. The time savings become even more pronounced at high levels. Yet, the game still supports all the cool, weird, fun action of D&D - trips to other planes, battles against dragons, demons, and other powerful monsters, and so forth.
> 
> We'll be doing a lot of previews, design diaries, and other stuff on the website leading up to the game's release.





Thanks Mike!  These are some bold claims, especially about the ease of stating up high level NPCs.

How easy would it be to mix and match charecters from this with traditional D&D charecters: could the Iron Lore warrior adventures with the 3.5 druid?

Also, what about other d20 genres: you mention die hard, could this be used with _D20 Modern_


----------



## mearls

TerraDave said:
			
		

> Thanks Mike!  These are some bold claims, especially about the ease of stating up high level NPCs.
> 
> How easy would it be to mix and match charecters from this with traditional D&D charecters: could the Iron Lore warrior adventures with the 3.5 druid?
> 
> Also, what about other d20 genres: you mention die hard, could this be used with _D20 Modern_




1. Mixing classes - you need to do some conversion work, but it isn't much. Without magic items in the equation, there's a gap between an IL character and a D&D character. IL characters have additional features and abilities that close that gap. Thus, moving a character requires you to either give a character the IL features that close that gap (if you move to IL), or remove those features to put that gap back in place (if you move out of IL).

The spellcasting classes are the easiest to move. They don't require any changes to their class abilities, just some added capabilities that all IL characters have. Moving characters from IL to D&D requires a little more work. In some cases, it makes no sense to move a class from D&D to IL (and vice versa) because an IL class fills the same role as a D&D one. To draw an analogy, it doesn't make sense to convert the D&D fighter to d20 Star Wars, because the SW soldier class already fills that role. There's a few classes like that in IL.

2. I *hope* that there are lots of IL rules that people use in other games, including d20 Modern. For instance, the changes to the skill and feat system have proven very popular with the playtesters, and both are relatively easy to migrate.

One of my design goals with the game was to make it useful in an Unearthed Arcana sort of way - you can use it as a treasure chest full of new rules that you can add to your game. The supplements also follow this design pattern.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem

This sounds awesomely cool. I hope I've got enough cash to buy it when it comes out.

Also, you should put "Heroic asskicking certified by Piratecate in your signature.


----------



## MaxKaladin

That bit about statting and 18th-level NPC in 5 to 15 minutes for any class is really appealing as that's one of the biggest time-sinks for me when running standard D&D.


----------



## Rystil Arden

This sounds like a really great idea.  Fromt what I can tell, I could definitely use some of these ideas in my homebrew post-Arthurian setting, where magic is less common and hard to control (and only NPCs have it), and magic items are extremely rare.  Also noting that the characters would need some boost to make up for the loss of magic items, I basically custom-built a powerful advance class for each PC based on the exact concept they wanted to play,for  which they could qualify about the time they would be getting lots of magic items, but this sounds like a much better and flexible way to balance it out than I was using (not to mention it doesn't require me to custom-build powerful advanced classes for each PC).  I might just have to do a bit of conversion when this comes out!


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

mearls said:
			
		

> One of my design goals with the game was to make it useful in an Unearthed Arcana sort of way - you can use it as a treasure chest full of new rules that you can add to your game. The supplements also follow this design pattern.




An admirable design goal. 

Sounds familiar...


----------



## DaveMage

Is this an OGL supplement, or d20?

And would this usable with D&D the same way as Arcana Evolved is, or different?

(Or should I just read the previews when they're posted?      )


----------



## Anabstercorian

For budget purposes, how much should I expect to spend on this astonishingly enticing product?


----------



## mearls

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Is this an OGL supplement, or d20?
> 
> And would this usable with D&D the same way as Arcana Evolved is, or different?
> 
> (Or should I just read the previews when they're posted?      )




1. It's OGL.

2. Like AE/AU, it's an alternate player's handbook (I probably should have said this earlier!). It is just as useful with D&D in the way that AE is, though as I mentioned above the classes need some minor conversions to work in D&D. I suspect that people will get a lot more use out of IL's rules for skills, feats, and combat, where AE offers more options with races, classes, and magic. Still, IL's classes (and what passes for races) are also portable, though the classes need some conversion as mentioned above.

3. This is all kind of a weird space, because I'm not 100% sure if the S&S Insider thing was supposed to be released yet. Since the game has, by now, been announced at GTS, I can finally sort of talk about it. I'm trying to keep things general. As we approach the release date, I can talk about specifics.

It's funny, but we really do have to pace how we release stuff. It makes it more manageable to address each part of the game on its own, without muddling everything by info dumping the entire thing at once. Believe me, I really want to drill into this game! I've spent the past 6 months working on nothing but Iron Lore. We have an entire schedule of previews and material for the web site that we've planned out.


----------



## mearls

Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> For budget purposes, how much should I expect to spend on this astonishingly enticing product?




This is utterly embarrassing, but I honestly don't know. They keep me locked in this game design lab 24-7...

This info should be up with the official announcement later this week at the website.


----------



## mearls

TerraDave said:
			
		

> Though again, in the *Iron Lore  * interview, the emphasis is on what players get, not what they loose.




I wanted to highlight this quote, because I think it summarizes what Iron Lore does vis a vis altering the role of magic in the game. The most important design goal of the book was to create  game environment without magical items, yet the characters were still as powerful as D&D ones.

In design terms, D&D's magic items are a lot like a Hero or GURPS point buy system grafted on to a class and level system. You can think of the gold piece budget by level as a pool of points used to buy super powers or extra benefits to your attacks, skills, etc. Iron Lore ditches that, but it replaces it with something else.

The Iron Lore alternate PHB really emphasizes what you get, not what you lose.


----------



## TerraDave

mearls said:
			
		

> 1. It's OGL.
> 
> 
> 3. This is all kind of a weird space, because I'm not 100% sure if the S&S Insider thing was supposed to be released yet.




April to June Spring 2005. page 2.  If someone orders from the WW website they will probably get it.

and in the past an online version is usually released as well.


----------



## francisca

mearls said:
			
		

> This is utterly embarrassing, but I honestly don't know. They keep me locked in this game design lab 24-7...
> 
> This info should be up with the official announcement later this week at the website.



Well, I'd think there would certainly be worse kinds of labrats......'less Monte has a Fiendish Dire Half-Flumph Bugbear with a Whip +5 of Flaying standing behind you all the time.

This looks like a promising product, Mr. Mearls.  Good luck!


----------



## Turjan

mearls said:
			
		

> As a consequence of the changes to the core d20 engine, you can now stat up an 18th-level NPC from any class in about 5 to 15 minutes, tops, once you're familiar with the system. I estimate that Iron Lore adventure prep takes about half, if not less, time than adventure prep for D&D.



How cool is that ! That's something I've waited for for ages. I'm really curious how you will manage that .


----------



## Turjan

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> An admirable design goal.
> 
> Sounds familiar...



Hehe, I won't forget your product. In the end, WotC will choose what to plunder for 4E, anyway .


----------



## Ace

mearls said:
			
		

> I was wondering when the word would finally get out. Iron Lore will be officially announced at the GAMA trade show in Las Vegas. Technically, the show has already started, so I can answer a few questions.
> 
> SNIP,
> 
> 
> We'll be doing a lot of previews, design diaries, and other stuff on the website leading up to the game's release.




Its what I have been wanting --YES!


----------



## DaveMage

mearls said:
			
		

> 1. It's OGL.
> 
> 2. Like AE/AU, it's an alternate player's handbook (I probably should have said this earlier!). It is just as useful with D&D in the way that AE is, though as I mentioned above the classes need some minor conversions to work in D&D. I suspect that people will get a lot more use out of IL's rules for skills, feats, and combat, where AE offers more options with races, classes, and magic. Still, IL's classes (and what passes for races) are also portable, though the classes need some conversion as mentioned above.
> 
> 3. This is all kind of a weird space, because I'm not 100% sure if the S&S Insider thing was supposed to be released yet. Since the game has, by now, been announced at GTS, I can finally sort of talk about it. I'm trying to keep things general. As we approach the release date, I can talk about specifics.
> 
> It's funny, but we really do have to pace how we release stuff. It makes it more manageable to address each part of the game on its own, without muddling everything by info dumping the entire thing at once. Believe me, I really want to drill into this game! I've spent the past 6 months working on nothing but Iron Lore. We have an entire schedule of previews and material for the web site that we've planned out.




Thanks, Mike!  I'll read the previews before I ask any more questions about the game.


----------



## Stormborn

Thanks for the info Mike.  Now onto the questions:
1) Is this indeed the BIG THING that is supposed to "wow" us as much as AU/AE that Monte has mentioned? Or should we expect another?  (oh dear, misparaphrasing the New Testament in a post about a Malhavok Product, I may have a problem)
2) Will there be other support for it?  Setting, adventures, etc?  Or can we take your comments about using any d20 Monster book as is to suggest that might be true of other things like adventures and settings?

Again, always great to hear from the creators, thanks.


----------



## TerraDave

Stormborn said:
			
		

> Thanks for the info Mike.  Now onto the questions:
> 1) Is this indeed the BIG THING that is supposed to "wow" us as much as AU/AE that Monte has mentioned? Or should we expect another?  (oh dear, misparaphrasing the New Testament in a post about a Malhavok Product, I may have a problem)
> 2) Will there be other support for it?  Setting, adventures, etc?  Or can we take your comments about using any d20 Monster book as is to suggest that might be true of other things like adventures and settings?
> 
> Again, always great to hear from the creators, thanks.




Not to speak for Mike, but the Insider article emphasised that this was another big AU type product, and like that it apparently is an "alternate players handbook"


----------



## Plane Sailing

Sounds really interesting, I look forward to hearing more.

I've been trying to get hold of the print version of Book of Iron Might because I was interested in the stunt system you'd put together in there. I wonder, how does this relate to Iron Lore? Parallel, overlaps, distinct?

Cheers


----------



## DungeonmasterCal

Personally, this sort of low magic setting would definitely appeal to me.  D&D 3.5 is saturated with magic, and it's too much work for someone who doesn't have the time to rework things for lower magic.  I'm eagerly looking forward to learning more about this product!


----------



## Orryn Emrys

And as someone who is thoroughly enamored with the AU/AE phenomenon, I expect Malhavoc will deliver yet another home run!  I have personally grated against the system for years in regards to the balanced progression of the game relying heavily on the PCs' acquisition of magic items.  A game in which the expected power level obviates a qualifying distribution of gear is precisely what I've been looking for....


----------



## Blair Goatsblood

Wow, as someone who is trying to make a fantasy setting with "low magic" and rare magic items for players, I can't wait to get my hands on this. I just may hold off on revamping the charactre classes for my campaign.

Iron Lore + The Wilderlands Boxed Set = Tonnes of pulpy CAS/REH goodness come this summer.


----------



## reanjr

This book sounds wonderful.  I can't wait for this.  Release date?


----------



## Von Ether

Custom high level character stated up quickly. I'm listening. Convert it to Eberron, I'm sold.


----------



## TerraDave

reanjr said:
			
		

> This book sounds wonderful.  I can't wait for this.  Release date?




August at Gencon


----------



## Krieg

mearls said:
			
		

> This is utterly embarrassing, but I honestly don't know. They keep me locked in this game design lab 24-7...




Does Monte poke you with sticks too?

Cuz I just always pictured him as the sort of fellow who would do that.

I'm just saying is all...


----------



## A'koss

Oh how _did_ I miss this thread...

YES! It's like a book that was designed specifically with my _Winter Sea_ campaign in mind... The list of features look like a list I'd give of my own homebrewed rules. Damn, if I knew there was a playtest going on for this product I'd have begged to be a part of it... 

Mike, does Iron Lore address any of the growing balance issues and disparities between the classes at higher levels? The real weakness I find in D&D is the disparities in hit points, attack rolls, saving throws and so on make encounter balance more ornery with every level after say... 14th or so. I've always found it a bit... disjoining that HL characters are actually more vulnerable and die faster than mid level ones. 

If you can sell me on the high level play...  


Cheers!

A'koss.


----------



## Capellan

mearls said:
			
		

> Iron Lore characters can fight demons, beholders, frost giants, and so forth, with the same lethality/resource curve as their D&D counterparts. While the PCs don't normally cast spells or carry a lot of magical gear, they're just as powerful as their D&D counterparts.




I can vouch for this: PirateCat and the other players took on a (slightly modified) Green Dragon last night, without a magic item in sight.

What they did have, however, were exploding marsh gases, impromptu barbarian abseiling lessons, and buildings falling on people, among other things ... fun stuff. 

Let me put it this way: as one of the playtesters, when I read _Iron Lore_, my immediate reaction was: "I wanna grab some dice and play this!  _Right now_!".


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Does look pretty neat.  I look forward both to the new implied setting and the rules for eliminating magical items.  Though I must admit that I would probably need them to be fairly easily strippable.


----------



## Wombat

Sounds like quite the intriguing project.

Hoepfully I'll have spare cash when this comes out.


----------



## mearls

Hey all,

I'll try to answer as many questions as possible. Here we go!

Stormborn asks:
1) Is this indeed the BIG THING that is supposed to "wow" us as much as AU/AE that Monte has mentioned? Or should we expect another?

Answer: I think it is, yes. I'm 90% certain this is what he was talking about.

2) Will there be other support for it? Setting, adventures, etc? Or can we take your comments about using any d20 Monster book as is to suggest that might be true of other things like adventures and settings?

Answer: There's one supplement already written, another in the works. The game is designed to be very portable for DMs. Since the base power level is built around D&D's, you can import almost anything for the DM to use without any hassles. For character option, like classes and feats, there's some simple conversion rules. A lot of the design is built to make life as easy for the DM as possible.

Plane Sailing asks:
I've been trying to get hold of the print version of Book of Iron Might because I was interested in the stunt system you'd put together in there. I wonder, how does this relate to Iron Lore? Parallel, overlaps, distinct?

Answer: There's some parallels in that fighting-type characters reign supreme. Some of the stuff in BOIM appears in Iron Lore, but most of it has been redesigned. The basic design concept - expanded options for warriors - is taken to the nth degree in Iron Lore. One of my big pushes was to make the game more interactive, to give you more flexible options in combat and other situations.


A'Koss asks:
Mike, does Iron Lore address any of the growing balance issues and disparities between the classes at higher levels? The real weakness I find in D&D is the disparities in hit points, attack rolls, saving throws and so on make encounter balance more ornery with every level after say... 14th or so. I've always found it a bit... disjoining that HL characters are actually more vulnerable and die faster than mid level ones.

Answer: Iron Lore tends to push a lot of what I think of as maintenace stuff - saves, healing - off into the background. Your saves get really good without having to take feats. There's no healing magic, but you still recover hp's between fights. In essence, a lot of the passive, defensive abilities go up automatically as you level. Thus, characters tend to be rather tough nuts to crack without the players' putting a lot of resource into that end of character development.

That was very intentional, for the reasons you cite. Character mortality above level 10 is just too common due to a single bad roll or the failure to slap the right defensive spell on the party. Iron Lore chucks a lot of that stuff. Hopefully, if PCs fall in IL combat it's because they made bad decisions or were outfought, not because they rolled a 1 on a Fort save.


----------



## ruleslawyer

Von Ether said:
			
		

> Custom high level character stated up quickly. I'm listening. Convert it to Eberron, I'm sold.



If this works the way it's advertised, I will be using it for my Forgotten Realms campaign.

Yup, you read that right.


----------



## Verequus

If the magic items aren't necessary for IL characters, does this result into a reduced treasure curve, too? A big part of the treasure are in the core rules the magic items, but this aspect seems to be eliminated. If the IL character has the same amount of treasure as the D&D character, for what purpose the treasure is used?


----------



## A'koss

mearls said:
			
		

> Answer: Iron Lore tends to push a lot of what I think of as maintenace stuff - saves, healing - off into the background. Your saves get really good without having to take feats. There's no healing magic, but you still recover hp's between fights. In essence, a lot of the passive, defensive abilities go up automatically as you level. Thus, characters tend to be rather tough nuts to crack without the players' putting a lot of resource into that end of character development.
> 
> That was very intentional, for the reasons you cite. Character mortality above level 10 is just too common due to a single bad roll or the failure to slap the right defensive spell on the party. Iron Lore chucks a lot of that stuff. Hopefully, if PCs fall in IL combat it's because they made bad decisions or were outfought, not because they rolled a 1 on a Fort save.



That's awesome Mike, just what I want to hear.  IME, D&D players are often reluctant to experiment tactically and try new things at high levels due to how fast combat goes at these levels. I'm hoping IL will find ways to stretch out combat a little longer, place less emphasis on winning initiative and have fewer one-round maulings of weaker characters...  

Cheers!


----------



## Von Ether

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> If the magic items aren't necessary for IL characters, does this result into a reduced treasure curve, too? A big part of the treasure are in the core rules the magic items, but this aspect seems to be eliminated. If the IL character has the same amount of treasure as the D&D character, for what purpose the treasure is used?




There in lies a potential nightmare/wet dream depending on who you talk to. I know several of my players will have thought of this the moment they hear "and it lets you take on stuff at the same levels without all the magic items." They'll be thinking, "So what does this mean I can do when I demand my magic items back? Yeah, baby!" They won't say it, hoping they can talk me into giving them old amounts of treasure back along with the enhanced fighting.

One question: Is this version more minis/AoO based than regular DnD?


----------



## Janx

mearls said:
			
		

> 1. Mixing classes - you need to do some conversion work, but it isn't much. Without magic items in the equation, there's a gap between an IL character and a D&D character. IL characters have additional features and abilities that close that gap. Thus, moving a character requires you to either give a character the IL features that close that gap (if you move to IL), or remove those features to put that gap back in place (if you move out of IL).




I think Mike missed the point (or a point) the original question was based on.  If I'm DMing an Iron Lore game, and Joe and Bob are playing, can Joe run an IL barbarian and Bob bring his 3.5 Druid and "just play together"  Meaning, from my perspective, I run my IL game, I hand out treasure and XP the same as always, and the only thing the Druid complains about is a lack of treasure items.  

I'm speaking from a single game perspective, and not acknowledging the fact that in the long term, the Druid would be hosed, due to not getting bigger magic items to beef him up.

I think people are interested in simple cross-over capability, for a one-shot say.  You'd want to keep D&D magic items out of the hands of the IL PCs, and such.

It's kind of a litmus test on how compatible IL is with D&D.

Thanks,
Janx


----------



## Gez

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> If the magic items aren't necessary for IL characters, does this result into a reduced treasure curve, too? A big part of the treasure are in the core rules the magic items, but this aspect seems to be eliminated. If the IL character has the same amount of treasure as the D&D character, for what purpose the treasure is used?




With all that speak about Conan, Fafhrd, and the Grey Mouser, I think the purpose for treasure is ale and whores.


----------



## Narfellus

This sounds great! If nothing else it sounds like it will have great ideas to derive piecemeal and tack onto any game or setting.


----------



## Ozmar

*Iron Lore... Evolved?*

Hi Mike!

This book sounds awesome! Now I have to hurry and finish my Eberron campaign so I can find the time to run my Arcana Evolved campaign in time to finish it and be ready to run an Iron Lore campaign in August!

Speaking of Arcana Evolved, will the initial Iron Lore book be a "director's cut"? That is, will it be an author's preferred vision that contains setting material, monsters and all the bits that you could dream up? Or will it be a trimmed, less bulky and expensive book in the vein of the original Arcana Unearthed release?

P.S. I recently purchased Ruins of Intrigue and plan to use it to structure my AE campaing. Kudos on a great product! And thank you for continuing to feed our addictions.

Ozmar the Gaming Addict


----------



## ecliptic

This book will totally kick ass!

Are you sticking with hit points or will you use something else such as VP/WP?

Also with it be a fully colored book or black and white?


----------



## Driddle

Will this product be as appealing to the player who likes nimble swashbucklers as it is to the muscled barbarian types?


----------



## mearls

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> If the magic items aren't necessary for IL characters, does this result into a reduced treasure curve, too? A big part of the treasure are in the core rules the magic items, but this aspect seems to be eliminated. If the IL character has the same amount of treasure as the D&D character, for what purpose the treasure is used?




The issue of treasure is covered in one of the follow-up books. There's guidelines and advice on handling treasure plus alternate ways of using it in the game. The book isn't in playtest yet, so I can't really go into details.


----------



## mearls

Von Ether said:
			
		

> One question: Is this version more minis/AoO based than regular DnD?




Not really - it gives most speeds and distances in squares, but those are trivially easy to convert back into feet. I did this because it's a lot easier to express and deal with modifications and penalties to movement in squares rather than feet.

AoOs are there, but they're standardized and simplified.


----------



## mearls

Janx said:
			
		

> I think Mike missed the point (or a point) the original question was based on.  If I'm DMing an Iron Lore game, and Joe and Bob are playing, can Joe run an IL barbarian and Bob bring his 3.5 Druid and "just play together"  Meaning, from my perspective, I run my IL game, I hand out treasure and XP the same as always, and the only thing the Druid complains about is a lack of treasure items.
> 
> I'm speaking from a single game perspective, and not acknowledging the fact that in the long term, the Druid would be hosed, due to not getting bigger magic items to beef him up.
> 
> I think people are interested in simple cross-over capability, for a one-shot say.  You'd want to keep D&D magic items out of the hands of the IL PCs, and such.
> 
> It's kind of a litmus test on how compatible IL is with D&D.




If you open your PHB 3.5 to page 22, you'll see tables 3-1 and 3-2, the saving throw, base attack, and benefits (skills, feats) by level tables. Iron Lore uses different versions of these tables. You'd have to convert the druid to use the IL versions. Once you did that, especially with his spells in place, the druid would work fine in the game. The druid would also use a different HD, and he'd get a few class features that all IL characters receive.

The only other issue would be that, since there aren't any spellcaster-specific feats in IL, you'd have to let the player take feats from other sources.


----------



## mearls

Ozmar said:
			
		

> Speaking of Arcana Evolved, will the initial Iron Lore book be a "director's cut"? That is, will it be an author's preferred vision that contains setting material, monsters and all the bits that you could dream up? Or will it be a trimmed, less bulky and expensive book in the vein of the original Arcana Unearthed release?




The book is more on the AU level, but I really don't see a director's cut on the horizon. The setting is intentionally kept a bit shallow (witness all the people who want to use IL in their own setting or a different one - unlike AU, the setting isn't so much of a selling point here).

The game is complete - it's actually about 25% longer than anticipated in terms of word count, so it's all there.


----------



## mearls

ecliptic said:
			
		

> This book will totally kick ass!
> 
> Are you sticking with hit points or will you use something else such as VP/WP?
> 
> Also with it be a fully colored book or black and white?




Hit points - it proved the easiest way to keep things balanced with D&D.

The book will be black and white.


----------



## mearls

Driddle said:
			
		

> Will this product be as appealing to the player who likes nimble swashbucklers as it is to the muscled barbarian types?




Yes, it supports both characters through the classes.

In Iron Lore, you can play the loin-cloth wearing warrior. I have too many Reaper minis of bare-chested barbarians to leave that archetype out of the game.


----------



## Ozmar

*"Iron Lore"?*

Why the title? Can you share any of the thoughts behind that choice?

(Unless, of course, you plan to make this the subject of a future design diary.)

Ozmar the Curious


----------



## Khairn

I would love to see a Malhavoc take a stab at a low-magic (scarce) setting and mechanics!


----------



## TerraDave

Janx said:
			
		

> I think Mike missed the point (or a point) the original question was based on.
> 
> SNIP
> 
> I'm speaking from a single game perspective, and not acknowledging the fact that in the long term, the Druid would be hosed, due to not getting bigger magic items to beef him up.
> 
> I think people are interested in simple cross-over capability, for a one-shot say.  You'd want to keep D&D magic items out of the hands of the IL PCs, and such.
> 
> It's kind of a litmus test on how compatible IL is with D&D.
> 
> Thanks,
> Janx




He may have missed the point again...from what he has written, it seems like if you had an IL charecter with IL wealth, and a 3.5 charecter with 3.5 wealth--they would be comporable, and you should be able to mix them, maybe he will chime in again on this.


----------



## mearls

Ozmar said:
			
		

> Why the title? Can you share any of the thoughts behind that choice?
> 
> (Unless, of course, you plan to make this the subject of a future design diary.)




I am *terrible* with titles. The original title sounded too much like a setting (which, remember, the book doesn't really emphasize). I tried coming up with others, but largely failed. Someone suggested we put Iron in the title, and the title just sort of tumbled out from there.

Really, the choice came down to "We need a title. Make one up. NOW." Like I said, I'm terrible with titles. I didn't want it to be cutesy or weird, and Iron Lore seemed simple and easy enough to remember.


----------



## mearls

TerraDave said:
			
		

> He may have missed the point again...from what he has written, it seems like if you had an IL charecter with IL wealth, and a 3.5 charecter with 3.5 wealth--they would be comporable, and you should be able to mix them, maybe he will chime in again on this.




Oh, OK. Sorry about being dense. Yes, if you used a straight PHB druid (with his magic items) with a straight IL character (without magic items), they should mix fine.


----------



## Ozmar

mearls said:
			
		

> I am *terrible* with titles. The original title sounded too much like a setting (which, remember, the book doesn't really emphasize). I tried coming up with others, but largely failed. Someone suggested we put Iron in the title, and the title just sort of tumbled out from there.
> 
> Really, the choice came down to "We need a title. Make one up. NOW." Like I said, I'm terrible with titles. I didn't want it to be cutesy or weird, and Iron Lore seemed simple and easy enough to remember.




I have the same problem with NPC names.

I guess that works. I was thinking there might be some deep thought or meaning behind the choice. But simple and easy to remember is also good. 

Can't wait!
Ozmar the Eager Fan


----------



## ecliptic

Will you be using class defense progression ala D20 Modern?

Will there be any magical items? Like ancient artifacts but relatively low powered?


----------



## TerraDave

mearls said:
			
		

> Oh, OK. Sorry about being dense. Yes, if you used a straight PHB druid (with his magic items) with a straight IL character (without magic items), they should mix fine.




As a follow up on this, you could have a campaign where some of the charecters belong to orders (i.e. the Druids) that give them items, or items only work for the D&D charecters. Or conversely, if someone wanted to play an IL charecter in a D&D game, then magic wouldn't work for them (and treasure should be adjusted accordingly)

Just as long as everyone knows upfront that this is balanced


----------



## Narfellus

Mike, can you tell us the page-length of this book? Is it at least longer than Iron Might? Of course, i could probably patiently wait 24 hours and find out officially from malhavoc, but i was curious.  I really like the way this system sounds. I might try to incorporate some of these elements into my Midnight campaign. You could theoretically make a character more powerful if you took away their Hero Path and introduced IL as a replacement. Maybe?


----------



## Driddle

mearls said:
			
		

> Really, the choice came down to "We need a title. Make one up. NOW." Like I said, I'm terrible with titles. I didn't want it to be cutesy or weird, and Iron Lore seemed simple and easy enough to remember.




So there might be some validity in the rumor that the project was originally titled, "Tickle Me Roughly With the Angry Feathers of Your Love?"

I definitely prefer your final choice.


----------



## mearls

ecliptic said:
			
		

> Will you be using class defense progression ala D20 Modern?
> 
> Will there be any magical items? Like ancient artifacts but relatively low powered?




Defense - yes. The classes receive a base Defense bonus that scales up with level, much like base attack bonus.

Magical items - the DM's guidebook has rules for these. They work a little like items from Call of Cthulhu.


----------



## mearls

TerraDave said:
			
		

> As a follow up on this, you could have a campaign where some of the charecters belong to orders (i.e. the Druids) that give them items, or items only work for the D&D charecters. Or conversely, if someone wanted to play an IL charecter in a D&D game, then magic wouldn't work for them (and treasure should be adjusted accordingly)
> 
> Just as long as everyone knows upfront that this is balanced




Yeah, that's really the key. There are conversion rules in the book for porting the classes back and forth for campaigns.


----------



## mearls

Narfellus said:
			
		

> Mike, can you tell us the page-length of this book? Is it at least longer than Iron Might? Of course, i could probably patiently wait 24 hours and find out officially from malhavoc, but i was curious.  I really like the way this system sounds. I might try to incorporate some of these elements into my Midnight campaign. You could theoretically make a character more powerful if you took away their Hero Path and introduced IL as a replacement. Maybe?




I'm not too familiar with Midnight, so I couldn't say for sure.

The book is, I think, 256 pages or there abouts. It's AU-sized.


----------



## ecliptic

Will damage reduction be applied to armor?


----------



## der_kluge

Jeez.  My budget for Gen Con just keeps going up and up and up.


----------



## mearls

ecliptic said:
			
		

> Will damage reduction be applied to armor?




Yes, but probably not exactly in the way you think.


----------



## Yuan-Ti

First let me say this sounds fun and I can't wait to see it. After all, anything that brings the "low/scarce magic" concept more into the mainstream means I will get more chances to run and play in such games. I especially like that it was designed to have bits and pieces pulled from it. Plus, I like the work Mike has done in the past, so I expect to like this, too.   

But I also just need to laugh at some of the people who are posting as if "finally! someone has done the game I have always wanted!" Ha ha ha. Ha. There are several products out there that do similar things -- Conan in particular was designed so that magic items are irrelevant. Grim Tales can take or leave magic items depending on the whim of the GM, but works either way. Black Company is a more recent arrival, but also is designed to have a similar feel. In all three of these magic can be EXTREMELY powerful but is rarer and only rarely will a PC see that kind of power. So many people readily dismiss such products because they aren't from the *right* developer, or their friend told them it sucked, or whatever. Puhlease!


----------



## mearls

Yuan-Ti said:
			
		

> But I also just need to laugh at some of the people who are posting as if "finally! someone has done the game I have always wanted!" Ha ha ha. Ha. There are several products out there that do similar things -- Conan in particular was designed so that magic items are irrelevant. Grim Tales can take or leave magic items depending on the whim of the GM, but works either way. Black Company is a more recent arrival, but also is designed to have a similar feel. In all three of these magic can be EXTREMELY powerful but is rarer and only rarely will a PC see that kind of power. So many people readily dismiss such products because they aren't from the *right* developer, or their friend told them it sucked, or whatever. Puhlease!




There is an enormous difference between those games and Iron Lore - Iron Lore replaces magic with expanded/new abilities and a different model of play, all while keeping the power curve at D&D's level. You can use your Monster Manual, or Tome of Horrors, or Fiend Folio, or whatever, with Iron Lore without a single smidge of conversion, and the monsters work in just the way you'd expect WRT CR and party level.


----------



## Michael Tree

In his design diary for Mystic Secrets, Mike Mearls wrote:
 "I think this ties back into the type of gamer I am. I'd much rather use an existing spell to do something really clever than just make up a new one. When I sit down to design spells, I always have to come up with five ideas for each finished spell, because a lot of the stuff I think of really has no point in seeing print. Who needs a lightning bolt that just inflicts cold damage? If I had my way, I'd invent a new magic system, or maybe create new rules that expand how the core magic system works."

Was this sneaky foreshadowing for the new magic system in Iron Lore?


----------



## osarusan

I think I will be camping outside of my bookstore to get this one. Sounds like exactly what I've been wanting to see in D&D.


----------



## Michael Tree

TerraDave said:
			
		

> As a follow up on this, you could have a campaign where some of the charecters belong to orders (i.e. the Druids) that give them items, or items only work for the D&D charecters. Or conversely, if someone wanted to play an IL charecter in a D&D game, then magic wouldn't work for them (and treasure should be adjusted accordingly)



You could even play it like a AD&D1e barbarian or 3.0 forsaker, for a character who refuses to use magic, and has taken vows to that effect.



			
				mearls said:
			
		

> There is an enormous difference between those games and Iron Lore - Iron Lore replaces magic with expanded/new abilities and a different model of play, all while keeping the power curve at D&D's level. You can use your Monster Manual, or Tome of Horrors, or Fiend Folio, or whatever, with Iron Lore without a single smidge of conversion, and the monsters work in just the way you'd expect WRT CR and party level.



That's my favorite aspect of this game.  I don't want another separate game with d20-based mechanics, I want a way to play D&D with more heroic action and less diablo-esque reliance on magic items.  I already have lots of separate games I don't play, I don't need one more; but a book that will let me play D&D the way I greatly prefer, that's gold.

Now, if only Iron Lore was out in time for Tekumel d20 to be based on it. (Speaking of games I own but don't play...   )


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

mearls said:
			
		

> You can use your Monster Manual, or Tome of Horrors, or Fiend Folio, or whatever, with Iron Lore without a single smidge of conversion, and the monsters work in just the way you'd expect WRT CR and party level.




I'm not certain why you think this is an enormous deviation from Grim Tales. 

Exactly how much playtesting of d20 monster sourcebooks did you do with character builds from the other game systems mentioned?

Obviously, I've run more than a few Grim Tales games without converting a single monster, feat, or spell-- though I could certainly lump a few changes that I instinctively make under the larger umbrella of "a different model of play."

I don't mean to detract from Iron Lore at all, it sounds like a great product that I will certainly be picking up. It almost sounds to me like a super-heroic overlay on top of grim fantasy.


----------



## frankthedm

mearls said:
			
		

> Magical items - the DM's guidebook has rules for these. They work a little like items from Call of Cthulhu.




Can you hear the munchkins weeping?  

I like this.


----------



## JVisgaitis

This book sounds really cool. Just one question Mike, I bought the Iron Might PDF which I thoroughly enjoyed, but I really don't get a lot of use out of PDFs and I was intending on buying the print book. Would there be a point in me buying the print version of Iron Might or should I just hold off for Iron Lore?


----------



## TerraDave

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I'm not certain why you think this is an enormous deviation from Grim Tales.
> 
> Exactly how much playtesting of d20 monster sourcebooks did you do with character builds from the other game systems mentioned?
> 
> Obviously, I've run more than a few Grim Tales games without converting a single monster, feat, or spell-- though I could certainly lump a few changes that I instinctively make under the larger umbrella of "a different model of play."
> 
> I don't mean to detract from Iron Lore at all, it sounds like a great product that I will certainly be picking up. It almost sounds to me like a super-heroic overlay on top of grim fantasy.




(you know I love Grim Tales, I even got is a gift for friend, but...)

Doesn't Grim Tales have its own system for calculting EL that is a little different then 3rd ed D&D? You could use an old Red Dragon, but could you use the printed CR against charecters without magic items (or tech)?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

TerraDave said:
			
		

> (you know I love Grim Tales, I even got is a gift for friend, but...)
> 
> Doesn't Grim Tales have its own system for calculting EL that is a little different then 3rd ed D&D? You could use an old Red Dragon, but could you use the printed CR against charecters without magic items (or tech)?




Three things:

1) The _numbers_ used to describe EL are different, but the relative EL is exactly the same. What is a moderate encounter for Party X in D&D is exactly the same moderate encounter in GT.

2) Dragons aren't the best example since WOTC intentionally undervalues their CR by a factor of 2/3. Makes 'em seem "tougher."  

But to answer your question: CR in GT is exactly the same as CR in D&D.

3) Yeah, you could use the CR as printed, but that doesn't change the same situational modifiers that would be present in D&D-- chief among which is probably "Can they fly, do they have ranged weapons, and/or can they get to cover?" But that's the same as it would be in D&D-- doesn't change the dragon's CR, yet it is still a factor to be considered. 

Whether or not the party has "magic" or "tech" is certainly relevant, I wouldn't dispute that.

But then I suspect even Iron Lore would have its own problems with unequipped PCs caught by a dragon on an open field. (I hope that doesn't sound like a straw man setup.)


Wulf


----------



## Testament

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Can you hear the munchkins weeping?
> 
> I like this.




This munchkin's weeping...for joy.  This product sounds like everything I've ever wanted!  A skills-based magic system for D&D, w007!

Sing with me, "I LIKE SWORDS!"


----------



## ecliptic

I am just afraid the book may take it a bit too far. Like a feat that makes your weapon "magic" for going through damage reduction.


----------



## scourger

mearls said:
			
		

> 2) Will there be other support for it? Setting, adventures, etc? Or can we take your comments about using any d20 Monster book as is to suggest that might be true of other things like adventures and settings?
> 
> Answer: There's one supplement already written, another in the works. The game is designed to be very portable for DMs. Since the base power level is built around D&D's, you can import almost anything for the DM to use without any hassles. For character option, like classes and feats, there's some simple conversion rules. A lot of the design is built to make life as easy for the DM as possible.




I surmsie from the answer that no adventure support is intended.  The answer suggests that a DM can import any D&D adventure to Iron Lore...as long as all the player & the DM use Iron Lore (IL) for the player characters.  It's an ingenous solution to the publisher's conundrum that sourcebooks sell more than adventures do yet adventures get people playing which sells sourcebooks.  IL will sell to players & DMs, which is good for the publisher; and individual DMs can use adventures from other sources without this publisher being obligated to make adventures to support this alternate game.  Portability.  HMMM.

My concern is that my players don't like it when the bad guys can do stuff that they can't do.  So, traditional spell-casting foes make them unhappy if all they have is naked steel.  I just think that no matter how much cool stuff they can do, they will always lament the lack of cool stuff that they don't have; especially if the bad guys can do the cool magic that they can't do.  It just seems like a hard sell.

Also, how portable is it, really?  I may be able to achieve the same effect as a DM by just challenging the group of non-magic PCs to standrad adventures that are a few CRs lower in level.  Why embrace IL to make this happen?  

I do like the small bit of Mike's work that I have.  I'll look for more information on this game notwithstanding my reservations.


----------



## arscott

Wulf said:
			
		

> But then I suspect even Iron Lore would have its own problems with unequipped PCs caught by a dragon on an open field. (I hope that doesn't sound like a straw man setup.)



 Wulf, I think that the whole point of IL is that there wouldn't be a problem, or as not as much of a problem (insomuch as a dragon doesn't represent a problem to a party that _is_ equipped).

Grim Tales is a low-magic sourcebook.  And an awesome one to boot.  But I think that Iron Legends isn't low magic, it's just magic* in the heroes, not the junk they're wearing.

I dislike the magic system (both spells and items) in D&D.  I think that it essentially takes the magic out of magic.  But I also don't want a system where every time you cast magic missle, you suffer con damage (or san loss, or nonlethal damage, or whatever).  I want the feel of a D&D campaign without it turning into walmart.  And sometimes I prefer my tales to be fairy instead of grim.

And while I may just be projecting my own desires onto a product I don't know that much about, It does seem like Iron Legends will do this.
__________________________________________
*Or its high-powered non-supernatural equivalent.


----------



## A'koss

mearls said:
			
		

> (Regarding Armor Damage Reduction) Yes, but probably not exactly in the way you think.



I'm curious about how this is handled as well as straight DR tends to not play very nicely at higher levels. My guess is it is either like Alternity (a die roll subracted from damage) or something like I use in my homebrew (damage die reduction: 1d8 -> 1d6 -> 1d4...).

Mike, are the classes in IL more traditional (knights, wizards, rogues, priests...) or are they AU influenced (Akashic, Runethanes, etc...). Can you tell us how many classes there will be in IL?

Are there any changes in the way Spell Resistance and Spell Save DCs are handled? I imagine all monsters now have "Damage Resistance"... true?

Cheers!


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

arscott said:
			
		

> I want the feel of a D&D campaign without it turning into walmart.



Full of old people in blue smocks?


----------



## M.L. Martin

Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> For budget purposes, how much should I expect to spend on this astonishingly enticing product?




  $37.99 US, according to the White Wolf Insider/Swords & Sorcery Quarterly.  

  The book sounds awfully appealing to me.  Freeform magic?  Streamlined prep work?  To scale with D&D _without_ massive arrays of magical items?  Definitely worth checking out.

  Dare I hope for an abstracted wealth and/or equipment system as well?  Picking out equipment has always been my least favorite part of D&D character creation, regardless of edition.

  Matthew L. Martin


----------



## A'koss

Matthew L. Martin said:
			
		

> $37.99 US, according to the White Wolf Insider/Swords & Sorcery Quarterly.



Ouch... pricey for a B&W book... 

So that's probably around $49.99 CDN... better start saving my pennies now.  



> Dare I hope for an abstracted wealth and/or equipment system as well? Picking out equipment has always been my least favorite part of D&D character creation, regardless of edition.



Heh... I'm actually the opposite here, I've always liked buying the equipment. As a DM, I usually turn it into a mini-adventure with haggling, unscrupulous sellers, stumbling across a few cool/unique items, etc.

Cheers!


----------



## SSquirrel

Ok I only read the first page so someone in the next 2 pages may have already asked this, but you only mention converting it to D&D and vice versa.  What about conversion between IL and AE/AU?  Some of these rules sound like something that could be a very interesting tweak to the AE/AU setting.

(Re:not reading.  Bite me.    Just bought the Incredibles and wanna watch it heh)

Hagen


----------



## A'koss

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Ok I only read the first page so someone in the next 2 pages may have already asked this, but you only mention converting it to D&D and vice versa. What about conversion between IL and AE/AU? Some of these rules sound like something that could be a very interesting tweak to the AE/AU setting.



Yup, I just read on Monte's site that info on converting between IL to AE will be in there.

Cheers!


----------



## buzz

mearls said:
			
		

> Magical items - the DM's guidebook has rules for these. They work a little like items from Call of Cthulhu.



I didn't think it was possible for me to be more sold on this book than I was by your first post. I was wrong.

Could someone hand me a moist towelette?


----------



## RodneyThompson

Damn you, Mearls, and your "making me want to buy things." My GenCon budget just keeps growing.


----------



## tetsujin28

This sounds just too cool, and like exactly what I want from a d20 game.

Malhavoc's just made their first sale to me.


----------



## reanjr

TerraDave said:
			
		

> August at Gencon




I meant wide release.  I won't be there.


----------



## Tharen the Damned

Ok,

now the product is anounced and many want to have it.
Why not make late March the release Date?
Or better Friday 18. March?
Pleeaase!

See, I really want to have this Book!

New Idea: Or a special made Edition just for me?


----------



## remial

francisca said:
			
		

> I have a mostly completed magic system I came up with in 2001 which is based around disciplines: energy, healing, telekinisis, etc..  You learn a basic discipline like fire, which allows you to produce a flame in your hand, or set a sheet of paper on fire.  Then you augment it with something: ki, or channel power from an outer plane, or drain life energy from you or some poor sap standing next to you, whatever, it's wide open.  Anyway, with these augmentations, you can project the flame, make it hotter, etc... The concept of a spell just ins't there, you just do magic.  One neat aspect is that it drains your ability scores.  COn becomes very important to Mages at that point.  It's a kinda neat little system, though not very original.  I wish I would have stuck with it.




I find myself very intreagued, tell me more...


----------



## remial

Driddle said:
			
		

> So there might be some validity in the rumor that the project was originally titled, "Tickle Me Roughly With the Angry Feathers of Your Love?"
> 
> I definitely prefer your final choice.




that sounds like a bodice ripper expansion book for Blue Rose...

not that that is a completely BAD thing mind you...

ummm...
I'm gonna go over here...


----------



## Berandor

Yuan-Ti said:
			
		

> But I also just need to laugh at some of the people who are posting as if "finally! someone has done the game I have always wanted!" Ha ha ha. Ha. There are several products out there that do similar things -- Conan in particular was designed so that magic items are irrelevant. G



I was thinking more along the lines of a freeform magic system that doesn't equate to low magic.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

arscott said:
			
		

> Wulf, I think that the whole point of IL is that there wouldn't be a problem, or as not as much of a problem (insomuch as a dragon doesn't represent a problem to a party that _is_ equipped).




I am curious enough to know the low-magic solution to "The heroes can't fly..." that I'd pick up Iron Lore on that basis.



> Grim Tales is a low-magic sourcebook.  And an awesome one to boot.




Thanks. I think so too. And I am sure Iron Lore will be awesome. I just hate to see Grim Tales misunderstood or misrepresented.



> But I think that Iron Legends isn't low magic, it's just magic* in the heroes, not the junk they're wearing.




Wow. That's very interesting... I've been hanging on to a PDF for over a month now that addresses that very issue (and in almost identical terms to how you described it). I should probably get around to publishing it...


Wulf


----------



## SSquirrel

A'koss said:
			
		

> Yup, I just read on Monte's site that info on converting between IL to AE will be in there.
> 
> Cheers!




Sweet A'Koss!  Thanks for the good news.  I figured it would considering how popular a setting AU/AE is and ist is from the same company, but ya never know heh.

Hagen


----------



## Michael Tree

buzz said:
			
		

> I didn't think it was possible for me to be more sold on this book than I was by your first post. I was wrong.
> 
> Could someone hand me a moist towelette?



For those of us not in the know, how do magic items work in Call of Cthulhu?


----------



## TerraDave

Michael Tree said:
			
		

> For those of us not in the know, how do magic items work in Call of Cthulhu?




with a cost...


----------



## TerraDave

*More Iron Lore Products*

icv2 confirms that 



> White Wolf will release Mastering Iron Lore (96 pages, $19.99) in October, and Monsters of Iron Lore (96 pages, $19.99) in January of 2006.  Both will also be written by Mearls.
> 
> Fiery Dragon's Iron Lore Battle Box will street in November at $21.95.  The Battle Box will be a metal case with reference cards, charts, tokens, hero-counters, and more.


----------



## Anabstercorian

So...  Let's say you had the guy in this picture.

http://www.waynereynolds.com/Misc%201A/10.jpg 

What sort of stats would he have in Iron Lore?


----------



## Greatwyrm

ecliptic said:
			
		

> I am just afraid the book may take it a bit too far. Like a feat that makes your weapon "magic" for going through damage reduction.




But if nobody had magic weapons, would that really be so bad?


----------



## Greatwyrm

A'koss said:
			
		

> Are there any changes in the way Spell Resistance and Spell Save DCs are handled? I imagine all monsters now have "Damage Resistance"... true?




If the idea is you can use pretty much any monster book with no conversions, why would you go changing stuff like that?


----------



## A'koss

Greatwyrm said:
			
		

> If the idea is you can use pretty much any monster book with no conversions, why would you go changing stuff like that?



Mike mentioned that armor in IL has _some_ kind of damage resistance so I assumed it would apply to monsters as well. However, as he put it, the implementation may not be in the way we're thinking...


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

If this turns out to do exactly what I want without my present hodgepodge of Conan, d20 Modern, OGL Steampunk, Grim Tales, Call of Cthulu and AU...

Well, I'll be out $39.99.


----------



## mearls

Let's see if I can answer some questions here.

Michael Tree asks, about my comments on spells for Mystic Secrets:
Was this sneaky foreshadowing for the new magic system in Iron Lore?

It could very well be!

JVisgaitis asks:
This book sounds really cool. Just one question Mike, I bought the Iron Might PDF which I thoroughly enjoyed, but I really don't get a lot of use out of PDFs and I was intending on buying the print book. Would there be a point in me buying the print version of Iron Might or should I just hold off for Iron Lore?

There's a lot of stuff from Iron Might that doesn't have an analog, like the new feat types, the combat maneuver/component system, and the ironborn. I think Iron Might is a good supplement for Iron Lore.

ecliptic observes:
I am just afraid the book may take it a bit too far. Like a feat that makes your weapon "magic" for going through damage reduction.

ICK! No, IL does not cheese out on you like that.

Scouger asks:
Also, how portable is it, really? I may be able to achieve the same effect as a DM by just challenging the group of non-magic PCs to standrad adventures that are a few CRs lower in level. Why embrace IL to make this happen? 

This is a key design consideration in Iron Lore. Playing Iron Lore, as opposed to running it, is a slightly different experience. IL characters have a lot more dynamic options in combat. If you just take away magic items, buff spells, and so on, you really cut down on the game management, character design, and decisions the PCs can make. There's really only a small slice of tactical decision you can make that have a big effect on the game.

IL gives the players new toys to play with. There's more decisions, and new points on the PC decision tree, to replace the loss of magic items and reliable magic.

To draw a more concrete example, with an attack a D&D fighter decides his target, if he wants to fight defensively, and if he wants to use feats like Power Attack or Combat Expertise (if he has them).

An IL character can decide to make a risky attack that reduces his Defense, a conservative one that enhances, a risky stunt for a big bonus. If he has the right feats, he might adopt a defensive stance, parry a few attacks, then unleash a deadly riposte. He could use his skills to find a weak point in a foe's armor.

In essence, IL replaces magic with new, interesting stuff. To draw on your example, D&D without magic is like an ice cream sundae with just the ice cream. IL is a like a D&D sundae with different toppings. You drop the magic, but you still have all the cool extras you want. They're just different. In many cases, a lot different.

A'koss asks:
Are there any changes in the way Spell Resistance and Spell Save DCs are handled? I imagine all monsters now have "Damage Resistance"... true?

SR and DCs remain the same. Monsters only have DR if they wear armor. Natural armor modified Defense.

Matthew L. Martin ponders:
Dare I hope for an abstracted wealth and/or equipment system as well? Picking out equipment has always been my least favorite part of D&D character creation, regardless of edition.

It isn't in the core book...

Equipment is so simple (weapon, armor, ranged weapon, dagger) that shopping is trivial.


----------



## mearls

Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> So...  Let's say you had the guy in this picture.
> 
> http://www.waynereynolds.com/Misc%201A/10.jpg
> 
> What sort of stats would he have in Iron Lore?




He looks like a single classed berserker. Probably has the Arctic Born or Mighty Build trait, one of those and the Savage Appearance trait, all excellent picks for a berserker. I'd lean towards Mighty Build because of the axe.

In terms of feats, probably Two-Weapon Fighting and Power Attack, with Power Attack taken to the higher mastery. For skills, definitely the Athletics skill group, with Intimidate, Survival, and maybe some Perform thrown in if he's the type of warrior that uses his personality to bludgeon his foes into submission.

He has an orc head on his spear, so I think his basic strategy in battle is to intimidate foes, lure them into focusing on him with Savage Appearance and Perform checks, reaping lots of fury tokens from that, and cashing them in as fast as possible. Meanwhile, his allies swoop around to flank or take out anyone who doesn't get bogged down with him.

He probably adventures with a hunter, a thief, and maybe an archer. His chosen spread of abilities would work really well with those classes, depending on their builds.

OTOH, he could just as easily be a harrier or a hunter who doesn't wear armor. In that case... well, I'm not sure I can start detailing all the possibilities here. Suffice to say, that guy screams Iron Lore to me.

And no, I can't detail any of that stuff until we start doing more previews. I probably raced ahead of schedule by three months in this post alone. Still, I hope it shows you what you can do with an Iron Lore PC.


----------



## Von Ether

TerraDave said:
			
		

> icv2 confirms that



 There's a revolutionary thought.
The MM and DMG for Iron Lore are cheaper. A kindness to the GM, thank you.


----------



## mearls

There are a lot of interesting issues that go along with shifting the focus away from external, magic-drive character abilities and placing it on ones that are inherently linked to a character. Ben asked me about this, so I'm going to give everyone an idea of what's up with that in Iron Lore.

There are two types of issues that come up with yanking out D&D's point buy powers/magic items. As I mentioned before, that's what magic items are - a point buy system welded on to the class system.

These two issues fall into everyone's two favorite camps of RPG stuff - fluff and crunch. Personally, I prefer "story" and "rules" as the distinction here, primarily because the words fluff and crunch make me think of marshmellow fluff and crunchy peanut butter, two components of one damn fine sandwich.

See, I'm getting hungry already.

Anyway, the key to the system design lies in figuring out what parts of magic items/spells address story elements and which parts address system elements.

Being able to fly is a story advantage for the characters. It's useful, and it opens up tactical options, but it doesn't mean anything when the beholder zaps you with his disintegrate eye. A flying monster still needs to get close to you to affect you, and there are things you can do (independent of the rules) to neutralize its power, like run into a cave.

That disintegrate eye, OTOH, is a rules issue. It has X% chance to hit you, and then X% chance to kill you. There are story things that can help you deal with it, like running into a cave, but a designer has no control over those. I can't design a (good) game that tells the DM to include a cave that the PCs can hide in as part of every encounter.

So, you need to sort the story stuff that the DM has absolute control over from the game stuff, which he usually doesn't have control over (IME, the vast majority of players object to house rules unless they take part in the rules' creation.)

You'll notice that IL is designed to use the MM, but it isn't necessarily designed for use with every d20 adventure out there. Some adventure assume that you can fly, or that you can teleport, or that you can breathe water, or whatever.

But you know what? Those story bits don't matter, because just as the DM can say "You need to fly to get to this city" he can also say "... and this griffon is willing to take you there." As a DM, it's really easy to design that stuff. The monsters in the MM don't care where they are or how they got there. They just have their BAB, damage, AC, and so on, to pit against the PCs, and that's what IL is balanced against.

As a consequence, high level IL adventures are far easier to design. You can now run a murder mystery for 15th level PCs that doesn't immediately end when the wizard and cleric team up to read everyone's minds, talk to the gods, and teleport to where the murderer is hanging out. In many ways, IL hands DMs far more control over the story elements surrounding the game bits.

By the same token, the changes needed to rip out spell bleeders (environmental stuff in an adventure that's basically there to force you to use spells to deal with the environment, like an underwater adventure, an aerial adventure, an adventure in a lava cave, etc.) are trivially easy to handle. In a lot of ways, those factors are a lot more fun now because they have a far bigger impact on the game. If you run an underwater adventure, you can do that at any level in IL. The characters can't just snap their fingers to turn the environment into something that just forces them to bleed a few spells to treat it like any other dry land adventure.

If you've ever come up with a real cool adventure idea, then realized that the adventure would never fly because of a spell like teleport, or detect thoughts, or divination, you're going to love Iron Lore. The story side of the game is much, much easier to deal with.

So that's the basic issue - a lot of the stuff that magic items let you do doesn't have a real impact on how you can fight the stuff in the MM, but it does make things tough on the DM when he wants to come up with the story elements for his game.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem

I want this. I really want Grim Tales (looks more useful for an IK game). I _really_ want Black Company. 

I'll probably buy them all. I'm such a hopeless consumer whore...


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

Darn you, Mearls!  Darn you to heck!

Between the Cthulu-like magic items, the spine-tinglingly evocative ability description gave for that WAR art, I was just about ready to preorder Iron Lore.  Then I told myself, "look, it's cool, but you already have a cyclopean amalgam of houserules to accomplish the same thing."

Then you go and give a stinking treatise on game design that's so penetratingly accurate it reminds me of why Iron Lore is going to rock so hard.

So now I have to buy it.  

I hope you're happy.


----------



## A'koss

Thanks for the big update Mike! 

Especially the nice little character breakdown you did. IL is slowly coming into focus - and it's looking gooood.  Interesting that there are a number of rather specialized sounding core classes - archer, hunter, berserker, thief, harrier... What _is_ a harrier anyway...? Some kinda... quasi-rogue maybe? 

Anyway, it's got me wondering how (or even if) you're dealing with Prestige Classes in IL.



			
				mearls said:
			
		

> If you've ever come up with a real cool adventure idea, then realized that the adventure would never fly because of a spell like teleport, or detect thoughts, or divination, you're going to love Iron Lore. The story side of the game is much, much easier to deal with.



Ahh, another plus in IL's column... Of course, though I would expect this from a game like IL, it's always reassuring to hear. 

Cheers!


----------



## Schmoe

I have to say that this is the most excited I've been about an upcoming product in a long, long time.  I can't wait to get my hands on it.  I normally don't make posts just to say "cool", or whatever, but in this case, I can't resist.


----------



## DungeonmasterCal

Even before 3e came out, some friends of mine got out of D&D because of the reliance on magic and magic items.  From what Mr. Mearls has leaked to us this is the exact product that might lure them back to the table.  I'm extremely excited and intrigued by this product, and will undoubtedly add this to my shelf.


----------



## JoeCrow

> That's very interesting... I've been hanging on to a PDF for over a month now that addresses that very issue (and in almost identical terms to how you described it). I should probably get around to publishing it...




Yes. Yes, you should.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

mearls said:
			
		

> snip crunch, fluff, story, mechanics, and spell bleeders




A very interesting post, mr. mearls.

Some of that terminology sounds more like Monte's voice to me; which I point out only to acknowledge that you guys obviously have a good collaboration going on.

I am still waiting to hear the "dragon in an open field" solution, _especially_ since you confirmed that nothing in IL will allow you to (for example) bypass DR. 

(When folks think, "d20 Monster CR compatibility" that's always the first thing to come up, followed by undead.)

I'd like to hear a demonstrable example of the IL power curve/CR solution that acknowledges that dragon's DR (a system issue) and the fact that he flies (a story issue).


Wulf


----------



## Tolen Mar

Im gonna have to wait on this one...I have a very limited budget and blew it on AE, the dragons return, and a few novels Ive been wanting to read.  Plus Transcendance is due to come out a little down the road...

All I care about now (and yes Mr. Mearls, you have sold me on it) is how well it will convert to AE.  Im already in an AE game, and anything new I get will have to work with it, or Ill have to pass.  (due to a certain limit on time....pesky real life.)  I just cant buy every book I see.


----------



## Ozmar

*Awesome!!*

I've been playing D&D for years, and while I recognize the challenges inherent in high-level magical abilities, I've seldom had them impact the game to the point where I wished I could get rid of them. I am pretty happy with players who can fly, teleport, read minds, etc... and have no trouble challenging them.

Still, I am getting more and more excited about Iron Lore! Although this is not what I was looking for, I am starting to look for it, because it sounds very awesome!

Can't wait until August!

Ozmar the Fanboy


----------



## mearls

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I'd like to hear a demonstrable example of the IL power curve/CR solution that acknowledges that dragon's DR (a system issue) and the fact that he flies (a story issue).




An example such as this is beyond the scope of what I can talk about now (I think). But it is something that will be covered in the upcoming previews.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

mearls said:
			
		

> An example such as this is beyond the scope of what I can talk about now (I think). But it is something that will be covered in the upcoming previews.




Invariably people want to know about DR, and dragons, and undead, and the reliance on magical healing, and other typical challenges that seem as if they can only be defeated by magic. (Or at least, are better handled through magic.)

And in some of your prior posts I notice code words like "different style of game."

Now, obviously, having invested myself in low-magic design, I believe there are some things that just don't "convert" very well in a low magic game. 

That is, if you want to build a character-focused, skill-focused, story-focused game, you _just don't_ put low-magic characters into a dungeon crawl full of wights, shadows, and bodaks. It isn't a failure of the ruleset that such a scenario is "broken" with regard to the low-magic ruleset. The system will fail, yes-- because the story is flawed.

I gather such things under the umbrella of "different style of game" as you seem to-- but on the other hand you claimed to have "solved" the balance issues some monsters and some styles of play (dungeon delving in particular) bring with them, and you seem to have claimed that you do it in a way that other low magic games presumably have failed to do.

What interests me most about Iron Lore-- and what I concede and defer to your greater game design mojo-- is that you seem to have moved a few more things out from under the umbrella of "story"-- that is, the place where you put things that just aren't going to have a system solution-- and put them into the system. 

I am wondering just how much smaller your umbrella got, or if it's still pretty superficial compared to the other low-magic systems that are out there. Iron Lore's "... And a griffon shows up to fly you there..." is the kissing cousin of Grim Tales', "You can't teleport because the GM doesn't let you _learn_ teleport in his campaign." (A hand-wave is a hand-wave, after all.)

To put it yet another way: To what extent did you create a system-solution for things that (I believe) are more easily fit under that story-solution umbrella?

Wulf


----------



## Greatwyrm

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Invariably people want to know about DR...




Absolutely no disrespect intended, but invariably people don't like to wait, either.  Unfortunately, it's something we all have to get used to in the world of rpg news teasers.



> That is, if you want to build a character-focused, skill-focused, story-focused game, you _just don't_ put low-magic characters into a dungeon crawl full of wights, shadows, and bodaks. It isn't a failure of the ruleset that such a scenario is "broken" with regard to the low-magic ruleset. The system will fail, yes-- because the story is flawed.




It's still awfully early to discuss the brokenosity of something that hasn't even had previews posted, isn't it?



> I gather such things under the umbrella of "different style of game" as you seem to-- but on the other hand you claimed to have "solved" the balance issues some monsters and some styles of play (dungeon delving in particular) bring with them, and you seem to have claimed that you do it in a way that other low magic games presumably have failed to do.




I wouldn't say that it necessarily implies failure.  There's more than one way to skin a cat (no worries P'cat).


----------



## tetsujin28

This is only sounding better and better, almost like a D&D version of TROS.


----------



## Eloy

Dear Mr. Mearls and Mr. Ratbane:

There's really no need to compete. You see, that's why God invented credit cards...

I WANT BOTH BOOKS! NOW!   

Looking forward to Iron Lore in August. I do hope you put it out on PDF as well as Hardcover.

And Mr. Ratbane?

Since you've already put out some supplements on PDF AND you don't ship outside the continental US, please be so kind as to release the Grim Tales book on RPG shop, so those of us out on the boonies can purchase a copy ASAP!

That Visa is burning a hole in my wallet and is rearing to go!

Thanks!

(On a serious note, thanks for both products. THough a long time DnD player/GM for over 20 years, I've always had a problem with the intrinsic reliance upon armor and magic for survival. Both books sound like they emphasize on the actual *prowess* of the warrior, rather than on his gear or magical buffs.)


----------



## Capellan

As someone who has played both games, I don't actually think there is that much overlap between them.  Iron Lore is not low magic in the same way that Grim Tales is low magic.   They each have a very different feel and focus.

I think that will become more apparent as Mearls is able to reveal more about the system


----------



## SSquirrel

mearls said:

"That disintegrate eye, OTOH, is a rules issue. It has X% chance to hit you, and then X% chance to kill you. There are story things that can help you deal with it, like running into a cave, but a designer has no control over those. I can't design a (good) game that tells the DM to include a cave that the PCs can hide in as part of every encounter."

This was the first thing that sprang into my mind.

DM:You're walking thru the darkening forest when you hear several harsh voices around the corner.  You're only level 4 and alone and you see a group of 6 orcs come around the bend in the road.  Off to the right of the road, you notice the mouth of a cave yawning open invitingly.  What do you do?

Player:I hide in the cave!!

*snicker*

Hagen


----------



## Greatwyrm

Some new tidbits posted over at montecook.com.  A FAQ, a pdf, and some product descriptions.  Not much that hasn't been covered here already, but some neat pictures at least.

edit -- okay, now that i've loaded all the pdf, there is some new stuff.  Skip to the last couple pages (6-7) for some class and feat info.


----------



## A'koss

Greatwyrm said:
			
		

> Some new tidbits posted over at montecook.com. A FAQ, a pdf, and some product descriptions. Not much that hasn't been covered here already, but some neat pictures at least.
> 
> edit -- okay, now that i've loaded all the pdf, there is some new stuff. Skip to the last couple pages (6-7) for some class and feat info.



Yeah, I had a chance to look at the preview stuff earlier today - very cool. So... 8 Warrior classes, 1 "Thief" class and 1 Magic-Using class. Hmmm, most of the names seem pretty good. I quite like the name _*Armiger*_... has a nice solid ring to it. "Executioner" though... maybe not so much. Doesn't quite convey the idea of a finesse fighter the description seems to suggest. The _Harrier_ or perhaps the _Hunter_ sound like the most interesting so far. Hmmm...  

I'm diggin' the IL feat ideas - feats that can improve with you as gain levels and that each class has certain feats that it excels in over other classes. Also love the idea that different weapons have their own distinctive advantages. That's something I've been doing IMG for a while now too. The whole "Mastery Rating" thing is still a bit of a mystery - I wonder if they somehow tied to skill points or something similar.

I'm very interested in seeing how IL handles Stunts and how they are to use "in play". Hopefully we'll see an example of one in the near future...

All-in-all I am very hyped and only... 5... months... to... go...  

Cheers!


----------



## pogre

Very interesting.

Can you compare the _feel_ of the game to any other game you have played?

For example, when we play my _Grim Tales_ game it _feels_ like _PenDragon_ with better mechanics to me.

Is Ben's (Wulf's) Super Hero comparison a good one?

I'll probably buy all three books next year assuming the anticipated gushing reviews are forthcoming.

I think it is a shame you are not going to write a lot of adventures for this Mr. Mearls - I really enjoyed the _WFRP_ mystery-style adventure you wrote.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Hey, Mike.

I'm really impressed with what I've heard. I'll chime in with another "I've wanted something like this for a while now" comments. I just need to make sure that I publish something you want between now and GenCon, so I can trade with you rather than actually buying one. 

I do, however, have one question/concern. By adding to the number of options in combat, it seems to me that one would almost have to add to the complexity of the game as well. While I love the idea of a system that deemphasizes magic items in favor of character abilities, I'm less sanguine about having an extra two-dozen details to keep track of, or waiting for people to decide what they're doing in combat, and then look up the rules to do it. In D&D, you only have to do that if you're doing something odd (grapple, or an unusual spell).

What would/can you say, in that regard? Does Iron Lore require much in the way of added bookkeeping/note-taking? Is it harder for people who aren't system-savvy (such as several of the players I know) to use? Is it still going to appeal to people who wish to deemphasize minis and calculation? (I know you already said it doesn't require any more use of minis than D&D itself; but can it be played to require less?)

Just to be clear, I'm getting this thing regardless. It's one of the few rules-heavy books I've been excited about in a long time. The above questions are just me trying to figure out if it's a _perfect_ fit, not to indicate any concern for the book's quality as a whole.


----------



## tetsujin28

The illos are so-so and some of the class names are silly.

I'm still buying it


----------



## elforcelf

I love Epic Magic. I love Epic magic using pcs. I love Epic magic items. I run a Epic game. Why should I get this at all?  P.s.I love Mike's books;this is not a attack. elforcelf.


----------



## tetsujin28

Sounds like it's not for you, then.


----------



## ecliptic

elforcelf said:
			
		

> I love Epic Magic. I love Epic magic using pcs. I love Epic magic items. I run a Epic game. Why should I get this at all?  P.s.I love Mike's books;this is not a attack. elforcelf.




Well it sounds like it opens up a whole new avenue for melee by simply using the new feat system. COuld be usefull if you think melee classes get the shaft in Epic.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Eloy said:
			
		

> Dear Mr. Mearls and Mr. Ratbane:
> 
> There's really no need to compete. You see, that's why God invented credit cards...




I have found it almost universally true that when a "big name" company publishes something that crosses over my work in any way, my sales go up. Grim Tales has enjoyed a renaissance in interest several times now, and I'll be surprised if a few people don't immediately start looking for ways to use them together. So I'm really not concerned about competing. (It will probably also sell a few of my Grim Tales-themed adventures.)

I am looking forward to seeing how Mike solved some of the problems that I myself encountered. I have pretty much bought everything from either mearls or Monte that wasn't tied to a specific campaign setting-- their nuts and bolts stuff is always good.

Overall Iron Lore sounds (a) more high action that the perceived "default" GT campaign, (b) it has a fixed fantasy theme/feel (you wouldn't use it to play a future apocalyptic game, for example-- you'll no doubt want to wait for Cyber Lore for that  ) and (c) it's less tool-kitty in the nuts and bolts (classes are defined, with a fixed progression of abilities, more like D&D than Modern).

So, yeah, my guess is you _could_ probably use Grim Tales with a dash of The Book of Iron Might to build an Iron Lore game, but why would you when you can have Mike F'in Mearls do it for you and publish it all pretty-like through Malhavoc?


Wulf


----------



## 3catcircus

*Combat Rules, Other Than Weapons?*

Wondering if this product will also include combat rules for things/items?  I've always felt that splash weapons got the shaft in the core books.  I mean - come on - getting hit square on with an Alchemist's Fire (for all intents and purposes a molotov cocktail) - and at most you take 12 points of damage and 12 seconds later it is all over?

Will Iron Lore have revamped rules for what happens when people get hit by alchemist's fire (i.e. they catch on fire, run around in agony, and start igniting other items and people, for example?)


----------



## John Q. Mayhem

Will there be anything in Iron Lore analogous to the Ritual Warrior? That's one of my favorite parts of AE, and it'd be pretty cool to see what one would look like in a rules-set like Iron Lore or GT.


----------



## Gez

I'll wait for "Evolved Lore", the full-color, 3-in-1 book that'll be published... eventually. Maybe.


----------



## fuindordm

Malhavoc is fourth in the field, but I'm really looking forward to IL!  It has some things that I've been itching for for it seems like forever now...

* A wide variation of mundane classes that can be imported into a campaign.  It always bugged me that there were only three out of 11 classes in D&D that had no magical abilities at all.

* Full support for different fighting and weapons styles!  There are only a couple of feats useful for pole arms in D&D, for example, and none specifically supporting that style of combat.

* And, briefly mentioned by Mike "...he would have the athletics skill group..." I've been thinking for a while about how to modify the skill system a bit and the idea of skill groups sounds brilliant.  Does this mean you can buy full ranks in groups of three skills for a reduced cost?  E.g. 2 skill points per rank in the Athletics (climb, jump, swim) or Influence (bluff, diplomacy, intimidate) groups, or one point per rank in individual skills?  Sweet!

Grim Tales I have, and I love it to death for it's unyielding flexibility and carefully balanced rules.  I've been using it's CR/EL/XP system for my own campaigns extensively, and find it much easier to get a handle on than the base D&D.

GT is definitely a masterwork game system, and a bargain to boot without the usual 150 gp added on top of the price.

Ben


----------



## Berandor

3catcircus said:
			
		

> Wondering if this product will also include combat rules for things/items?  I've always felt that splash weapons got the shaft in the core books.  I mean - come on - getting hit square on with an Alchemist's Fire (for all intents and purposes a molotov cocktail) - and at most you take 12 points of damage and 12 seconds later it is all over?



Hey! Alchemist's fire and tanglefoot bags saved the day for my players at their last BBEG. Don't knock that. 


> Grim Tales I have, and I love it to death for it's unyielding flexibility and carefully balanced rules. I've been using it's CR/EL/XP system for my own campaigns extensively, and find it much easier to get a handle on than the base D&D.



I needed to quote that. "Unyielding flexibility" is just too cool.


----------



## Odhanan

Hi everyone.

The _Iron Lore_ FAQ states:



> *Does [Iron Lore] use the same rules as Arcana Evolved?*
> 
> No. Iron Lore does not use the Arcana Evolved magic system -- it creates a new magic paradigm. It does not use Arcana Evolved character classes but introduces all-new classes. It offers its own take on new combat options, skills, and feats.




Hence my question to Mike:

How compatible will AE and IL be? Will IL include some tips about how to use both variants together? How complex will it be to blend the two?

Other informations:
Malhavoc Announces Next Variant Player's Handbook
Welcome to _Iron Lore_!


----------



## Plane Sailing

Mike, 

Thanks for all the answers you've posted in this thread. I'm now really keen to see what you've done with IL. Playing around with house-rules a lot I've put a lot of thought into ways of eliminating magic and magic item dependency and each time came to the conclusion that it would require a wholesale ripping out and changing elements of d20, so I've not bothered.

But if you've done all the hard work for me...

Sounds cool so far.

Cheers


----------



## Nightfall

man this will be SO cool.


----------



## Krieg

3catcircus said:
			
		

> I mean - come on - getting hit square on with an Alchemist's Fire (for all intents and purposes a molotov cocktail) - and at most you take 12 points of damage and 12 seconds later it is all over?




Stop

Drop

and Roll!


----------



## 3catcircus

The core rules, as written, allow you to try and do this to avoid the _2nd_ d6 of damage completely.  If you did _nothing_ you'd still "go out" after that 2nd round of damage.  

It isn't realistic at all.  There needs to be rules (or house rule 'em) for the fact that fire acts pretty much exponentially on both people and items in terms of both damage and spread - and flaming people can start fires on other people or items.



			
				Krieg said:
			
		

> Stop
> 
> Drop
> 
> and Roll!


----------



## Krieg

Let me clarify a bit.

A sense of humor helps immensely when reading my previous post.


----------



## Nightfall

Yeah well I think some people, Krieg, have trouble with that idea. You know, going over their heads. Course it may be something more than height getting in the way.


----------



## BryonD

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I do, however, have one question/concern. By adding to the number of options in combat, it seems to me that one would almost have to add to the complexity of the game as well.




That was my very first thought as well.

But at $14 for PDF, I'll make the final judgement when I am reading my own copy.     

I have visions of Lancelot as a 14th level Man-at-Arms / Armiger and King Arthur as a 5th level who just happens to have the only magic sword in the land (which just happens to be artifact power).


----------



## John Q. Mayhem

fuindordm said:
			
		

> * A wide variation of mundane classes that can be imported into a campaign.  It always bugged me that there were only three out of 11 classes in D&D that had no magical abilities at all.




Y'know what's funny? In Malhavoc's last big release, Arcana Evolved, _none_ of the base classes are mundane. Not even the straight fighters; the heavy fighter gets combat rites and the unfettered can parry spells. Kinda funny, they're sorta swinging to the opposite end of the spectrum here.


----------



## Tyler Do'Urden

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> Y'know what's funny? In Malhavoc's last big release, Arcana Evolved, _none_ of the base classes are mundane. Not even the straight fighters; the heavy fighter gets combat rites and the unfettered can parry spells. Kinda funny, they're sorta swinging to the opposite end of the spectrum here.




Which is why Malhavoc r0x0rs my b0x0r5... 

Though, in all seriousness, I'm not sure this is really intended as "low fantasy"- it sounds more like a change to the sort of setting where magical items/magical technology is relatively uncommon, but spellcasters and arcanists could exist with some frequency.  I'm seeing more Wheel of Time (where magic-users aren't exactly rare, and have a great base of power, but there isn't a wizard on every streetcorner) than Lord of the Rings...  whereas Arcana Unearthed/Evolved is basically Earthdawn: Reloaded...


----------



## Plane Sailing

This caught my eye in the preview PDF



> *Heroic Combat* Almost anything is possible in an Iron Lore battle. Knock a foe over the head to stun him. Slash a terrible monster across the eyes to blind it. if you can imagine it, you can attempt it in Iron Lore




The combat styles feats which are distinct to particular weapons reminds me of the wonderful things which I heard about "Men At Arms" by Second World Publications(?), but which I wasn't able to get hold of. Check it up in the reviews database and you'll see what I mean.

Cheers


----------



## tetsujin28

The more I think about this, the more I'm thinking this would be perfect for Dark Sun. Which leads, I guess to my question for Mike: would it be possible to integrate psionics?


----------



## Turjan

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> The combat styles feats which are distinct to particular weapons reminds me of the wonderful things which I heard about "Men At Arms" by Second World Publications(?), but which I wasn't able to get hold of. Check it up in the reviews database and you'll see what I mean.



I just saw a copy of that book in my LGS an hour ago . I own this book, anyway, and it really manages to spice the fighter up. That's one of my favourite d20 titles .


----------



## Nightfall

*had been meaning to get this*

From the preview though, and correct me if I'm wrong Tur, those weapon specialization feats don't require a mastery though? I mean there's not like a "rating" or category for certain weapons? Cause that's what Iron Lore seems to be offering.


----------



## Turjan

Nightfall said:
			
		

> From the preview though, and correct me if I'm wrong Tur, those weapon specialization feats don't require a mastery though? I mean there's not like a "rating" or category for certain weapons? Cause that's what Iron Lore seems to be offering.



'Masters of Arms' is definitely different from Iron Lore. Generally, you take 10 level prestige classes that allow you to learn lots of great manoeuvres. The requirement is always proficiency with the weapon, which might be sufficient, like in the case of the 'alpha beast', unnecessary, like with the 'rod of lordly might master', but is generally extended to a few other requirements, as usual for prestige classes.

The nice combat manoeuvres come from special feats you get every level. Every second level the feat is restricted to the weapon you specialise on, whereas every other level the feats can be applied more generally.


----------



## mearls

First of all, Masters of Arms by Second World Publishing is a very good book. I highly recommend it for anyone looking to spice up fighters.

Now, on to business.

I have some bad news - there's about five months until Iron Lore comes out, so I can't keep answering questions. Otherwise, we'll end up in a situation where I tell you everything you need to know this week, then we send 5 months pretty much saying nothing, or reminiscing about how I managed to answer every question about IL in 4 days and. This is very hard on me, because I really, really, really want to talk about this game. We're going to take the book piece by piece, go over it, show you what I think is cool and interesting, and go from there.

There's an Iron Lore forum over on the montecook.com message boards. I'll be looking there and here for IL threads. But again, I can't answer specific mechanics questions until the time is right.

I figured that it'd be cruel to just sign off with nothing else, so here's something I posted on the montecook.com boards, about IL's inspiration.


-----
When I was a kid, my parents took the MPAA movie ratings a bit too literally. To them, an R rating meant the movie was A-OK for me as long as they were with me.

So, I saw lots of bloody, violent, ultra-cool movies in the theatre as a kid. I was 6 in 1981, so at a very young age I saw Dragonslayer, Time Bandits, and Conan the Barbarian. I even saw such lesser known gems as The Sword and the Sorcerer. In a lot of ways, I think Time Bandits made me what I am today, but that's a topic for my autobiography or something.

But at the same time, I was exposed to D&D. I had the '78 basic set, sans the map folio for B2. In 1983, my parents bought me Deities & Demigods for Christmas. One of the chapters in that book described the Nehwon mythos, along with Fafhrd, the Gray Mouser, and some of the villains they encounter.

That chapter absolutely fascinated me. I dreamed of Lankhmar, sketched maps of it in my notebooks alongside dungeons, new monsters, and classes. Leiber took hold of my imagination and wouldn't let go.

I have to admit that part of my fascination was driven by how blatantly Nehwon broke all of D&D's rules. Fighters eschewed heavy armor, AC be damned. Wizards were few and far between. Warriors and thieves spent their treasure on women and drink. The gods meddled in mortal affairs. Two warriors took on powers from beyond space and time, the gods themselves!, and lived to tell the tale.

That chapter from Deities & Demigods, that fevered dream, the garbled vision of a series that I wouldn't read for 10 years, that inspired Iron Lore. Hell, that *is* Iron Lore.

So really, there isn't a direct inspiration for Iron Lore. It's more inspired by a feel, an emotion, a time and place in my life that built the foundation for everything that came afterward.

------

I would also like to add one thing - I'm really flattered by all the attention that this thread has gotten, and I'm glad to see that people are excited about IL. To me, this is a big challenge. I hope that the trust people place in me, the expectation that This Game Will Be Good, is well placed. Seeing people excited about the game is all the more inspiration to make it the best possible game that it can be. IL just passed out of its first round of major playtest changes, and the first supplement just went to the editor.

I don't mean to get all maudlin here, but I feel a tremendous responsibility to every gaming group that sits down to use one of my books. D&D, and RPGs in general, are a very precious thing. There's nothing else in the world that encourages you to be creative, to make your own stories, to build your own worlds. A lot of entertainment is all about sitting you down to watch someone else's story, to admire someone else's creation. I really, honestly, and truly believe that D&D makes the world a better, more interesting place, and I hope IL helps keep that flame alive.

So that's that. Believe me, when we're ready to start pulling the curtain back on this baby, I'm going to be all over it.


----------



## tetsujin28

Mike, you couldn't have come up with a better description of why I love fantasy gaming. Of course, I was 16 in 1981


----------



## Samurai

This sounds like a cool book, but the format raises fears for me.  Like AU, it'll be a 240 page book (b&w or color?), followed by 2 96 page softcover books, one on the DM's info, and 1 for monsters.  This is exactly how AU was released, and I bought them all, and now I'm kicking myself because AE has been released combining all that info and a lot more into a single beautiful full color package.

How do we know that in a year or 2 we won't have the "director's cut" of IL combining all these and more, "the way they were meant to be"?  Unfortunately, Malhavoc has now gained a reputation for that, not just from AU/AE, but also the Complete Book of Eldritch Might (I had the foresight to wait and get the hardcover compilation that time).  So, why should we think IL will be any different?


----------



## Selganor

My guess?

It won't be different IF:
- IL sells well
- The print version of IL is sold out some time from now and prolonged "field testing" showed that you could/should add some things to the "basic rules"
- it is probable that people buying the main book also buy the other 2 books

But from what I've seen now the "DM" an "Monster" book aren't restricted in usability to IL alone but to "rules tinkerers" everywhere. (Granted... those will probably buy IL too)


----------



## Samurai

Selganor said:
			
		

> My guess?
> 
> It won't be different IF:
> - IL sells well
> - The print version of IL is sold out some time from now and prolonged "field testing" showed that you could/should add some things to the "basic rules"
> - it is probable that people buying the main book also buy the other 2 books
> 
> But from what I've seen now the "DM" an "Monster" book aren't restricted in usability to IL alone but to "rules tinkerers" everywhere. (Granted... those will probably buy IL too)



True, but the AU monster book was perfectly usable in other settings too, and the GM/setting book could be plundered for ideas in a regular d&d game.

As for the 3 conditions you mention, I find them to be highly probable...


----------



## Selganor

My thoughts exactly...

It probably boils down to this:

Who wants IL NOW (i.e. August 2005) will buy it now (or maybe just get the PDFs if you want the info but probably won't run it now) and get the supplements separately.
And when the "Director's Cut" is published everybody will get the book (again for those already having it, finally getting it if you waited till then)

The end result? Another hit for Malhavoc, which means they got the money to continue the good work...

Sounds like a win-win situation for me


----------



## tetsujin28

Well, the only product I'll have bought twice in 30 years of gaming is Burning Wheel. I'm not going to buy IL twice.


----------



## Von Ether

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Hey, Mike.
> I do, however, have one question/concern. By adding to the number of options in combat, it seems to me that one would almost have to add to the complexity of the game as well. While I love the idea of a system that deemphasizes magic items in favor of character abilities, I'm less sanguine about having an extra two-dozen details to keep track of, or waiting for people to decide what they're doing in combat, and then look up the rules to do it. In D&D, you only have to do that if you're doing something odd (grapple, or an unusual spell).
> 
> What would/can you say, in that regard? Does Iron Lore require much in the way of added bookkeeping/note-taking? Is it harder for people who aren't system-savvy (such as several of the players I know) to use? Is it still going to appeal to people who wish to deemphasize minis and calculation? (I know you already said it doesn't require any more use of minis than D&D itself; but can it be played to require less?).






This is a second thought I'm having as well. It's promising to hear high level NPCs will be a breeze, but it will be interesting to see how combat will be the same speed if not faster. I don't need an answer right away, but M.P. can file it away as a questions to be addressed in a preview.


----------



## TerraDave

mearls said:
			
		

> I would also like to add one thing - I'm really flattered by all the attention that this thread has gotten, and I'm glad to see that people are excited about IL. To me, this is a big challenge. I hope that the trust people place in me, the expectation that This Game Will Be Good, is well placed. Seeing people excited about the game is all the more inspiration to make it the best possible game that it can be. IL just passed out of its first round of major playtest changes, and the first supplement just went to the editor.
> 
> I don't mean to get all maudlin here, but I feel a tremendous responsibility to every gaming group that sits down to use one of my books. D&D, and RPGs in general, are a very precious thing. There's nothing else in the world that encourages you to be creative, to make your own stories, to build your own worlds. A lot of entertainment is all about sitting you down to watch someone else's story, to admire someone else's creation. I really, honestly, and truly believe that D&D makes the world a better, more interesting place, and I hope IL helps keep that flame alive.
> 
> So that's that. Believe me, when we're ready to start pulling the curtain back on this baby, I'm going to be all over it.




Mike, thanks again for all your posts in this thread. I think we all look foward to seeing the preveiws that Malhavoc is sure to have, and of course the final book!

The thousands of hits this thread has had, and the fact it has stayed on the front page for this long, really shows how excitided people are about something like this.  I knew it would be big a few paragraphs into that interview.


----------



## TerraDave

elforcelf said:
			
		

> I love Epic Magic. I love Epic magic using pcs. I love Epic magic items. I run a Epic game. Why should I get this at all?  P.s.I love Mike's books;this is not a attack. elforcelf.




There is nothing in what Mike has said that makes this low level. It would probably offer _a lot_ to high level fighers, barbarians and rogues and others who don't really so much on spell casting


----------



## TerraDave

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> A very interesting post, mr. mearls.
> 
> Some of that terminology sounds more like Monte's voice to me; which I point out only to acknowledge that you guys obviously have a good collaboration going on.
> 
> I am still waiting to hear the "dragon in an open field" solution, _especially_ since you confirmed that nothing in IL will allow you to (for example) bypass DR.
> 
> (When folks think, "d20 Monster CR compatibility" that's always the first thing to come up, followed by undead.)
> 
> I'd like to hear a demonstrable example of the IL power curve/CR solution that acknowledges that dragon's DR (a system issue) and the fact that he flies (a story issue).
> 
> 
> Wulf




In Malhavoc's teaser material, they say this



> Iron Lore is the game I always wanted to play," explained designer Mike Mearls. "It's the game that lets a warrior with a plain old longsword and a metric ton of gumption take down a red dragon.




So its gotta be possible


----------



## tetsujin28

Greatwyrm said:
			
		

> But if nobody had magic weapons, would that really be so bad?



No


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

TerraDave said:
			
		

> [regarding the fighter vs. dragon in an open field]
> 
> So its gotta be possible




Heh... I'll withhold judgement on that. 

No, wait. I won't. Mike: Don't do it.

I don't need no crap where the fighter is leaping hundreds of feet in the air to land blows with his sword. 

That's not exactly the stuff of Lieber or Howard, there.


Wulf


----------



## Felon

> There are no spells such as fireball or cure light wounds. Instead a caster tries to create a general effect such as filling an area with searing flame...rather than play a dwarf, littorian...you can create a tall rangy wanderer from the frozen north.




Sounds sorta like an action-oriented Ars Magica...and that ain't a bad idea_ at all_!


----------



## tetsujin28

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I don't need no crap where the fighter is leaping hundreds of feet in the air to land blows with his sword.
> 
> That's not exactly the stuff of Lieber or Howard, there.
> 
> 
> Wulf



True. But it is a style of fantasy a lot of people enjoy.


----------



## A'koss

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Heh... I'll withhold judgement on that.
> 
> No, wait. I won't. Mike: Don't do it.
> 
> I don't need no crap where the fighter is leaping hundreds of feet in the air to land blows with his sword.



I don't get the impression that IL is about guys making Hulk-like leaps in the air, but more about the warrior being able to pull out a bow and place carefully aimed shots that force a dragon to the ground, _then_ beat on him like no tomorrow... In other words, greater skill making up for a lack of magic.

Cheers!


----------



## Felon

Although I like what I've heard so far about the content, anyone else think a name change is in order? "Iron Lore" is a bit dry. Not really an attention-grabber.


----------



## Hammerhead

The warrior could try and run and duck for cover as the dragon tries to firebreath him until he reaches more advantageous terrain, then leaps off a cliff or something onto the dragon's back and kills it up there. Wouldn't that work and still match the style of Howard or Lieber?


----------



## Felon

OR the hero could just exhibit the good sense to fight the dragon in a more favorable environment, like one with a nice strong ceiling--a cavern perchance. Which is someplace dragons are oft found.


----------



## jgbrowning

Thanks for the info Mike. As always look forward to the finished product.

joe b.


----------



## Greatwyrm

Felon said:
			
		

> OR the hero could just exhibit the good sense to fight the dragon in a more favorable environment, like one with a nice strong ceiling--a cavern perchance. Which is someplace dragons are oft found.




You know, aside from St. George, I can't think of anybody who fought a dragon capable of flying in the open and came out on top.  I can't remember if Beowulf fought his in the open, but that was a draw at best.


----------



## A'koss

Greatwyrm said:
			
		

> You know, aside from St. George, I can't think of anybody who fought a dragon capable of flying in the open and came out on top. I can't remember if Beowulf fought his in the open, but that was a draw at best.



Uh... read much Tolkein Greatwyrm?  

Cheers!


----------



## Felon

Greatwyrm said:
			
		

> You know, aside from St. George, I can't think of anybody who fought a dragon capable of flying in the open and came out on top.  I can't remember if Beowulf fought his in the open, but that was a draw at best.




Remember Smaug?



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Heh... I'll withhold judgement on that.
> 
> No, wait. I won't. Mike: Don't do it.
> 
> I don't need no crap where the fighter is leaping hundreds of feet in the air to land blows with his sword.
> 
> That's not exactly the stuff of Lieber or Howard, there.





Just read all five pages of the thread, and I'm not sure why you are so enamored with the flying dragon scenario. You have to be able to engage a monster in melee to be able to beat it?

The dragon will use a ranged attack, and the PC's will counter in kind. Heck, a comp longbow outranges a dragon's breath by quite a bit. From "hundreds of feat in the air", a dragon can't do much other than drop loogeys.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Yep, well placed arrow shots and plenty of running around and screaming strike me as the proper anti-dragon in an open field tactics.

That or avoiding any serious harm from the dragons ranged attacks and thus forcing it to either close or retreat.

Does anyone remember how flight worthy the dragons in the hero and the crown were?  I seem to remember that some could, but if the great wyrm could it couldn't have been too maneuverable.


----------



## ecliptic

A smart dragon would run. 

Anyway I just hope this doesn't turn out to be anime in words.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Felon said:
			
		

> Just read all five pages of the thread, and I'm not sure why you are so enamored with the flying dragon scenario.




I guess you should read those 5 pages again. 



> You have to be able to engage a monster in melee to be able to beat it?




Perhaps you do, yes. You need to be able to strike the dragon. You need to be able to strike the incorporeal, flying, armor-bypassing, level-draining spectre, and according to mearls, _you will to be able to do it in such a way that the spectre remains CR7._ The spectre will be a cakewalk for four 7th level Iron Lore heroes.

Mike made the interesting distinction between story elements and system elements, that the ability to fly was a story element, and that Iron Lore "fixes" system-based CR issues in a way that other low-magic systems have failed to do.

If he doesn't "fix" the dragon's ability to fly (as just the easiest of examples), then the dragon will still prove too difficult for its CR.



> The dragon will use a ranged attack, and the PC's will counter in kind. Heck, a comp longbow outranges a dragon's breath by quite a bit. From "hundreds of feat in the air", a dragon can't do much other than drop loogeys.




If the dragon is able to retreat to the skies until its breath weapon is ready to go again, he will crush the PCs. They can't bypass its DR (a system element mearls has already said he has not changed), they have no magic weapons, they have no magic healing, and they can't fly.

Whatever fixes Iron Lore may have in store for player characters, I can't imagine that every PC should expect to be able to knock a dragon out of the sky with his bow.

If the "fix" is a story fix-- that is, the GM creates a cave nearby for the PCs to retreat, or they get some friendly magical assistance to help them fly, or defeat the dragon's DR, or its breath weapon, or what have you, then that doesn't really address the system issues of playing any monster directly out of any d20 book. 

_Every_ low-magic game makes certain assumptions about the GMs ability to properly manage the genre-- or, "style of game" -- so I'm sort of back on my heels again. While I said earlier that it seems mearls has moved what system elements he could out from under that umbrella of story, I'm still left waiting for this silver bullet of game design.

I recently ran a low-magic adventure with a dragon as the final villain. I allowed the PCs to assault the dragon in its lair, and eventually they prevailed, despite having no magic weapons-- and despite me not having Iron Lore at my fingertips.

Wulf


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Hammerhead said:
			
		

> The warrior could try and run and duck for cover as the dragon tries to firebreath him until he reaches more advantageous terrain, then leaps off a cliff or something onto the dragon's back and kills it up there. Wouldn't that work and still match the style of Howard or Lieber?




Yes, it would.

So... What's the LA for "advantageous terrain" or "a conveniently proximate cliff?"

Perhaps that's the exact fix that Iron Lore provides-- spend a "fate point" to create story elements when and where you need them; cooperative storytelling.

Not only would that be Pretty Cool, it would be exactly the sort of thing I'd expect Monte to be involved with.


Wulf


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> If he doesn't "fix" the dragon's ability to fly (as just the easiest of examples), then the dragon will still prove too difficult for its CR.
> 
> If the dragon is able to retreat to the skies until its breath weapon is ready to go again, he will crush the PCs. They can't bypass its DR (a system element mearls has already said he has not changed), they have no magic weapons, they have no magic healing, and they can't fly.
> 
> Whatever fixes Iron Lore may have in store for player characters, I can't imagine that every PC should expect to be able to knock a dragon out of the sky with his bow.




Well, I get why the Low-Magic Flying Dragon Delimma, hereafter referred to as LMFDD or ElMer FuDD, makes an excellent tactical problem for a low-magic game it seems to me that at least part of the problem as it's being presented is one of genre expectations.

That is, that on a certain level part of Elmer Fudd's CR differential is predicated on the idea that by the definition of the genres in question Elmer Fudd will be much tougher for a Low Magic setting and easier for a RAW system.  

So that if an party was able to penetrate Fudd's DR, had an analog to magic healing, and had some ability to compensate for flight than that party would not be LM.

Since LM has a broader genre definition I am not certain that this is necessarilly the case.  Basicly, LM as we use it locally essentially means without magic items/fire and forget, and that seems to be the thrust of IL.

But we have no assurances that IL won't, for instance, provide a means of bypassing DR - through abilities that ignore it as a result of maneuvers ala the Oathsworn of AE for instance - or remove the necessary advantage of magical healing - through improved mundane means or a slightly altered damage system, the latter of which would seem to chime in on earlier comments on the hit point fragility of high level characters that IL is attempting to address - or provide new ranged combat options that make bow shots a far more effective means of fighting flying opponents.

I would also suspect, given hints earlier in this thread, that IL messes with the way Saving Throws are calculated or even function for its classes.  Which could, concievably, also do something to alleviate the breath weapon and lack of healing problems, as might the DR incorporated into the new armor rules.

I guess my question is, then, if IL deals with Elmer Fudd through means of bypassing draconic damage resistance, adding some sort of beefed up damage resistance for PCs, and better ranged combat options is it still LM?  Does it still fit the genre?  Even if it doesn't actually use flight spells, magic weapons, and healing potions?  If not, can I still think its cool or even cooler for producing a hybrid?  Like the way I think 28 Days Later is a cool Zombie flick even though fast zombies are, in general, a blasphemous invention?


----------



## Plane Sailing

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Heh... I'll withhold judgement on that.
> 
> No, wait. I won't. Mike: Don't do it.




If Mike is limited in what he can say at the moment, there doesn't seem to be any point in -not- witholding judgement until we can see how they have tackled the problem. 

I've seen plenty of people in plenty of circumstances rant and rail against things which turned out to be fine when they were actually released.

I know how much you have wrestled with the issues of allowing characters to interact with MM creatures in a rare-magic environment and I can understand your professional interest in a claim that a solution has been found to the related problems (heck, I'm interested for exactly the same reasons).

One of the Grim Tales elements that I didn't notice initially was the ability to spend an action point to ignore DR for a round/blow/something. I can think of at least two other ways in which IL might give higher level characters an ability to get through DR apart from that. I can imagine potential solutions to a number of other issues in the "dragon in a field" scenario - but until Mike is able to tell us more (or, more likely, the book is released) we just won't know.

Cheers


----------



## TerraDave

_I should have just let this dragon example go away...but they did mention it on the webpage...I guess we will see in 5 months_


----------



## Plane Sailing

I used to love the film "Jack the Giant Killer"

http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&cf=info&id=1800148768

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0001BKBFC/002-6232869-5195268?v=glance

Jack was a master of climbing aboard giants and dragons and hacking at them from their backs. For me this was a classic fantasy staple. I'd love to have a PC that took down a dragon by getting onto its back and hacking away


----------



## DaveMage

With the emphasis on Iron Lore and Arcana Evolved, is Malhavoc through with traditional D&D supplements/adventures (after the Rogueish book)?


----------



## Tolen Mar

I'm likely the odd one out here, but its okay by me if the warrior vs. dragon in the field fails.  Mr. Mearls has repeatedly gone on about story elements vs. system elements.  And one of the things that always bugged me about dragons in dnd is that any group of adventurers can walk up to a great Wyrm and hack it to pieces.

Say what?  Is this deities and demigods?

What happened to the tales about the dragon being a massive, clever, hard to kill monster?  Who in their right mind stands solo in a field and challenges a dragon?  Even in movies that star dragonslayers, it often takes a small army of them.  You have to find its lair, you have to find ways to ambush it and limit its abilities, and the whole time you are doing that, the beast is outthinking you.  Lets face it, dragons in DnD are very intelligent creatures, they arent going to sit around and let you trap it.

Now, if you make that lone warrior Arnold Swarzenneger (however the heck thats spelled), and let him have a couple of weeks to set traps ala 'Predator' he might be able to overcome.  But just like in that movie, a properly played dragon becomes deadly the moment he steps up and tries to handle it one on one.

And yes, I am aware that myth and legend says it can be done, but its always been ambush or a very well placed shot using information gained from another source.  Bard would never have killed smaug if Bilbo hadnt spotted the weak spot, and Sigurd hid out waiting for the thing to walk over the hole he was in to get the sweet spot in the belly.  Neither of those examples is a lone warrior out in the open.

Now, for the flip side of the argument.  Dragon notwithstanding...I really look forward to seeing this.  One of the things that bugs me the most is that regardless of what class I build, its my gear that defeats the monsters, not my character.   If Iron Lore really fixes that, Im golden.


----------



## BlackMoria

> With the emphasis on Iron Lore and Arcana Evolved, is Malhavoc through with traditional D&D supplements/adventures (after the Rogueish book)?




If I recall correctly, this question was asked of Monte on his forums.  The answer is that Malhavoc will continue to publish traditional D&D supplements/adventures.


----------



## DaveMage

BlackMoria said:
			
		

> If I recall correctly, this question was asked of Monte on his forums.  The answer is that Malhavoc will continue to publish traditional D&D supplements/adventures.




Good to hear - thanks!


----------



## Nuclear Platypus

Well here's a few ideas to deal with Elmer Fudd:

A fantasy version of the Fastball Special (a former staple of X-Men comics)

Called shots to the dragon's wing(s) forcing it to land (remember Council of Wyrms and their dragonslayers?)

Massive crossbows / ballista / harpoons could impale the dragon so either it can be pulled down (not bloody likely) or at least leashed

Spear and magic helmet (much better against wabbits)


----------



## Staffan

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> But we have no assurances that IL won't, for instance, provide a means of bypassing DR - through abilities that ignore it as a result of maneuvers ala the Oathsworn of AE for instance



I think that having common abilities like those of the Oathsworn, that can penetrate X points of DR (based on level), is a very likely way of handling DR penetration in IL. The only thing we *do* know is that it won't be like the monk's ki strike.


----------



## Greatwyrm

A'koss said:
			
		

> Uh... read much Tolkein Greatwyrm?




No more than I have to.  If they can get Peter Jackson to make a _Hobbit _movie, I probably won't read any more of it.



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> Remember Smaug?




Well, I do now.  Actually, that's a pretty good example of how a well prepared party, with what would be considered low magic in most D&D games, can come out on top.  Since it's been about 10 years since I read the Hobbit, and there seems to be no shortage of people willing to correct me, I'll say I can't remember anybody in that story with:

1.  "boom" magic

2.  the ability to fly

3.  plentiful healing magic

4.  immunity to fire

What ultimately brough Smaug down was a highly skilled archer, a masterwork weapon, a critical piece of information, and a successful called shot.  If _The Book of Iron Might_ is any indication, _Iron Lore_ shouldn't have any trouble producing similar effects in a low magic setting.


----------



## EricNoah

Any time you can get a nice, "complete" package that puts a different spin on the base assumptions of D&D, you've got my attention.  

I've pointed one of my DMs to this thread because I have a strong feeling I'll want to be a player with these rules.  

And the dragon/CR thing doesn't mean a thing to me because I don't really use the CRs for much of anything.  I weigh potential encounters based on the actual PCs' abilities, and also modify encounters on the fly to adjust for difficulty.  Will be interesting to see that in action with different base assumptions though.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> If Mike is limited in what he can say at the moment, there doesn't seem to be any point in -not- witholding judgement until we can see how they have tackled the problem.




Heh... not if he still has 5 months to tweak. 



> I've seen plenty of people in plenty of circumstances rant and rail against things which turned out to be fine when they were actually released.




Interest <> Ranting and railing. 

I have no expectation other than that Iron Lore will be better than "fine," but "great."



> I know how much you have wrestled with the issues of allowing characters to interact with MM creatures in a rare-magic environment and I can understand your professional interest in a claim that a solution has been found to the related problems (heck, I'm interested for exactly the same reasons).




I am eager to see the degree to which story elements have been replaced by system, and happily concede that any step in that direction is an improvement.

The problem is that in theory Challenge Rating makes objective claims ("A 7th level party can tackle a CR7 creature with moderate difficulty.") but we all know, in practice, that there are certainly some subjective issues at hand (a spectre can very easily break its CR7 boundaries against a low magic party because so many of its abilities are supernatural).



> Jack was a master of climbing aboard giants and dragons and hacking at them from their backs. For me this was a classic fantasy staple. I'd love to have a PC that took down a dragon by getting onto its back and hacking away.




I would love it too-- but the issue is whether or not Jack gets onto the dragon's back through system ("My Iron Lore character can leap 150 feet, so when the dragon comes down to breathe, I leap up and grab him...") or story ("GM: The dragon arrogantly flies down to try to pluck Jack out of the tree you clambored up..." "A ha! Now I hop onto his back!")

The first example would be a design fix (system), but it breaks the Howard/Lieber/Smith genre that Iron Lore is trying to reproduce (and would hold little interest for me). The second example would be a design fix (story) which is faithful to the genre, but isn't particularly novel from a design approach-- except where such decisions as to whether or not there IS a tree and whether or not the dragon CHOOSES to fly down are somehow taken out of the hands of the GM and codified (moved from story to system).

I think Mike must have more up his sleeve than tweaking the numbers-- saves, hit points, armor as DR, and so on.


Wulf


----------



## solomoncane

*Grim Tales vs. Iron Lore*

As to the previous Grim Tales vs. Iron Lore exchanges, I am firmly in the Grim Tales AND Iron Lore camp.

Wulf-- I love Grim Tales.  If I had to choose one invaluable d20 book, this might be it (thankfully, not the case).

Mike--Bring it on!

I am also a hopeless kit-basher.  It's only a matter of time before ... GRIM IRON!!!


----------



## Nightfall

LOL  Grim Iron eh? Well I'm sticking with Iron Lore at the moment since I can only afford ONE new thing thanks to my "MUST BUY DEATHKNELL in 5 cases!" thing.


----------



## Fiery James

Samurai said:
			
		

> This sounds like a cool book, but the format raises fears for me.  Like AU, it'll be a 240 page book (b&w or color?), followed by 2 96 page softcover books, one on the DM's info, and 1 for monsters.  This is exactly how AU was released, and I bought them all, and now I'm kicking myself because AE has been released combining all that info and a lot more into a single beautiful full color package.
> 
> How do we know that in a year or 2 we won't have the "director's cut" of IL combining all these and more, "the way they were meant to be"?  Unfortunately, Malhavoc has now gained a reputation for that, not just from AU/AE, but also the Complete Book of Eldritch Might (I had the foresight to wait and get the hardcover compilation that time).  So, why should we think IL will be any different?




My guess?

I don't think there will be a "Director's Cut" of Iron Lore released in 2 years.  Why?

1) I think that AU had a lot more "implied setting" with the various races and classes, and really needed The Diamond Throne to put some of those pieces together; 

2) Wizards of the Coast isn't (as far as I know) planning on releasing a book called LORE IRON that will cause all sorts of confusion in the market place;

There you go!

- JB


----------



## Boojum

Felon said:
			
		

> Although I like what I've heard so far about the content, anyone else think a name change is in order? "Iron Lore" is a bit dry. Not really an attention-grabber.




Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.  Actually, someone earlier in the thread mistakenly referred to it as Iron Legends, and I found myself wishing that was the real name.  For some reason, that just sounds much more evocative to me.  Based on what I've heard in this thread though, I'd buy it even if it were called Purple Monkey Dishwasher.


----------



## Krieg

Boojum said:
			
		

> Purple Monkey Dishwasher.


----------



## Felon

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> You need to be able to strike the dragon. You need to be able to strike the incorporeal, flying, armor-bypassing, level-draining spectre, and according to mearls, _you will to be able to do it in such a way that the spectre remains CR7._ The spectre will be a cakewalk for four 7th level Iron Lore heroes.




Well, pulp heroes like Conan and the Grey Mouser have had to deal with foes not of flesh and blood. How do they do it? I recall one Solomon Kane story where he overcomes a spectral foe by galvanizing himself with sheer force of will. Sometimes it's with the timely aid of a priest or hedge wizard, so perhaps this is the role of the Arcanist class within the party. 



> If he doesn't "fix" the dragon's ability to fly (as just the easiest of examples), then the dragon will still prove too difficult for its CR. If the dragon is able to retreat to the skies until its breath weapon is ready to go again, he will crush the PCs. They can't bypass its DR (a system element mearls has already said he has not changed), they have no magic weapons, they have no magic healing, and they can't fly.




I'm no apologist for Mearls, but you do seem to be focusing on a few of Mearls' broad statements as if they were much more specific comments than they were intended to be. He didn't say, for instance, that characters would be utterly without a way to bypass DR, he merely confirmed that he wouldn't be adding a feat that makes a characters attacks innately magical for purposes of bypassing DR. Does that really mean there are no ways to bypass DR? 

Awesome damage is a fairly reliable method, and from what we've heard I'll bet we will at the very least see characters capable of awesome damage. For instance, if a feat or class feature offers a called shot ability that allows them to spend an action point to threaten a critical, that's a good way of getting through 5 or 10 points of DR. There might be a called shot mechanic that provides a means to impede or neutralize flight. And there might be a "second wind" ruleset that provides an emergency reserve of hit points when it's most needed. All speculation, of course. Just thinking up a few magic non-intensive ways to prevent the IL party's defeat at the dragons hands as a matter of fait accompli. 



> Whatever fixes Iron Lore may have in store for player characters, I can't imagine that every PC should expect to be able to knock a dragon out of the sky with his bow.




True. Perhaps it takes the right party makeup, just as it would with a vanilla D&D party, who themselves may well be short on such resources as flight or magic arrows at the time of the encounter (imagine the PO'ed barbarian waving his +3 greataxe in impotent rage). Perhaps it takes an Arcanist and at least one Archer. Encountering a dragon on open ground is certainly a troublesome proposition even with access to magic.



> If the "fix" is a story fix-- that is, the GM creates a cave nearby for the PCs to retreat, or they get some friendly magical assistance to help them fly, or defeat the dragon's DR, or its breath weapon, or what have you, then that doesn't really address the system issues of playing any monster directly out of any d20 book.




I don't know what Mearls is getting at, but it is certainly in keeping with the conventions of the fantasy genre to face a foe that simply can't be beaten without figuring out its weakness, which may require taking certain steps within the context of the plot. Kolchak the Night-Stalker faced guys like that on a weekly basis (for about 13 weeks). 

For instance, werewolves as they are traditionally portrayed in fiction aren't supposed to be just a little tougher to fight without silver weapons, they're supposed to be outright unkillable. However, if the players don't think to smelt the silver coins they found into crude blades, does that make the werewolves worthy of a higher CR? Should any given monster with DR receive an arbitrary boost to its CR wheneve none of the characters happen to have the right type of weapon on-hand?


----------



## tetsujin28

This whole dragon argument has got to be one of the biggest straw men, ever. The game is five months from release.


----------



## A'koss

Handling dragons doesn't worry me, there will be will probably be several ways to skin that cat from targetted shots, perhaps skill use to taunt/challenge the dragon to closing to melee to perhaps some of the story-based ways we've been hearing. Handling incorporeal undead however could prove a little more challenging... I was just thinking that maybe there will be conventional ways of handing such creatures - similar to the way there are mundane vulnerabilities in vampires. Cold iron? Mirrors to entrap them? Blood of X animal? Fingerbones of a "saint"? I was thinking of the movie Constantine earlier and how something in that vein might apply...


Cheers!


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

tetsujin28 said:
			
		

> This whole dragon argument has got to be one of the biggest straw men, ever. The game is five months from release.



Why does 5 months from release matter?

Do you know how much time it can take a manuscript once submitted to be copyedited (especially an RPG sourcebook!), corrections made (with or without author input), laid out, art drawn and purchased, indexed, sent to printer, printed, and distributed to stores? I've worked at a book publisher as has my wife.

What's so "straw man-ish" about the LMFDD issue?


Regards,
Eric Anondson


----------



## tetsujin28

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Why does 5 months from release matter?
> 
> Do you know how much time it can take a manuscript once submitted to be copyedited (especially an RPG sourcebook!),



Why, yes, having been a copyeditor for several gaming companies. And believe me, in many cases, changes go on 'till the very last minute.

It's a straw man because the game _isn't out yet_. It's an argument that only exists _in nihilo_ until release. When the game comes out, hey, maybe it will turn out to be a problem for some people. But until then, such speculations are meaningless.


----------



## Nightfall

Tet,

Nah. This is a silly arguement but at least the merits are decent. Now the Eberron smiting on THIS thread http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=2113914&postcount=175, now that's straw menish.

Overall, I'm with you Tet, that arguing how to handle this with a book that isn't even out yet is silly. But dragon fights are STILL cool.


----------



## tetsujin28

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Tet,
> 
> Nah. This is a silly arguement but at least the merits are decent. Now the Eberron smiting on THIS thread http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=2113914&postcount=175, now that's straw menish.



Boy, are you right! But Nisarg's involved, isn't he? 


> Overall, I'm with you Tet, that arguing how to handle this with a book that isn't even out yet is silly. But dragon fights are STILL cool.



Dragon fights ARE cool


----------



## Nightfall

Tet,


Yep. So it's not unexpected. I've already stated my opinions on Eberron. (Not bad, not for me.) (Though I do like Ironborn more than Warforged. Probably because the former is more verstile than then latter.)

And yes, Dragon fights are ALWAYS cool, especially when they are planned to the minute detail hilt.


----------



## elforcelf

Mike,please tell me how your book can help my epic story I am D.M.ing.  I want to be sold on it. elforcelf.


----------



## Staffan

Felon said:
			
		

> However, if the players don't think to smelt the silver coins they found into crude blades,



This reminds me of a book I read where the hero melted down his silver coins into arrowheads in order to go werewolf-hunting. Then he found out the hard way why none of the surrounding countries would accept silver currency from the country he was in... not much actual silver in it


----------



## JoeGKushner

elforcelf said:
			
		

> Mike,please tell me how your book can help my epic story I am D.M.ing.  I want to be sold on it. elforcelf.




Why do you need to be sold on this as it comes out in August? Are you holding your campaign up until then?

I'm in the "sounds interesting and looking forward to seeing it" camp. Unless they start providing a lot of advanced materials and previews, or like Dragon did with the Expanded Psionics Handbook, previews that are exclusive to the area, I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## Felon

tetsujin28 said:
			
		

> This whole dragon argument has got to be one of the biggest straw men, ever.




I agree, although if you look at the actual comments made, you should notice the discussion has less to do with a specific scenario than with non-magical tactics for dealing traditional D&D challenges.



			
				Staffan said:
			
		

> This reminds me of a book I read where the hero melted down his silver coins into arrowheads in order to go werewolf-hunting. Then he found out the hard way why none of the surrounding countries would accept silver currency from the country he was in... not much actual silver in it




Yeah, Harlan Ellison wrote a similar one-page story for a comic book back in the early 80's.


----------



## TerraDave

*That darn dragon*

the dragon was mentioned as an example--based on what Mike Mearls had said--of the sort of thing an Iron Lore charecter could fight...and then in the promo material on the Malhavoc site they give _exactly_ that example. 

Yes, it is an argument a little bit ahead of its time and yet seems to have gone on too long...but speculation about forthcoming products is what ENWorld is all about.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Interest <> Ranting and railing.




No offense intended, I was speaking in general terms at that point - possibly not clear.

Cheers


----------



## BryonD

Considering that the options available are taking a few whacks at a straw man offered up by the author, making up issues out of the thin air, or pretty much not commenting on a very intriguing product, I think that the most reasonable course of action has been selected.

I think that people offering up possible issues have been more than clear that they are simply addressing matters based on the limited info available.  Getting knee-jerk defensive against people who express interest in how issues will be taken on seems much less reasonable to me than simply expressing an interest in how those issues will be addressed.

Based on past record I don't have a moments pause toward giving Mike the assumption that he has a great solution.  But Wulf has presented some really pertinent questions about what may be behind the curtain.  I understand why Mike can't/won't discuss it more yet.  I don't understand why other people should be criticised for debating the matter, much less why that debate should be mischaracterized as prejudgement.


----------



## Ozmar

Cool cover art!

I can't wait to start my Purple Monkey Dishwasher campaign this August!

Ozmar the Fan


----------



## Nightfall

Bryon,

Uhm I think what others and Joe (myself included) feel is inappropriate about such a discussion isn't so much that Mike brought it up, but it's kind of like what happened with 3rd edition at the beginning where people were like "NOO!!! They killed off the fun of elves!!!" kind of deal. You know, we are only getting PIECE meal before the whole cloth becomes available.

You and everyone else can discuss it to your heart's content. I'm just saying I'm not going to involve myself in that aspect of the discussion when it comes to Iron Lore. What I AM going to say is this: I LIKE the idea of how to specialize in fighting with a particular type and/or types of weapons. I LIKE the idea where feats, skills and backgrounds are more than just tacked on adjectives for a character AND a world. I LIKE the fact Mike is going to tackle such issues and still leave room for high level/normal D&D magic to be accessible for others. 
This is why I have a lot of hope for what Iron Lore might have to offer. While Grim Tales deals with the gritty/low magic, I want more than a kind of rehash (not saying it is!) of Midnight or even a better variant.


----------



## tetsujin28

What he said


----------



## Geoff Watson

Fiery James said:
			
		

> My guess?
> 
> I don't think there will be a "Director's Cut" of Iron Lore released in 2 years.  Why?
> 
> 1) I think that AU had a lot more "implied setting" with the various races and classes, and really needed The Diamond Throne to put some of those pieces together;
> 
> 2) Wizards of the Coast isn't (as far as I know) planning on releasing a book called LORE IRON that will cause all sorts of confusion in the market place;
> 
> There you go!
> 
> - JB




Why did Monte call his book Arcana Unearthed when he knew that Wizards were planning Unearthed Arcana?
How did he plan to profit from the confusion?

Geoff.


----------



## Staffan

Geoff Watson said:
			
		

> Why did Monte call his book Arcana Unearthed when he knew that Wizards were planning Unearthed Arcana?
> How did he plan to profit from the confusion?



As I understand it, it went something like this:
1. Monte wants to make an alternate PHB.
2. Monte thinks "Hey, Unearthed Arcana was a cool book way back when, I'll ask WOTC if I can use that title."
3. WOTC says "No, but if you swap the words around it's OK."
4. Monte publishes Arcana Unearthed.
5. WOTC publishes Unearthed Arcana 3e, which Monte didn't know about until it was announced (well, maybe a little sooner given that he likely still knows people at WOTC, but more or less).
6. Monte runs out of Arcana Unearthed, and decides to do a revision instead of just a reprint. He includes some other stuff in it, and calls it Arcana Evolved in order to avoid the confusion caused by AU/UA.


----------



## Selganor

Geoff Watson said:
			
		

> Why did Monte call his book Arcana Unearthed when he knew that Wizards were planning Unearthed Arcana?
> How did he plan to profit from the confusion?



Apparently he didn't know that WotC planned to (re)release UA but rather the title was an homage to the AD&D1 supplement Unearthed Arcana which introduced lots of new rules (like cantrips, lots of polearms, ...)

I don't know if he would still have used this title if he knew that they intended to (re)release UA.


----------



## woodelf

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Ok I only read the first page so someone in the next 2 pages may have already asked this, but you only mention converting it to D&D and vice versa. What about conversion between IL and AE/AU? Some of these rules sound like something that could be a very interesting tweak to the AE/AU setting.




Agreed--my only complaint with AU was that he didn't change the combat rules, since everything that was changed was for the better, and it fixed my problems with the races, classes, and magic. I want to see Malhavoc's take on fixing the combat rules (which, after the classes, is probably the chapter of D&D3E that frustrates me the most). 

For that matter, my "D&D 'Done Right'" that's been on the back burner for a bit over two years was going in a lot of the same directions as AU for magic, and it sounds like in a lot of the same ways as Iron Lore is for combat rules and class abilities. So, if i take the two of them and merge them, i won't have to do it myself.


----------



## elforcelf

NO,Joe,I just want to know if it could help my game.   And,if that was humor don't quit your day job.  elforcelf.


----------



## Teflon Billy

This sounds like it is going to totally rock.


----------



## Talath

Damn you Mike Mearls! Travel back in time, finish it, and release it so I would have had it by now.

In the event that doesn't work, then I guess I shall have to wait.

Sigh.

This sounds like exactly what I wanted to do with a sword and sorcery campaign I want to work on for the future when my current campaign ends. I have high hopes, and I hope Iron Lore delivers.

I wouldn't be against receiving a free copy, btw


----------



## Crothian

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> This sounds like it is going to totally rock.




I''ee your "totally rock" and raise you a freaking cool.  This might be the second most exciting book to come out in years.


----------



## Hammerhead

What would be the first Crothian? The 3e PHB?


----------



## TerraDave

*More Pointless Speculation*



			
				Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> This sounds like it is going to totally rock.




Mr. Billy, I was wondering when you where going to chime in.

We have got Pirate Cat confirming this is "herioc asskicking", EN is excited, Crothian has just raised it to "freaking cool", Nightfall hasn't mentione the Scared Lands once...and everybody else on this thread...ya think _Iron Lore _ will be nominated for next years Ennies, could it win! 

If I could by shares in _Iron Lore_, I deffinately would


----------



## JoeGKushner

elforcelf said:
			
		

> NO,Joe,I just want to know if it could help my game.   And,if that was humor don't quit your day job.  elforcelf.




Wasn't humor. I mean, how is it going to help your game if you're actively running a game now? It's some odd months down the road. Heck, I've switched campaigns and game systems in a few months time.

I'm not holding my breath waiting for it. If it has some good stuff in it, I'll use it. I'm not going to wonder about campaign utility or overall use though, until it's actually out or we know a lot more about it.


----------



## Ozmar

Talath said:
			
		

> Damn you Mike Mearls! Travel back in time, finish it, and release it so I would have had it by now.
> 
> In the event that doesn't work, then I guess I shall have to wait.




Why don't you just travel forward in time to August and pick up a copy? That's what I am planning to do.



			
				Talath said:
			
		

> I wouldn't be against receiving a free copy, btw




Oh hey, sign me up for one of those, too! Who do I have to kill? 

Ozmar the Assassin-for-Swag


----------



## EricNoah

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Wasn't humor. I mean, how is it going to help your game if you're actively running a game now? It's some odd months down the road. Heck, I've switched campaigns and game systems in a few months time.




"Odd months down the road" for me means maybe 5 game sessions.  That's no more than two adventures, which is probably no more than 1 or 2 character levels.  Some of us plan that far in advance (or have games that meet that infrequently).    If I can start planting some seeds now (either to wrap up a current campaign, or seeds in my players' minds about how IL might fix XY and Z), that helps me now as well as later.


----------



## Berandor

EricNoah said:
			
		

> "Odd months down the road" for me means maybe 5 game sessions.  That's no more than two adventures, which is probably no more than 1 or 2 character levels.  Some of us plan that far in advance (or have games that meet that infrequently).    If I can start planting some seeds now (either to wrap up a current campaign, or seeds in my players' minds about how IL might fix XY and Z), that helps me now as well as later.



 I agree. 

I mean, look at Hot Pursuit, which I bought a month agao, and instantly prepared a chase that will see the light of day in 3-4 months.

On the other hand, asking Mike Mearls for specific information now and here is for naught, since he a) basically told us he'd leave for the Malhavoc forum thread and b) can't divulge a lot yet.


----------



## JoeGKushner

EricNoah said:
			
		

> "Odd months down the road" for me means maybe 5 game sessions.  That's no more than two adventures, which is probably no more than 1 or 2 character levels.  Some of us plan that far in advance (or have games that meet that infrequently).    If I can start planting some seeds now (either to wrap up a current campaign, or seeds in my players' minds about how IL might fix XY and Z), that helps me now as well as later.




Could you give me an example Eric? I know about the DMG II, Battlefield Adventuers and several other books coming out but I'm not really 'hyping' them as something in my campaign. When I knew that AU was coming out, I didn't start hinting at giants or mojh or anythign, I just ran an AU game.

I'd like to see where you're coming from with this. For me, I run about once a week so if we're talking August, we've got April, May, June and July so for me, that's 16 game sessions so we're talking more than a level or two in that time for my games for example.


----------



## EricNoah

Well, as an example, one of my DMs is starting to look around at what to do for his next campaign.  Our current one isn't done yet, but the more info I can pass him on IL, the more likely I will be able to play in an IL campaign.  

And for AU, yeah, I did have to kind of sweet-talk my group into considering it (because they'd need to invest money in a new rulebook and time/effort into learning a new setting/game).  Any info I could pass them ahead of time about the magic system, the races, classes, etc. was helpful in building my case.


----------



## TerraDave

Berandor said:
			
		

> On the other hand, asking Mike Mearls for specific information now and here is for naught, since he a) basically told us he'd leave for the Malhavoc forum thread and b) can't divulge a lot yet.




Well, he gave us a lot...and Malhavoc is good with their previews...and for all of use 30+ on the boards, 5 months can just fly by.  Where does all the time go (besides EnWorld, that is)?


----------



## JoeGKushner

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Well, as an example, one of my DMs is starting to look around at what to do for his next campaign.  Our current one isn't done yet, but the more info I can pass him on IL, the more likely I will be able to play in an IL campaign.
> 
> And for AU, yeah, I did have to kind of sweet-talk my group into considering it (because they'd need to invest money in a new rulebook and time/effort into learning a new setting/game).  Any info I could pass them ahead of time about the magic system, the races, classes, etc. was helpful in building my case.




I guess my group is just more open to different d20 variants.

Still, in both cases here, you're 'selling' the group on something as opposed to actually using it in your own ongoing campaign no?


----------



## mearls

Berandor said:
			
		

> On the other hand, asking Mike Mearls for specific information now and here is for naught, since he a) basically told us he'd leave for the Malhavoc forum thread and b) can't divulge a lot yet.




I'm still here, I just can't say much. As we begin rolling out previews, I'll be here to answer questions.

Right now, I can't say as much as I want because:

A. We need to pace this, so people aren't just twiddling their thumbs for 5 months waiting for the game.

B. I don't want to drop something that could be miscontrued, or lead to lots of wild speculation of what the game can and cannot do. I have limited free time to cruise message boards, and I'd rather not have to say too much and deal with a headache rather than say nothing and deal with nothing. I'm really pressed for time at the moment.

Thus, I have to take this slower than I'd like, but c'est la vie.

The first design diary for the game should go up this week. I've read over this thread, and if you have specific questions feel free to post away. If I can answer them here, I will. Otherwise, I'll file them away to address them in the design articles.


----------



## EricNoah

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I guess my group is just more open to different d20 variants.




Sounds like your group meets a lot more frequently.    We just don't have the time.  



			
				JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Still, in both cases here, you're 'selling' the group on something as opposed to actually using it in your own ongoing campaign no?




I'm afraid I don't understand the question.  Maybe I missed your original point -- wasn't it something like "there's no point getting worked up about something that's not coming out for 5 months"?  I'm just letting you know that even though it might seem silly or pointless to do so to you, there is a reason behind it that's more than just "ooh I want it and I want it now."  The more information, and the earlier I can get it, the better for me.  

You know, we're probably arguing the same side of a point that neither of us can clearly remember in the first place. And that's when I know it's time for me to just drop the subject.


----------



## EricNoah

mearls said:
			
		

> The first design diary for the game should go up this week. I've read over this thread, and if you have specific questions feel free to post away. If I can answer them here, I will. Otherwise, I'll file them away to address them in the design articles.




Awesome, and just what we'd expect/desire.    We can't ask for much more than that!


----------



## Crothian

Hammerhead said:
			
		

> What would be the first Crothian? The 3e PHB?




Nope, Thieves World


----------



## A'koss

mearls said:
			
		

> The first design diary for the game should go up this week. I've read over this thread, and if you have specific questions feel free to post away. If I can answer them here, I will. Otherwise, I'll file them away to address them in the design articles.



That's more than fair enough Mike.

As far as questions go... lessee... will there be martial arts rules in IL? Oh, and which of the classes (or combinations thereof) would best mirror the old 1st edition Duelist class from Dragon Mag.! The high hit point, lightly armored, pseudo-assassin version (not the watered down swashbuckler)... 

Cheers!


----------



## JoeGKushner

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Sounds like your group meets a lot more frequently.    We just don't have the time.
> 
> I'm afraid I don't understand the question.  Maybe I missed your original point -- wasn't it something like "there's no point getting worked up about something that's not coming out for 5 months"?  I'm just letting you know that even though it might seem silly or pointless to do so to you, there is a reason behind it that's more than just "ooh I want it and I want it now."  The more information, and the earlier I can get it, the better for me.
> 
> You know, we're probably arguing the same side of a point that neither of us can clearly remember in the first place. And that's when I know it's time for me to just drop the subject.




I didn't know we were arguing. 

I personally am not worked up about it.

My quesiton though, was someone else mentioned using this in a campaign to help his game, and if it's an ongoing campaign, I'm wondering if they're going to put their current campaign on hold or if they're waiting to use it as it's own thing when it finally does come out, etc...

For me, my campaign runs full steam ahead. In the five months we have between now and then, maybe it'll be time for a new campaign. For example, I've posted a few story hours about Siege of Eberonring Keep and after Black Company came up, posted some updates on how I was using it for Slavelords of Cydonia.


----------



## Ace

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> This caught my eye in the preview PDF
> 
> 
> 
> The combat styles feats which are distinct to particular weapons reminds me of the wonderful things which I heard about "Men At Arms" by Second World Publications(?), but which I wasn't able to get hold of. Check it up in the reviews database and you'll see what I mean.
> 
> Cheers




Thats still available in a PDF version updated for 3.5 -- I thought it was a pretty neat book when I had it but it didn't click for me


----------



## Ace

Ozmar said:
			
		

> Cool cover art!
> 
> I can't wait to start my Purple Monkey Dishwasher campaign this August!
> 
> Ozmar the Fan




Great! 

You have 2 really good system choices 

For rules lite you can use Monkey, Ninja, Pirate, Robot from Atomic Sock Monkey 

If you prefer a more conventional system Terra Primate by Eden Studios 

Good gaming


----------



## Ozmar

Ace said:
			
		

> For rules lite you can use Monkey, Ninja, Pirate, Robot from Atomic Sock Monkey




What?! No dinosaurs?!

Ozmar the Disappointed


----------



## Plane Sailing

Ace said:
			
		

> Thats still available in a PDF version updated for 3.5 -- I thought it was a pretty neat book when I had it but it didn't click for me





Is it? From where? I remember asking a while ago (year+ ?) whether they were going to go PDF with it and they said no plans at that time.

Regards,


----------



## BryonD

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Is it? From where? I remember asking a while ago (year+ ?) whether they were going to go PDF with it and they said no plans at that time.
> 
> Regards,




http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=4351&


----------



## woodelf

mearls said:
			
		

> The book is more on the AU level, but I really don't see a director's cut on the horizon. The setting is intentionally kept a bit shallow (witness all the people who want to use IL in their own setting or a different one - unlike AU, the setting isn't so much of a selling point here).




Was the setting a significant selling point for Arcana Unearthed? Did i completely miss that?  I bought it for the rules, and my recollection of the advertising, especially the Design Diaries, was that it was very much of the "look at my cool new rules! oh yeah, and if you're interested i'll have a quick sketch of a setting tailored just for those rules available, too" tone. But maybe i was just hearing what i wanted to hear? 

[Aside: all the setting stuff that i'm not interested in is why i still haven't decided for certain whether or not to buy AE. It'll be very ironic if i *do* buy all the Iron Lore stuff (likely, given the topics), and then there *is* a "director's cut" that collects all the material i already have (unlike AE, where anything that's not in AU is new to me).]


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

woodelf said:
			
		

> [Aside: all the setting stuff that i'm not interested in is why i still haven't decided for certain whether or not to buy AE. It'll be very ironic if i *do* buy all the Iron Lore stuff (likely, given the topics), and then there *is* a "director's cut" that collects all the material i already have (unlike AE, where anything that's not in AU is new to me).]




I don't know your budget, but in general looking at your considerations here I would pick up AE on .pdf.  I did, and while I'm sad to miss out on how lovely the book looks I'm just as happy to have the new material easilly printable and available to supplement the old book.

As another note, a lot of the Malhavoc hard bound collections have also been a response to the release of 3.5.  Unless we get 3.8 or, shudder, 4.0 by 2007 I think we should all be ok.


----------



## A'koss

Mike's First Iron Lore Design Diary is now up and it gives a pretty good overview of what to expect and a few juicy details t'boot.

www.montecook.com/cgi-bin...mmearls_10

You can also download the Insider catalogue PDF for an interview with Mike on IL, but most of that interview has been covered elsewhere.

www.montecook.com/images/SSI_Q205.pdf

Discuss!


----------



## mearls

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> As another note, a lot of the Malhavoc hard bound collections have also been a response to the release of 3.5.  Unless we get 3.8 or, shudder, 4.0 by 2007 I think we should all be ok.




Unless 4.0 radically changes things IL should be compatible with it. If creatures change a lot, to the point that an Nth-level party in 4.0 is weaker or stronger than a 3.X Nth-level party, then IL might need an update. However, I really doubt that Wizards would make that sort of change to D&D. Even if they did, if you had the 3.X monster SRD files, you'd be all set.

FWIW, I have a basic architecture of my vision for what 4.0 could be. I might end up creating a wiki with my changes/new systems over the summer, depending on how things work out. At the very least, I'll probably do it if/when WotC announces 4.0, if only to have a historical document of how I think 4.0 would/should look to compare to how they do it.

EDIT: It looks like the link that A'koss posted is b0rken. Here's the link:
http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?designdiary_mmearls_10


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

mearls said:
			
		

> Unless 4.0 radically changes things IL should be compatible with it. If creatures change a lot, to the point that an Nth-level party in 4.0 is weaker or stronger than a 3.X Nth-level party, then IL might need an update. However, I really doubt that Wizards would make that sort of change to D&D. Even if they did, if you had the 3.X monster SRD files, you'd be all set.




Good to know, though in a complete aside I could theoretically picture WotC changing up the CR system a lot.  Still I agree it's not a problem.

The Design Diary is awesome.  I like that it at least obliquely answered a lot of questions raised here, though I'll fight such a self-flattering perspective by imagining that other people were asking similar questions.

The DR mechanic is amazing!  And does a lot to address my concerns v. Conan, which is a fantastic game for any number of other reasons, where it's a headache to figure out which method people are using to bypass the hugely high DR armor provides.  A dice based DR is just brilliant and makes it really easy to figure out how armor would stack with monster DR which is another big Conan complaint for me. 

Plus Token!  Eeeeee, another brightly colorred thing to add to my dice bag.  Sadly, as I grow older I find I more, not less, like a bird or an Ewok.  Particularly with the beard, the tendency to roast visitors, and to worship flying metal things.


----------



## tetsujin28

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> This sounds like it is going to totally rock.



I always liked ya, Billy


----------



## tetsujin28

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Wasn't humor. I mean, how is it going to help your game if you're actively running a game now? It's some odd months down the road. Heck, I've switched campaigns and game systems in a few months time.



Exactly. Why think in terms of The Campaign That Never Ends, rather than, "This could be one frickin' cool camaign!"


----------



## Angel Tarragon

Despite wether the campaign sinks or swims - it sounds quite close to how I want my homebrew to be like - so I will be acquiring it. I am really liking what I am hearing about it and it sounds like it is quite customizable. It is perfect a perfect 10 on my scale [so far]!


----------



## ecliptic

Did I mention how I can't wait for this book.?   

This is so totally going to own, and fits my homebrew world. I was working on stuff very similar to Iron Lore, even down to the one casting class so happen named _Arcanist_. The first thing that flashed through my mind reading about IL is that they must have spies.  

A few changes such as VP/WP, and I will be good to go.


----------



## JoeGKushner

tetsujin28 said:
			
		

> Exactly. Why think in terms of The Campaign That Never Ends, rather than, "This could be one frickin' cool camaign!"




Exactly. I'm curious to see what it's about. I've played lots of different d20 variants but I've never been one to hold up or stop my game in anticipation of some upcoming book.

If it sounds interesting, my group will probably give it a whirl. If it looks like it has to be it's own thing, then after that whirl, we'll probably go back to D&D just like we did after Grim Tales, Arcana Unearthed and Black Company.


----------



## Staffan

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> The DR mechanic is amazing!



While random DR is a neat solution to the problem of balancing DR so it's not pointless nor makes people invulnerable, it's not like Mearls is the first to think of it. It's been around since at least 1981 (when Stormbringer came out).

One neat aspect of it is that you can separate armor that's sorta weak but has lots of coverage (e.g. a mail hauberk) from armor that's strong but leaves lots of areas unprotected (like a breastplate). The hauberk could give a DR of something like 1d4+2, wheras the breastplate could be 1d10-1. Both would have the same average, but the hauberk's protection would be a lot more predictable.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

At first, I was really excited about this, but as I've read more, I'm growing increasingly less gung ho for it.  Here's a few reasons why.

Point-Buy Ability Scores - I hate this.  It fosters a politically correct, everyone is equal state of mind.  I realize it's for game balance, so Joe doesn't have 5 18s and Tim has 5 9s for stats.  But so be it, everyone is NOT created equal, else I'd be pitching for the Yankees alongside RJ.

Armor and Damage Reduction - This I like in theory, but contrarily to what Mr Mearls says, I believe it will slow game play down.  It might not if the dm just rolls damage and lets the player  roll his d4 or whatever, adjust the damage, and go on with play, but in my experience, whenever someone is rolling a die for any reason, play grinds to a hault while everyone watches breathlessly to see if Joe takes 5 or 6 points of damage.  

Skills Matter in Combat - Again, in theory this sounds cool, but 3e combat is slow enough already.  This just seems like more ways to slow it down further.  Cool ways, maybe, but still.

Tokens - There are similar rules to this in many games, and I'm not fond of them.  I like to let the dice fall where they may, and this seems like hedging your bets.  

PCs have a heroic stature. They are stronger, smarter, and faster than normal - This I really don't like.  I lie the old AD&D method, where pcs were considered no different than the ordinary Joe, except for their training.  I don't want to see pcs throwing boulders and wrestling fire giants to the ground.  Slaying the giant is cool, but a 6 foot human putting a giant in the camel clutch is a bit much.


That said, I do find a lot of things I like about Iron Lore, most notably the lack of having your toys define your character.  I'm gonna put this one down as a "wait and see."  I'll probably pick it up anyway, cuz I'm a gaming whore.


----------



## BryonD

Doesn't this:



			
				JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Point-Buy Ability Scores - I hate this.  It fosters a politically correct, everyone is equal state of mind.  I realize it's for game balance, so Joe doesn't have 5 18s and Tim has 5 9s for stats.  But so be it, everyone is NOT created equal, else I'd be pitching for the Yankees alongside RJ.




Pretty much contradict this:



> PCs have a heroic stature. They are stronger, smarter, and faster than normal - This I really don't like.  I lie the old AD&D method, where pcs were considered no different than the ordinary Joe, except for their training.




So you want a game where everyone is not created equal, but none of them are different than the ordinary Joe?   :\


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Didn't say I didn't want them different.  But there should be a line that pcs can't cross by ordinary means, I.E., magic.  Lifting a 400 pound boulder is fine, a 2 ton boulder is not.  Walking a tight rope is fine, swimming up a waterfall is not.  You get the picture.


----------



## BryonD

I'm not sure I've seen anything to imply that Iron Lore will let you swim up a waterfall.  Maybe it will, but I haven't seen it yet and that type of action is not typical of the fantasy inspirations referenced.   

Of course a system that handles larger than life at low level and swimming up waterfalls at level 25 is best of both worlds, just play in your comfort range.


Of course your comments still contradict.  If some characters are you and others are RJ, then they both can not be average Joe.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Armor and Damage Reduction - This I like in theory, but contrarily to what Mr Mearls says, I believe it will slow game play down.




Well, yes, obviously rolling an extra die has to take some time.

But perhaps with spellcasting out of the way, and the simplification of AoO among other things, Iron Lore brings a net gain to the speed of combat.

Well-- maybe not exactly. Let me back up. The focus of Iron Lore is obviously combat. It's not necessarily a bad thing for combats to take longer, _if the combats are fast paced and exciting throughout_. I think that's the point.

To say that combats take longer is not necessarily a bad thing. You just don't want combats to DRAG.

Sort of like, I don't notice that Return of the King is over 3 hours long. You DO notice that Titanic is over 3 hours long.


----------



## mearls

Rolling for DR had me worried, since it had the potential to slow things down. However, in play it has little, pretty much no, effect on speed.

The key is pretty simple, and it all came to light when I watched a playtest group. The DM announces damage to a player, and before the player writes down his new hp total he rolls his DR and adjusts the damage taken. The act of writing down a PC's new hit point total takes a moment anyway, and it seems that the roll for DR is simply tucked into that act.

The real key is that the player can take care of his DR while the DM continues resolving the monster's action or the next player takes her turn. If you're interested in seeing the effect, next time you play D&D roll a d6 and check the result each time you have to record damage to your PC.

It is worth noting that, aside from NPCs in armor, the DM won't roll for DR. Monsters treat natural armor as a modifier to Defense. I intentionally did this to make bookkeeping easier for the DM.


----------



## A'koss

*My take...*

*Point Buy Ability Scores:
*IL looks like it handles stat generation pretty much the same way I do in my own LM game and keeps the players on a level playing field... I tend to hand out a generous amount as well to the help survivability. I'm hoping that IL will hand out stat bonuses much like the way it's handled in Conan: _+1 point to all ability scores every X levels_. That will also helps maintain game balance at higher levels so the stat disparities don't grow too great.

*Base Defense Bonus:*
Not much to comment on here other than I can finally have a truly viable "Duelist-style" character again...
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





*Armor and Damage Reduction:*
Yeah, I was speculating on ENWorld that it would either be like this (Alternity-style) or reducing the damage die in steps (a la Earthdawn). I've used this style of DR before and I'm okay with it, it is one of the better ways to handle it indeed. I understand the reasons why Mike has decided to forego giving natural armor DR, and it will help out in play, but there will always be that logical disjoin...

*Skills Matter in Combat:*
We were just discussing skill groups on ENW barely a week ago. Consolidation and simplification is good and I'm glad to see it here. And now it looks like the warrior classes are about to get _a lot_ more interesting with combat skill use. Can't wait!

*Expanded Feat System:*
I like the sound of this too. My hope here is that Mike has tweaked the balance of the feats themselves to better balance them against one another. I would hate to see one or two combat styles completely dominate in the game. In another take, Sean Reynolds had come up with an interesting idea where feats had a cost in "feat points" depending on their value in-game. I know it wouldn't be used here, but it was an interesting idea...

*Combat Tweaks:*
All of these sound good. It looks like IL characters will have a whole array of tasty combat options with stunts and challenges. The simplified AoO sound good, I just hope it doesn't slow combat down too much. 

*Character Traits:*
Another good idea, and one I also use in my own game. I'm curious to see an example of this...

*Magic:*
The skill-based magic sounds like a lot of fun. I love the "create an effect on the fly" idea - I have high hopes for this so long as it's not too unweildy in play.

*Tokens:*
Hmmm... I can take it or leave it. We'll see how they're used but I'm usually not big on poker chip powers. 

So far, so good...

Cheers!


----------



## EricNoah

I too thought "Alternity" the second I read about random armor DR.  And that's not a bad thing in my book.  Steffan -- great insight on how DR can differentiate different kinds of armor. 

I like a mechanic that gives the players more power to decide when they are going to have a little good luck come their way.  Allows for a little more strategy -- instead of just reacting to situations, they can be setting up more situations.  I'm hoping the tokens dealy-bob is a step in that direction.


----------



## BryonD

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Steffan -- great insight on how DR can differentiate different kinds of armor.




Agreed.  That thought certainly increased my interest in the idea.


----------



## Particle_Man

If there is DR that is common, does that mean that the "less attacks with a BIG 2-handed weapon guy" is going to be more effective than that "more attacks with smaller weapons guy"?  Because the DR would apply to each attack, I assume.  Of course, there may be feats, etc., that allow one to ignore DR if one is the "more attacks with smaller weapons guy".


----------



## mearls

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> If there is DR that is common, does that mean that the "less attacks with a BIG 2-handed weapon guy" is going to be more effective than that "more attacks with smaller weapons guy"?  Because the DR would apply to each attack, I assume.  Of course, there may be feats, etc., that allow one to ignore DR if one is the "more attacks with smaller weapons guy".




There's two facets to this issue:

1. The vast majority of monsters don't have DR, just like in D&D. So, a light, low-damage but many attacks fighter works pretty much the same in IL as in D&D.

2. It makes sense to me that a warrior who uses a light, fast, agile weapon would strike with more accuracy than one with a big sword. I see a warrior with a rapier as picking out gaps between a foe's armor, or an archer taking aim and hitting the space between two plates. So, you can expect to see that in the rules.


----------



## Capellan

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Point-Buy Ability Scores - I hate this.  It fosters a politically correct, everyone is equal state of mind.  I realize it's for game balance, so Joe doesn't have 5 18s and Tim has 5 9s for stats.  But so be it, everyone is NOT created equal, else I'd be pitching for the Yankees alongside RJ.




Well, it's not like mearls is going to come to your house and beat you up if you choose to do something else, you know 



			
				JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> PCs have a heroic stature. They are stronger, smarter, and faster than normal - This I really don't like.  I lie the old AD&D method, where pcs were considered no different than the ordinary Joe, except for their training.




You're interpreting 'heroic' in a way different to that which was intended.  IL PCs are not superhuman.  They are a lot better than warriors and experts, though


----------



## Nightfall

While I'm not a fan of Armor as DR or DBs, I can live with it IF it makes combat and fighting more interesting. And with these additions, I'm 100% certain this will be interesting.


----------



## mearls

Capellan said:
			
		

> Well, it's not like mearls is going to come to your house and beat you up if you choose to do something else, you know




I can't yet, but don't think we're not working on the technology!


----------



## Andor

*Butt-Kick Fu*

So is unarmed combat an explored option?


----------



## Felon

Mike, as a DM I'm interested in the arcanist class. Did any particular characters from literature or film inspire you and form the basis of what an arcanist should be capable of (and not capable of)? Would Gandalf qualify as a high-level arcanist?


----------



## woodelf

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Armor and Damage Reduction - This I like in theory, but contrarily to what Mr Mearls says, I believe it will slow game play down. It might not if the dm just rolls damage and lets the player roll his d4 or whatever, adjust the damage, and go on with play, but in my experience, whenever someone is rolling a die for any reason, play grinds to a hault while everyone watches breathlessly to see if Joe takes 5 or 6 points of damage.



I'm not sure to what degree this applies, but let me toss out an observation:
1: Darn near every RPG i've played other than D&D3E (and some other D20 System instantiations) has armor that reduces damage in some way, sometimes instead of, sometimes in addition to, affecting the chance to be hit. Many of these have random or "active" DR.
2: Darn near every other RPG i've ever played has faster combat than D&D3E.

So DR is not inherently slower than other methods, IME. And may, due to other changes to accomodate it, be faster.



> Skills Matter in Combat - Again, in theory this sounds cool, but 3e combat is slow enough already. This just seems like more ways to slow it down further. Cool ways, maybe, but still.



As someone else said, it's not so much the slowness of D&D3E combat that is a problem, as the tediousness. In theory, this will fix that.


----------



## BryonD

Andor said:
			
		

> So is unarmed combat an explored option?




Godd question!

Probably not one that will be answered yet......

But a very good question.


----------



## Talath

More questions answered, more questions asked.

I am definetly buying this book! You just sold a copy Mr. Mearls ...

and a bunch of others I imagine.

(bump, because nobody touches sockbaby!)


----------



## nopantsyet

Yeah--sounds very interesting to me. I like what I'm getting of the feel of the system. And the fact that they're attempting to balance against MM creature is very positive. I hope it will be possible to use this in conjuction with standard D&D. I'm sure it's not designed for that, but I've had good success using some aspects of Arcana Unearthed in my game. I prefer to supplement rather than replace. 

I'd rather find a way to make an idea fit the ethos than restrict the players to my original vision, so I am careful about what I disallow. Not much is categorically disallowed. Going through the exercise of finding a place in the world for a concept is an enjoyable creative challenge. and it helps me develop the world in ways I might not otherwise have done. I run a scarce magic campaign, but scarcity does affect PCs access to it--they're assumed to be extraordinary. 

I know at least one of my players would jump that the chance to run a more nuanced fighter-type, so I'll probably try to find a way to balance it against the rest of the party if it doesn't balance inherently


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

The changes to skill acquisition are what have me most excited.

I have two burning questions out of that:

How will your options for picking up skill groups be limited?  I think we have some clue for that in the character write up earlier, but I'm still curious.

Will there be a way to 'cast defensively' to avoid attacks of opportunity on some actions?

I presume so given the use of skills in combat, and I look forward to seeing which skills offer which AoO avoidance options.


----------



## SixFootGnome

*Iron Monk-y?*



			
				Andor said:
			
		

> So is unarmed combat an explored option?




I usually lurk over here and post more at Malhavoc (just something I've noticed, no judgement on the community here) but I thought I'd point out a post my Mike Mearls over in the Malhavoc forums for Iron Lore (http://p222.ezboard.com/fokayyourturnfrm36.showMessage?topicID=21.topic) where he says (paraphrasing) that he ran out of space for developing unarmed combat styles in IL, but that an unarmed-oriented weapon master with improved unarmed strike ought to make a pretty playable martial artist as is.  I imagine that the fighting styles he does have will also serve as a pretty good template if someone wanted to whip up some unarmed styles once the book hits shelves.


----------



## Renshai

*Divine Magic and Deities*

Mike,
I wanted to say that I'm very intrigued by Iron Lore so far, sounds like a really fun variant take on d20 fantasy. 

One question, do you cover Divine magic or Deities in the book? Alot of good sword and sorcery tales include meddling gods and their devoted servants.

Thanks,
Ren


----------



## ruleslawyer

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> PCs have a heroic stature. They are stronger, smarter, and faster than normal - This I really don't like.



See, I LIKE this. In fact, it pretty strongly jibes with heroic fantasy tropes... and D&D IS a heroic fantasy RPG.

Moreover, how does this equate to the following?


> _...pcs throwing boulders and wrestling fire giants to the ground.  Slaying the giant is cool, but a 6 foot human putting a giant in the camel clutch is a bit much.:_


----------



## TerraDave

On Armor DR:

I know from when I had flat DR from armor, playing long ago, it felt more realistic, but it did slow play a little (subtraction is harder then addition), and the short sword wielders had a big problem.

The random DR does give the charecter with a light weapon a chance(though other mechanics that allow you to bypass armor could do something similar) , while preserving the idea that heavier weapons are better at bashing through armor.  In play you do have those couple of additional small steps...which may be offset by simplification elsewhere...will have to wait and see.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

My experience has been that with flat DR PCs spend too much time trying to figure what options they have to get around it or reinforce it.

Something that was more random would probably discourage that.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Renshai said:
			
		

> One question, do you cover Divine magic or Deities in the book? Alot of good sword and sorcery tales include meddling gods and their devoted servants.




I know that I strongly hope that Iron Lore takes the same stand as AE (and Conan OGL for that matter) and simply has a "magic using" class - the PC may state 'my power comes from the GODS!' or 'knowledge of arcane science powers MY magic" but they use the same mechanics, have the same options.

Cheers


----------



## Hammerhead

Or alternatively, an Iron Lore character could be a priest and the fact that he's such a skilled badass to begin with is interpreted as a gift from the gods. Outside of D&D, not many archetypical clerics or priests really cast spells.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

As far as I can tell there is one spellcasting class and no class that has a title that looks anything ecclesiastical so I am guessing that if there is divine magic it is not divided up at the class level.


----------



## Felon

Renshai said:
			
		

> One question, do you cover Divine magic or Deities in the book? Alot of good sword and sorcery tales include meddling gods and their devoted servants.




Yes, and often in sword-and-sorcery tales, acting as the conduit for some powerful patron is among the few ways to gain real power (and it basically renders the character an NPC). Otherwise, magic is slow and arduous.


----------



## Talath

Bump, because some things just shouldn't fall off page 1


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

I gotta say I spent hours last night putting together a group of eleventh level characters, and one of them wasn't so much being created as auditted. 

I cannot wait for a better way.


----------



## Nifelhein

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> PCs have a heroic stature. They are stronger, smarter, and faster than normal - This I really don't like.  I lie the old AD&D method, where pcs were considered no different than the ordinary Joe, except for their training.  I don't want to see pcs throwing boulders and wrestling fire giants to the ground.  Slaying the giant is cool, but a 6 foot human putting a giant in the camel clutch is a bit much.




In 2nd Edition I always had that feel that the characters were special and unique while still being mundane and mortal, they could fight dragons but also, a forest environment could prove deadly without care and proper equipment, now they can have those skill so high that a deadly forest becomes the backyard, they have so many abilities that strike me as magical in nature that they no longer feel mortal and mudane.

3rd Edition kind of brought the Divine Ascencion Feel of 2nd edition to mid levels. That is something I am living with cause I like the engine, but not what i really like. Hell, WotC even contrtadicts the idea of the skills in the epic level handbook, they put that damn swim up a waterfall hile the PHB presents the idea of the possible and magical...

I agree with you in that I want heroes leaping to grab a dragon talon while it attacks them, i want them crawling over a dragon head to strike its weak spot. I dont see how a dragon in a open field should be a problem in a low magic game, the dragon should win by my standards, it would be run and hide or die.



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Well-- maybe not exactly. Let me back up. The focus of Iron Lore is obviously combat. It's not necessarily a bad thing for combats to take longer, _if the combats are fast paced and exciting throughout_. I think that's the point.




I totally agree with this, combat becomes dull and pure die roll, we dont have many options, we dont have much to think about instead of how much will be my bonus for that attack if I use this or that. It became all about numbers, I call 3rd edition, which i like a lot, the combo edition for that sole reason. I would rather have a character choose between colorful options like tumbling around an opponent as he strikes and then gain a bonus, then think about plain spells that give the same bonus...



			
				mearls said:
			
		

> 2. It makes sense to me that a warrior who uses a light, fast, agile weapon would strike with more accuracy than one with a big sword. I see a warrior with a rapier as picking out gaps between a foe's armor, or an archer taking aim and hitting the space between two plates. So, you can expect to see that in the rules.




That is exactly what i want from a game, I dont think a character that is so specilized that he carries a single sword is a good idea, there are times a bow, an axe or a dagger might be better, DR in 3.5 made that a little more true,  want it taken a step further.

------

On the Whole iron Lore, I am looking forward to it, although i dont want magic in 3rd edition to be taken away ust for something else to take its place, this seems like a much easier place to tone down to a feel I stated above then the standard 3.X edition. I want to see the amgic system too, I m a fan of ars magica system and this seem to be somewhat like it in versatility, danger of failuer and also, unwanted results.

The Magic system and the combat options are the points that have drawn my attention the most, the others may as well do so, i am sold and if it is good enough, I may as well port midnight to this system, although when this kind of world comes to hand, the magic system never supports divine magic well enough.


----------



## Narfellus

I'm reading Storm of Swords right now by George RR Martin and last night i got to a crucial fight scene. Without giving away details, there were 2 combatants: one a monstrous high level human fighter with full plate, gauntets, greaves, gorget, broadsword and shield, and TEN FOOT REACH. I'd say he moved at 15'-20'. 

His opponent was a lightly armed high level human warrior with a small shield and a masterwork spear. He was fast on his feet, and kept dodging and taunting the whole time. Actually, the taunting served as a Bluff or Intimidate.

At the same time, i'm reading Conan D20 where they abolished straight up AC and replaced it with Parry Defense and Dodge Defense and Armor damage absorption. They also add Finesse attacks, which are designed to sneak through chinks in heavy armor. Weapons can also punch through armor DR.

Reading about this fight in Martin's masterful book, i could almost blow for blow see how it would play out using the Conan rules. Dodging, chinks in armor, slower opponent vs. faster opponent. And what's more, when the fight ends, it ain't pretty.

EDIT: My point was that there are some existing rules out there that are nice too, and i think Iron Lore will bring more to the table. DnD has too much reliance on high powered magic to save your bacon, but I still love the core rules of the game.


----------



## Talath

Bump, we need an update, like a new design diary or something, stat!

www.sockbaby.com


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Narfellus said:
			
		

> Reading about this fight in Martin's masterful book, i could almost blow for blow see how it would play out using the Conan rules. Dodging, chinks in armor, slower opponent vs. faster opponent. And what's more, when the fight ends, it ain't pretty.
> 
> EDIT: My point was that there are some existing rules out there that are nice too, and i think Iron Lore will bring more to the table. DnD has too much reliance on high powered magic to save your bacon, but I still love the core rules of the game.




Man, I gotta say that the scene is one of the many criteria I use to evaluate gaming systems at this point.

Conan is an interesting choice, but having played with it for a while I really don't know that you could do it as well as it needs to be done.  Heavy armor in Conan doesn't seem to have the comparitive disadvantages that it seems to have in that scene, but I still see what you mean.

Right now I'm working on means to recreate that scene and SoIaF in general using the Kung Fu system in Weapons of the Gods.

I think IL will probably get closer than Conan does.  Plus Conan has a whole regurlarly lopping off heads bit that doesn't really fit SoIaF for me.  

And I would hesitate a little before called that spear simply masterwork.


----------



## Narfellus

Yeah, great fight, wasn't it! I haven't actually used the Conan rules yet, but they seemed offhand that they would work. More detailed than 2 fighers standing side by side and hammering away at each other. 

I'm not familar with Weapons of the Gods, but if you want to fill in some details feel free.

I assume you know about the Game of Thrones RPG 

http://agot.guardiansorder.com/

450 pages of full color goodness. I heard the combat system was going to be more brutal than default DnD. I wonder how different it will be from Conan, or even Black Comany?


----------



## Captain NeMo

Sounds good, I'll probably get it.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Narfellus said:
			
		

> Yeah, great fight, wasn't it! I haven't actually used the Conan rules yet, but they seemed offhand that they would work. More detailed than 2 fighers standing side by side and hammering away at each other.
> 
> I'm not familar with Weapons of the Gods, but if you want to fill in some details feel free.
> 
> I assume you know about the Game of Thrones RPG
> 
> http://agot.guardiansorder.com/
> 
> 450 pages of full color goodness. I heard the combat system was going to be more brutal than default DnD. I wonder how different it will be from Conan, or even Black Comany?




The Conan rules have some elements that work really well, but the emphasis isn't so much on elegant training and strategy in personal combat as it is on heroic virtue and intuitive badassitude.  It might work, but having played it for a while I don't really feel it.

Weapons of the Gods is a non d20 Kung Fu game.  It's release has been delayed a couple of times, but the basic rules should be available on .pdf very soon.  The games been written for forever but suffered from repeated printer mishaps.  Very very very elegant system.  I'm tempted to work it into a GoT game because of the personality and color it gives every fighter, that and it has very nice virtue and passion mechanics.

I will certainly be picking up the GoO game, as even where I am somewhat skeptical of their rules choices I have no doubt that it will be the definitive reference guide to the world and events of the series.

Might be on the same level of difference as Conan, from what I've heard, but it's going to be even more brutal than Black Company.  Which, to my mind, did a brilliant job making the RAW more deadly with only a few minor changes to the system.  My only complaint against Black Company is that the mass combat system does a pretty poor job modelling individuals fighting squads, which is sad because the potential to do it well is certainly there.


----------



## Narfellus

I just got Conan Free companies and it looks to be a great way to fill in the background detail of mass combat. For actual mechanics, i would use Grim Tales and the excel spreadsheets. 

I for one am very excited about GoT. Not sure what the actual rules will come out like, but you're right, as a reference guide to the world, it will have no equal. And if we get the deluxe edition (for a piddly $99!) we get a poster sized map of Westeros. Probably, no doubt, the most creative layout for a fantasy game world i have ever seen. It BEGS to have adventurers tromp across it.


----------



## Hydro

> You could even play it like a AD&D1e barbarian or 3.0 forsaker, for a character who refuses to use magic, and has taken vows to that effect.




Nice. But try inverting it.

Magic items aren't something that just anyone can use. To use any magic item, you need to have at least one druid level. To use magic items with a caster level above one, you need to have at least three druid levels. And so on and so forth. In a sense, magic items become a class feature.

In the unlikely event that a dm feels the need to use "Fighters" in his IL game, the fighter would become something of a mystic warrior, _defined_ by the fact that he wears a shining +4 fullplate and carries a keen shocking burst scythe that only he can use.


I was halfway through the thread and felt the need to type that down before I forgot it, so sorry if someone else has already suggested it, and don't be supprised if I post again sometime in the next twenty minutes.


----------



## Tetsubo

I just checked out the last page of this thread and you've sold me on this product. 

Do you think you could create a version of the Oathsworn with IL? I like the Oathsworn's abilities but the whole oath requirement seems limiting to me. I see oaths as life-long commitments. Not something you accomplish within a year.


----------



## TerraDave

More on Iron Lore:

http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?designdiary_mmearls_11


----------



## SixFootGnome

*16 more pages*

Also, on Monte's main page where he announced the new design diary, it was mentioned that IL has picked up 16 more pages.  It will now be a 256-page hardcover rather than 240-page.

I suppose that for most of us the true import of that information depends on what's in those 16 extra pages, but I doubt that it is last-minute filler.


----------



## Nifelhein

I hope those are the unarmed combat styles by the way, mearls said he ahd not space to do it properly and it would mainly be left behind. He follows a good rule, do well or don't do at all.


----------



## Talath

Damn it all, I want this book now!


----------



## A'koss

SixFootGnome said:
			
		

> I suppose that for most of us the true import of that information depends on what's in those 16 extra pages, but I doubt that it is last-minute filler.



Monte touched upon this briefly on his own site, "Playtesting results often increase the size of the manuscript. This time, they increased it more than we would have expected." 

I'm hoping it might be some unarmed combat styles, stunts and feats but I kinda get the impression that it's a number of smaller additions all adding up.


			
				Talath said:
			
		

> Damn it all, I want this book now!



I feely your pain... 

I'm hoping to make a full IL conversion of my campaign myself if it's as good as it seems to be.

Cheers!


----------



## SixFootGnome

*Unarmed*

Really, I figured that it would be something like what Monte described, but at minimum a change in announced page count is worth noting, whether it is just more clarity in the rules or some added material.

Just from Mike's teasing and such, I don't anticipate any shortage of good stuff in this one, whether it covers unarmed or I have to take what's there as inspiration and do it myself.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

*Latest Update*

They put up some of the racial traits today.  

I like 'em a lot.

The tall trait is particularly interesting, though given my antipathy for mats I might just a allow a single AoO on a space within a 10 feet reach but not within a five.

The class philosophy was a little hard for me to follow, but I'll get back to it later.

Interesting to see that Thieves and Executioners get sneak attacks and that you can build a priest from traits alone.


----------



## Particle_Man

Based on what little I currently know of Iron Lore, what the "Fab Four" would play:

Real Men would play...anything but the spellcaster.
Real Roleplayers would play...the spellcaster.
Loonies would play...the martial artist (since it doesn't exist as such)
Munchkins would play...a multi-class version of all 10 classes, with the ability to make/import magic items from The Forgotten Realms.


----------



## A'koss

I had a good read-through of the traits and it's an idea that has loads of potential...

Brave - not just a bonus vs fear, but complete immunity! Hmmm, in my Lovecraftian-influenced campaign I may have to shelve that one... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Child of Faith - building faith-based characters with traits is very interesting indeed. I quite like this idea and would fit in very well with my own homebrew.

City Rat - A neat idea but in the back of my mind a little red flag went up at the idea of a trait granting sneak attack capability. Especially if you can also gain sneak attack damage at 1st level through the thief or executioner. However, I fully admit I know way too little about IL to make any calls one way or another.

Tall - another cool idea, but this time mechanically. Threaten 1 additional square... I like it.

The sample traits all seem well worth taking, Mike's definitely on the right track here.

Cheers!


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

I suspect that you can't get sneak attack at first level any other way.

Even if it is a reflection of the uber toughness of the game, it makes sense to me thematically.  A little bit of dirty fighting is an all too common characteristic of city dwellers no matter what class they got their final training in.


----------



## A'koss

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> I suspect that you can't get sneak attack at first level any other way.



That's entirely possible, good point. I also wonder if it'll be possible to pick up traits after 1st level. A rural born character adventuring in a city for a number of years for example. Likely not, but you never know...


> Even if it is a reflection of the uber toughness of the game, it makes sense to me thematically. A little bit of dirty fighting is an all too common characteristic of city dwellers no matter what class they got their final training in.



True enough. Of course, I'm just trying to imagine a whole party of "city rats" and the damage they could lay in their wake... Again, it's way too early to say one way or another. Mike's a smart cookie though, I'm sure there's method behind all of this.  

Cheers!


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

A'koss said:
			
		

> True enough. Of course, I'm just trying to imagine a whole party of "city rats" and the damage they could lay in their wake... Again, it's way too early to say one way or another. Mike's a smart cookie though, I'm sure there's method behind all of this.
> 
> Cheers!




Never walk alone in the city, that's all I gotta say.


----------



## tetsujin28

I am devouring Iron Lore's yummyness.


----------



## Staffan

Hmm. I wonder if the built-in setting will have pre-defined cultures, with matched pairs of these traits. As in, "Barbarian Northmen are Tall and have Cold Resistance".


----------



## Nifelhein

It seems traits are taken only at first level and you get two of them, sicne they seem to not be making any setting I feel as if they are going to leave the specifics of an ethnic group up to Dm, mostly.

I liked the traits and the Tall one seems superb and balanced well enough in my opinion. I think this is getting a lot better as time goes...


----------



## Staffan

Nifelhein said:
			
		

> It seems traits are taken only at first level and you get two of them, sicne they seem to not be making any setting I feel as if they are going to leave the specifics of an ethnic group up to Dm, mostly.



As I understood it, Iron Lore would have a built-in setting to the extent the PHB (Greyhawk) or Arcana Unearthed (Diamond Throne) does, or possibly even to the extent Oriental Adventures does - not being strictly tied to the setting, but having it somewhere in the background. The blurbs do mention things about human civilization being young, with cities rare, and stuff.


----------



## Particle_Man

Nifelhein said:
			
		

> It seems traits are taken only at first level and you get two of them




So although one can take "Tall", one cannot take "Tall", "Dark" and "Handsome".  Ah well.


----------



## JEL

The more I read about this setting, the more it just screams Lankhmar at me.  I can't wait for it to be out.


----------



## SixFootGnome

*More Previews!*

The Hunter Class

http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mpress_IL_excerpt2

and a Playtester Spotlight

http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mpress_IL_playtest1


----------



## Driddle

Narfellus said:
			
		

> I'm reading Storm of Swords right now by George RR Martin and last night i got to a crucial fight scene. ... 2 combatants: one a monstrous high level human fighter with full plate, gauntets, greaves, gorget, broadsword and shield, and TEN FOOT REACH. I'd say he moved at 15'-20'.
> 
> His opponent was a lightly armed high level human warrior with a small shield and a masterwork spear. He was fast on his feet, and kept dodging and taunting the whole time. Actually, the taunting served as a Bluff or Intimidate.




Finally! Fantasy novels that take care of the gaming translation problem for the reader!

I haven't found that book yet, so could you give some example of the text, perhaps an excerpt? I want to confirm the writer's ability. Like, _"Risking an attack of opportunity, the AC-5 human used his spear in an entirely unexpected manner. The coliseum manager, amused by his trickery, decided the monstrous opponent had been caught flatfooted. The unexpected manner with which the spear was used also pleased the mixed-race crowd to no end (although the 27 percent dwarven minority was less enthusiastic, as they are a dour folk anyway) ..."_


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

I likee the hunter a lot, though not the name so much.

The token system seems pretty interesting, and we got some hints of the deep system changes in the way the Hunter's hit points were set up.

Good Lord though, there is no way I would start a party up in this at anything higher than first, there's a world of information to absorb there.

Interesting that in the playtest spotlight the arcanist has a descriptor of necromancer.  The party apparently didn't find her that inconvenient.


----------



## sword-dancer

How  would, if theywould, classeslike the druid, cleric and Bard "transformed" in IL special, did they exist in the book?


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

sword-dancer said:
			
		

> How  would, if theywould, classeslike the druid, cleric and Bard "transformed" in IL special, did they exist in the book?




Those classes do not exist as part of the default Iron Lore package, no.

Druid and Cleric are a little too magical.  So I don't have any concept of how they might change if they were to be translated.

The Bard actually seems to come close to embodying some Iron Lore concepts as it is.  The most obvious one being that it gets bonuses based on performing mundane actions in combat and is fairly skill based. 

We've yet to see if there truly will be a Charisma based character in Iron Lore.  Though the Hunter certainly had some bardish elements in its buffing and there are rumors that the Thief class will be pretty quick witted and political.

I would have loved to have seen a Rhetorician class where you got tokens for talking that you could use to confuse the enemy with sophistry, but I suppose I will have to wait for the web enhancement.


----------



## Felon

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> We've yet to see if there truly will be a Charisma based character in Iron Lore.  Though the Hunter certainly had some bardish elements in its buffing and there are rumors that the Thief class will be pretty quick witted and political.




Well, as far as I can tell, Iron Lore is geared entirely around combat, even moreso than vanilla D&D. Skills are emphasized for their ability to facilitate combat stunts, and I don't think there will be a Charisma-based class like the bard who excels primarily as the face-man and inofrmation gatherer, and in combat is relegated to a support role. The Thief will probably have access to the Charisma skills, but if he's got Sneak Attack dice at every odd level like a rogue, then he'll still be a killing machine.


----------



## sword-dancer

Tolen Mar said:
			
		

> What happened to the tales about the dragon being a massive, clever, hard to kill monster?  Who in their right mind stands solo in a field and challenges a dragon?  Even in movies that star dragonslayers, it often takes a small army of them.  You have to find its lair, you have to find ways to ambush it and limit its abilities, and the whole time you are doing that, the beast is outthinking you.  Lets face it, dragons in DnD are very intelligent creatures, they arent going to sit around and let you trap it..



Éxactly thats`s what Sigurd/Siegfried did with Fafnir or Hurin with the forst Daraggon of Middleearth.
Lay an trap and stake the creature with his sword.

Dietrich von Bern and a few Heroes his Heroes , Arthurs Men (Iwein the Knight with the Lion for Example) don`t used traps they cutted it right down where it stands.

In one Fantasy Story(Dragondoom), the Heroes tricked the frostwyrm into the sunlight, The Ban of the Sun did the rest, in another(The Black Dragon) a few witchpoisoned Spears, an ambush and a battle axe did the job.
Conan killed a T-Rex with an poisoned Improvised Spear, or the victim of the dragon poisoned himself...

It`s a reason the creatures called dragons and not unbeatable, invincible Beings.

If it bleeds it could be killed.


----------



## sword-dancer

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> Druid and Cleric are a little too magical.  So I don't have any concept of how they might change if they were to be translated..



I´ve seen clerics and druids, spellcasting or not, in systems and settings who were much less magical, than I expected to see from IL.

I was interested in how their role(social, spiritual) was (if) transferred to Iron Lore, only sendary in their  Spell and other Powers.


----------



## sword-dancer

mearls said:
			
		

> There's two facets to this issue:
> 
> 1. The vast majority of monsters don't have DR, just like in D&D. So, a light, low-damage but many attacks fighter works pretty much the same in IL as in D&D..



Principial I don`t like if principal different ruleset   is used for PCs and NPCs.

For what it`s worth 



> 2. It makes sense to me that a warrior who uses a light, fast, agile weapon would strike with more accuracy than one with a big sword.



This is a very special  flavor, but realistically,No, not the last AFAIK, the skill with the weapon is what mattters, Nothing else, except of the defence of the enemy.




> I see a warrior with a rapier as picking out gaps between a foe's armor, or an archer taking aim and hitting the space between two plates. So, you can expect to see that in the rules



Yes, only that it`s at bes realistically near impossible with an rapier, with the possible exception of the face(Helm without visor) or the eyeslits.
The only story i read this kind of feat was in a Solomon Kane Story who this Master Bladesmen attacked the eye of his adversaries.
Realistically I would also hope to hit the plate at the perfect arc with enough power, and that at a very near range.

OTOH realistic is only a matter in RPGs who´ve this as an part of their product, by every other I´m perfect they meet their intended genre with fitting and good playable rules.

my Halfpenny.


----------



## Particle_Man

sword-dancer said:
			
		

> How  would, if theywould, classeslike the druid, cleric and Bard "transformed" in IL special, did they exist in the book?




Bard, Ranger --> Hunter.

Bard, Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Sorceror, any other primary spellcaster --> Arcanist.

Ranger, Fighter --> Archer

Barbarian --> Berserker (but I hope they change Rage so that you don't have to keep track of hit points that go away when the rage ends).

Fighter --> Armiger

Fighter, Assassin --> Executioner

Ranger, Fighter --> Harrier

Fighter --> Man-at-Arms

Fighter --> Weapon Master

Rogue --> Thief

Paladin --> Probably sucks to be you.  Possibly an Arcanist/Armiger multi-class?

Monk --> Probably sucks to be you.  Possibly Weapon Master (unarmed) or Harrier.  But maybe a web enhancement will create a "martial artist" class.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

In those terms a Paladin might very well be simply an Armiger with the appropriate traits, feats, and one or two levels of arcanist.


----------



## SixFootGnome

sword-dancer said:
			
		

> I was interested in how their role(social, spiritual) was (if) transferred to Iron Lore, only sendary in their  Spell and other Powers.




If you poke around for the next older batch of web teasers (links earlier in this thread, too!) you'll see a teaser on Traits.  Every character gets two to distinguish them, and they can be physical, mental, or background traits.  Among the sample traits is one that makes you a ranking member of the clergy, with certain training and benefits.

Honestly, I'd say that this handles their social role pretty sufficiently.  Anyone might be a member of the clergy, and that wouldn't necessarily translate to being a hospitalier or crusader or spellcaster or anything else specific aside from being a member of the clergy.

That said, if you weren't concerned with the spells part of magic, DnD classes are supposed to be convertable to IL.  You'd take away their ability to use *magic items* and then make certain stock conversions to go from the basic DnD format and assumptions to those of Iron Lore.  One of those would be to change their HD to look more like the system shown with the Hunter.  Saves also are supposed to change, but we have no clear idea how that works yet since the Hunter teaser omitted saves.  *That may mean that saves aren't directly/solely class-based*


----------



## SixFootGnome

*Class conversions*

I can't say that I entirely get the urge to do this class equivilency exercises.  I think that a paladin would probably be (pick class) plus (applicable traits) plus (roleplay).  That could mean that he's a berserker who flies into a righteous fury, or an armiger who defends the weak, or a member of the clergy of the Lord of Swords sworn to use his for the cause of light, or...

In other words, paladin in roleplay.  I wouldn't fixate on looking for an IL combination of classes to reconstitute the mechanical abilities of a DnD class.  You'll probably be better served by doing a conversion of the paladin class to IL using the guidelines for that which are supposed to be there if you can't come up with any better mechanical skeleton to put the paladin-roleplay onto.


----------



## A'koss

The next design diary is also up:

http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?designdiary_mmearls_13

I do like the idea that the need to fill a role in the group is largely unnecessary in IL and that even solo adventures are much more feasible (no need for magical healing/rogues for trapfinding...).

A'koss.


----------



## Felon

Yes, A'Koss, that's probably the best design element I've read about so far.

This is probably the worst:



> The character classes in Iron Lore all had to fill a few specific criteria. In considering how the game would work, I decided early on that I wanted classes that promoted action, adventure, and excitement. Iron Lore isn't a game about political intrigue, the unbearable angst of a tortured existence, or deep questions like, "What does it mean to be human?" Iron Lore is a game where, nine times out of ten, the correct answer (regardless of the question) is, "I shout a battle cry and charge into the fray!" If the question doesn't fit that answer, then maybe it's a question better served by a different game.




So what's the strategy here? Advertise how your game is shallow and that you aspire to provide us with the Jerry Bruckheimer version of an RPG? I won't say I hate every Bruckheimer movie I've ever seen, but I do want to see other movies when I go to the theatre.

Now combine it with it the following statement:



> A friend of mine pointed out something very interesting about Iron Lore, something that didn't really emerge until the game was done. In Iron Lore, the rules pretty much tell you how you are supposed to act. Armigers stand at the front of the fight and soak up attacks. Weapon masters pick out one worthy foe to duel to the death. Archers find high ground and snipe at the enemy. There is a very clear connection between your class and how you act in combat, a connection made even stronger by the use of tokens.




So, all you ever do is scream "boo-yah!" and move from one explosive, action-packed scene to the next--with nary a moment to slow down, think, or savor anything--and your role in every fight is pretty clearly scripted. How does this not amount to tediousness?

I'm still interested in the book, but I can't say I think it's being presented in a good light by its author.


----------



## SixFootGnome

*Rail riding, or excitement?*

I think that stripping out those choice paragraphs tends to emphasize one thing while removing the rest of what they're really talking about.  I also think that the difference between tedium and straightforward fun is largely in implementation, much like a rail shooter or a little java game.  Bejeweled is incredibly basic and yet exceptionally satisfying.  Tic-tac-toe is pointless and dull.  There are exceptionally fun 'rail shooter' sequences in some videogames, and then there are the majority that are tedious because there isn't enough for me to do.

I suspect that our characters can still plan how they're going to bust in there, or how to move through the dungeon to go find the evil warlord, and do downtime scenes where he tries to gain allies that will give him an advantage.  I don't think that any of these types of things are going to be threatened, because most of those are really the players and the DM sitting there and talking things out.  They aren't actually so rules-intensive.

If I reflect on the memorable scenes and experience from fantasy lit and the like stored in my brain, they significantly fall into two categories: those that are dramatic, and those in which the stakes are high and/or life and death.  Not having rules there for the first of those two doesn't threaten me much, because I've generally found the DnD rules for them to be more tedious and joy-killing than useful.

I'm actually relatively psyched for Mike to just give me the rules for the part of the game that needs good rules.  It won't stop me from having the other types of scenes that are primarily free-form.


----------



## Werther von G

Felon said:
			
		

> So what's the strategy here? Advertise how your game is shallow and that you aspire to provide us with the Jerry Bruckheimer version of an RPG?




I don't know if I'd go that far. I think that _Iron Lore_ is to the warrior what _Ars Magica_ is to the wizard: it's a celebration of all that makes that archetype fun.


----------



## sword-dancer

SixFootGnome said:
			
		

> If you poke around for the next older batch of web teasers (links earlier in this thread, too!) you'll see a teaser on Traits.  Every character gets two to distinguish them, and they can be physical, mental, or background traits.  Among the sample traits is one that makes you a ranking member of the clergy, with certain training and benefits.
> .



I didn`´t mean´t child of Faith,I mean`t something along a Character whose abilities included preaching, giving spiritual comfort and so on, whose "tokens" could help the faithful by bettering their morale, or influence them toprper behaviour.


> Honestly, I'd say that this handles their social role pretty sufficiently.  Anyone might be a member of the clergy, and that wouldn't necessarily translate to being a hospitalier or crusader or spellcaster or anything else specific aside from being a member of the clergy



Therefore i don`t think it handles their role not reallysufficient(AFAIK yet).
btw most Crusaders weren`t clergy/monk but lay members who took the cross, and the Order of the Hospitalitiers were an order of fighting monks(not priests, the priests were Non fighting members, who sayed mass etc) .

For a Paladin in spirit, Solomon Kane would be a good example, Executioner would be in IL his main class IMPOV.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Felon said:
			
		

> So, all you ever do is scream "boo-yah!" and move from one explosive, action-packed scene to the next--with nary a moment to slow down, think, or savor anything--and your role in every fight is pretty clearly scripted. How does this not amount to tediousness?
> 
> I'm still interested in the book, but I can't say I think it's being presented in a good light by its author.




Don't knock that too hard, on the one hand I think that the basic construction of classes in this manner opens up lots of possibilities like the morality minded token user someone posited a few posts above this one, but I think the real thing to do is to remember that you can do an amazing amount of storytelling off this basic narrative premise.

When I read it, admittedly only after reading this thread, my instant thought was, aha Fantasy super-heroes.

or Kung Fu or musicals actually.  It's that everything else is already subsumed into the character, the high attributes, the stunts, the huge number of skills, that it's the actual vocabulary of action not of skill or expertise - though from the looks of it those do count just as actions - that actually creates character.


----------



## ColonelHardisson

Werther von G said:
			
		

> I don't know if I'd go that far. I think that _Iron Lore_ is to the warrior what _Ars Magica_ is to the wizard: it's a celebration of all that makes that archetype fun.




Wow, I really like the analogy. Ars Magica is unabashedly a game where wizards are the Big Cheeses, and it certainly doesn't seem limited in scope or tedious. If Iron Lore can do for warriors what AM did for wizards, then it's goona be good. I look forward to it, especially considering Mearls is involved. The Book of Iron Might is one of my recent favorites.


----------



## A'koss

Felon said:
			
		

> So what's the strategy here? Advertise how your game is shallow and that you aspire to provide us with the Jerry Bruckheimer version of an RPG? I won't say I hate every Bruckheimer movie I've ever seen, but I do want to see other movies when I go to the theatre.



I kinda get the impression that the comment was more of a dig at other non-d20 games like Vampire. I mean, what does D&D offer here, rule-wise, that IL won't? IL still has all the same skills AFAIK and the rest is boiled down to RPing. I mean, if I want to gaze at my navel, I don't think we need _rules_ for that... 3e promoted itself originally as the "Kick down the door, kill the monsters and steal their stuff" game. There are no rules for political intruige, angst and various other forms of navel gazing in D&D but it doesn't seem to stop people from doing it anyway...

I know what you're saying, but in practical terms... what would you expect in the way of rules for this?



> So, all you ever do is scream "boo-yah!" and move from one explosive, action-packed scene to the next--with nary a moment to slow down, think, or savor anything--and your role in every fight is pretty clearly scripted. How does this not amount to tediousness?
> 
> I'm still interested in the book, but I can't say I think it's being presented in a good light by its author.



Is that a _rules _concern though? That seems more of a player/DM/campaign concern, if anything.

A'koss.


----------



## BryonD

Felon said:
			
		

> So, all you ever do is scream "boo-yah!" and move from one explosive, action-packed scene to the next--with nary a moment to slow down, think, or savor anything--and your role in every fight is pretty clearly scripted. How does this not amount to tediousness?
> 
> I'm still interested in the book, but I can't say I think it's being presented in a good light by its author.




I'm still very interested in the book.

But I don't see much choice but to agree with you completely on this.  To think that is supposed to be a selling point of the game is simply boggling.



I'm not concerned about the focus of combat over role play however.
To me the perfect RPG is a perfect conflict resolution system.

I don't need rules for how to role play.  I've known how to pretend to be a sword wielding warrior since I was about three years old.  So why should I pay for that?  But a good, consistent system for establishing the ability of my character within a setting, I'm always willing to pay cash for good product there.


----------



## BryonD

A'koss said:
			
		

> There are no rules for political intruige, angst and various other forms of navel gazing in D&D but it doesn't seem to stop people from doing it anyway...




exactly


----------



## Capellan

To settle the question once and for all: you _can_ run political intrigue with IL.  I did it


----------



## Felon

A'koss said:
			
		

> I know what you're saying, but in practical terms... what would you expect in the way of rules for this?




Well, first off, some of the last half-dozen or so posters need to go be contentious with Mike Mearls, not me. He expressly said that 9 times out of 10, a character's response to any situation will be to roll initiative and attack. Assertions that IL will be just as friendly to politics and intrigue as any RPG are in contrast to his statements. I didn't put those words into his mouth.

From what I've read so far I think a lot of it will have to do with the fact that D&D classes have some broad concepts inherent to them, while IL classes appear to be packaged exclusively based on their combat role. A ranger represents a broader concept than "archer". The paladin probably has more aspects to it than the armiger. And the differences between a ranger and paladin amount to a lot more than their fighting styles. 



> Is that a _rules _concern though? That seems more of a player/DM/campaign concern, if anything.




It is partially, and a lot of it has to do with the classes themselves. Is a bard every bit as likely to launch into bloodthirsty assault as a barbarian? The reality is, not every D&D class is supposed to kick ass. In fact, many aren't, due to limitations on hit points, AC, and offensive options that make them poorly-suited to the "boo yah" mentality. Bards, monks, rangers, and paladins are not classes folks play because they can consistently clean house--not that they can't in their own fashion, but copious amounts of ass-kicking is not what lies at their core. And even "owners" like wizards, sorcerers, and rogues have to give some thought to pressing the attack button.

But again, I think a lot of folks chose to ignore the closing remark of my previous post: 



> I'm still interested in the book, but I can't say I think it's being presented in a good light by its author.




So tell ya what, get him to recant or clarify a few statements, and I'll be the first to breathe a sigh of relief.


----------



## sword-dancer

Werther von G said:
			
		

> I don't know if I'd go that far. I think that _Iron Lore_ is to the warrior what _Ars Magica_ is to the wizard: it's a celebration of all that makes that archetype fun.



I see The Riddle of Steel filling that niche.


----------



## tetsujin28

There's a lot of signs that IL will be the TROS of D&D.


----------



## tetsujin28

Felon said:
			
		

> So, all you ever do is scream "boo-yah!" and move from one explosive, action-packed scene to the next--with nary a moment to slow down, think, or savor anything--and your role in every fight is pretty clearly scripted. How does this not amount to tediousness?
> 
> I'm still interested in the book, but I can't say I think it's being presented in a good light by its author.



This has got to be one of the silliest statements I've ever seen, here.


----------



## Felon

Feel free to elaborate on what you find so absurd. Might show a little more character than making a one-sentence snipe at someone you don't happen to agree with.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Felon said:
			
		

> So tell ya what, get him to recant or clarify a few statements, and I'll be the first to breathe a sigh of relief.




I don't know man, I think my post stands up pretty well to your original statements.  There might indeed be a better way for Mike to sell it, but I think you're being too harsh on it regardless.

Not to mention giving way too much credit to any DnD class other than the Bard for having a wealth of concepts at its disposal.  Paladins are pretty much only about kicking ass, in the name of the Lord mind you, but still kicking ass.  Also, for some reason, they're moderately good at stopping plagues from taking out your party.  Considering how much 'fluff' Hunters had in terms of using skills appropriately to their theme, if Iron Lore is going to give Archers with similar 'concept' abilities I'm going to be a lot happier with the consistency of those concepts and wealth of options in feats and skills than I'm going to be with the Paladin's throw away miracle.  I suppose we'll get some data for that test next week with the Archer's sneak preview, though I don't think the experiment will be finally concluded till we see the structure of the skill and feat system.

Also, no matter how artfully it's used, any sentence with the phrase 'Boo-yah' in it is automatically sillier than somewhere around 90% of the sentences ever phrased in English.  Even that last sentence qualifies.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Felon said:
			
		

> Feel free to elaborate on what you find so absurd. Might show a little more character than making a one-sentence snipe at someone you don't happen to agree with.





It's Tetsujin28, he's already got character tokens to burn and I'm pretty certain that his one sentence snarks are his way of gaining one or two in the middle of round to be followed by a devastating forum combo.


----------



## Particle_Man

If all skills are available to all players (no cross-class stuff), including knowledge skills, diplomacy and other "interaction" skills, etc., doesn't that automatically make IL more role-play friendly than D&D?  I could easily see a "swashbuckling" campaign where characters seduce the noble's heir, find out the cardinal's evil plan, convince the mob of the innocence of the doomed prisoner, and *then* do the ass-kicking.  What about IL makes any of that harder than regular D&D?


----------



## Michael Tree

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> If all skills are available to all players (no cross-class stuff), including knowledge skills, diplomacy and other "interaction" skills, etc., doesn't that automatically make IL more role-play friendly than D&D?  I could easily see a "swashbuckling" campaign where characters seduce the noble's heir, find out the cardinal's evil plan, convince the mob of the innocence of the doomed prisoner, and *then* do the ass-kicking.  What about IL makes any of that harder than regular D&D?



It would seem so.  Judging from the previews, the concept of "class favored skills" works differently in IL than the way D&D's class and cross-class distinction works.  It seems that each IL class gets access to a number of "Skill Groups", and can buy them for a skill point per rank in the entire group..  Other skills not included in their groups can be bought at one skill point per rank in the skill. 

Or at least that's how I hope the skills system works.   

So yes, there's tons of potential for swashbucling intrigue, Vlad Taltos-esque assassination and conflict, prehistorical/postapocalyptic barbarian survival, medieval crusades, or any other sort of game heavy in combat.


----------



## A'koss

Felon said:
			
		

> Well, first off, some of the last half-dozen or so posters need to go be contentious with Mike Mearls, not me. He expressly said that 9 times out of 10, a character's response to any situation will be to roll initiative and attack. Assertions that IL will be just as friendly to politics and intrigue as any RPG are in contrast to his statements. I didn't put those words into his mouth.



Fair enough Felon, if you're looking for a game which is _rules-heavy_ on politics and intruigue I'm certain Iron Lore won't be for you. I don't any class on this list with the names "Diplomat" or "Existentialist". But then again, neither does D&D... 

Could Mike's marketing skills be better? Almost certainly. For myself, I want the rules to run a cinematic sword & sorcery game. Politics and intrigue I can do on my own...



> From what I've read so far I think a lot of it will have to do with the fact that D&D classes have some broad concepts inherent to them, while IL classes appear to be packaged exclusively based on their combat role. A ranger represents a broader concept than "archer". The paladin probably has more aspects to it than the armiger. And the differences between a ranger and paladin amount to a lot more than their fighting styles.



Partial agreement. Definitely when you see a class called "The Archer" that seems like an extremely narrowly focused role. Will every archer effectively be cookie-cutter copies of one another? That's a good question, but I doubt it's one we'll be able to answer until we get the book in our hands. 

On the other hand, going by the core D&D books, how much conceptual latitude do you have playing a paladin or ranger? In game terms - not much. Take 10 paladins or rangers at 10th level and what differences will you see, game-wise?



> It is partially, and a lot of it has to do with the classes themselves. Is a bard every bit as likely to launch into bloodthirsty assault as a barbarian? The reality is, not every D&D class is supposed to kick ass. In fact, many aren't, due to limitations on hit points, AC, and offensive options that make them poorly-suited to the "boo yah" mentality. Bards, monks, rangers, and paladins are not classes folks play because they can consistently clean house--not that they can't in their own fashion, but copious amounts of ass-kicking is not what lies at their core. And even "owners" like wizards, sorcerers, and rogues have to give some thought to pressing the attack button.



However, you're really reaching on this one. How is this different from what we've heard about the Thief, Archer or Arcanist? The Hunter isn't what I'd call an ass-kicker either. But Rangers and Paladins are clearly specialist house cleaners - they kill their chosen foes better than anyone else. 

I think having every class be able to kick ass when in their own element is a laudible goal, not one to rail on.



> So tell ya what, get him to recant or clarify a few statements, and I'll be the first to breathe a sigh of relief.





			
				Capellan said:
			
		

> To settle the question once and for all: you _can_ run political intrigue with IL. I did it



 As they say... The proof is in the _tasting_. 

A'koss.


----------



## A'koss

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> If all skills are available to all players (no cross-class stuff), including knowledge skills, diplomacy and other "interaction" skills, etc., doesn't that automatically make IL more role-play friendly than D&D? I could easily see a "swashbuckling" campaign where characters seduce the noble's heir, find out the cardinal's evil plan, convince the mob of the innocence of the doomed prisoner, and *then* do the ass-kicking. What about IL makes any of that harder than regular D&D?



Exactly. Good point on the skill use in IL, it looks like characters can be more well-rounded in this regard than the standard D&D fighter-types. It certainly doesn't hurt that skills will also have expanded combat uses as well...  



			
				Michael Tree said:
			
		

> It would seem so. Judging from the previews, the concept of "class favored skills" works differently in IL than the way D&D's class and cross-class distinction works. It seems that each IL class gets access to a number of "Skill Groups", and can buy them for a skill point per rank in the entire group.. Other skills not included in their groups can be bought at one skill point per rank in the skill.
> 
> Or at least that's how I hope the skills system works.



Yeah, that looks like how it works and it's a pretty clever idea methinks, at least on the surface. I wonder if putting ranks into a skill group will have any other benefits.

A'koss.


----------



## sword-dancer

A'koss said:
			
		

> Fair enough Felon, if you're looking for a game which is _rules-heavy_ on politics and intruigue I'm certain Iron Lore won't be for you. I don't any class on this list with the names "Diplomat" or "Existentialist". But then again, neither does D&D...
> .



But I would prefer to`ve the abilities PC and NPC wise toplay this without taking them out of the sleeve.


----------



## Particle_Man

Well, we can wait and see what the Thief and the Arcanist have besides sneak attack and magic, respectively.  That could be where the roleplay crunch (is that a contradiction in terms? oh well) goes, class-wise.


----------



## Werther von G

sword-dancer said:
			
		

> I see The Riddle of Steel filling that niche.




Could be; I've only skimmed TRoS, although it's high on my list to things to investigate. Does it have sub-groups that fill the role that classes do in D&D or Hermetic Houses do in Ars Magica?


----------



## Felon

A'koss said:
			
		

> Partial agreement. Definitely when you see a class called "The Archer" that seems like an extremely narrowly focused role. Will every archer effectively be cookie-cutter copies of one another? That's a good question, but I doubt it's one we'll be able to answer until we get the book in our hands.




I've got a lot of hope riding on traits, particularly background traits. 



> How is this different from what we've heard about the Thief, Archer or Arcanist? The Hunter isn't what I'd call an ass-kicker either. But Rangers and Paladins are clearly specialist house cleaners - they kill their chosen foes better than anyone else.




What have you heard about the thief, archer, or arcanist? Do they conflict with or expand upon Mearls' "9-out-10" assertion, or the "thou shalt all kick ass" one? 

Yes, paladins and rangers are speicalist ass-kickers, and I'm not deriding ass-kicking of course. It just isn't the end-all-be-all of playing an RPG. Having had rangers and paladins in my party has often meant that we _don't_ just roll initiative at the first opportunity. Just last night we had an encounter where Wild Empathy was used to manage an encounter intelligently so we didn't have to kill anything at that particular moment. And needless to say, a paladin is all about necessary-and-appropriate force. 

I don't recall using words like "politics" or "intrigue". Those are words that were put in my mouth, I suppose because people didn't understand what I was getting at (me being so silly and all). In an RPG, I think it's important that action scenes are actually the culmination of something, a sort of "quality over quantity" approach. Think of movies like the LotR volumes or the Kill Bill volumes. The battle scenes are tremendous, but there are actually relatively few of them in each movie. What really makes them great is that there's real tension right up to the point that initiative is rolled.

If you can't meet me halfway in seeing what I'm talking about at this point, then I guess we can leave this unresolved. This thread is becoming a real time-sink.  :\ 



			
				Michael Tree said:
			
		

> It would seem so.  Judging from the previews, the concept of "class favored skills" works differently in IL than the way D&D's class and cross-class distinction works.  It seems that each IL class gets access to a number of "Skill Groups", and can buy them for a skill point per rank in the entire group..  Other skills not included in their groups can be bought at one skill point per rank in the skill.




Looks to me like they're just categorized for simplicity's sake. You don't have to wonder why a class gets Listen as a class skill but not Spot (e.g. barbarian), or why one class gets Intimidate as a class skill while another "bad-attitude" class doesn't. I very much hope one skill point doesn't buy a rank in every skill in a given group, unless the number of skill points awarded per class is seriously reined-in. And if the Hunter's any indication, that's not the case (he gets way more skill points than he does categories).


----------



## Particle_Man

I don't mind the extra skill points.  Remember, these characters have to be badass without any magical skill boosting items a la regular D&D, so more skill points would seem to be in order.  Even then, they will fall behind, as in regular D&D one can boost one's "specialty" skills insanely high using magic, and the IL guys likely won't get that, but get "Breadth" instead of "depth" when it comes to skills.


----------



## Felon

Would you want a system where characters just got one rank in every skill in the book? Probably not. Now, why not? Because characters would lack definition? Because no character would excel over another in any department? There are good reasons why you don't want the typical character co-opting two-dozen out of the three-dozen or so skills available.



> Remember, these characters have to be badass without any magical skill boosting items a la regular D&D, so more skill points would seem to be in order.




D&D's skill point allotment does a pretty good job of balancing the need to give a class enough class skills and skill points to flesh out a character against the need to keep one character from fielding more than his share (especially if the class is not one of the primary skill-oriented classes). I don't see why a hunter needs more skill ranks than, say, a ranger or rogue, just because he doesn't have magic items. More importantly, I would hate to see two hunters winding up having identical ranks in every skill in the Athletics, Perception, Stealth, and Wilderness Lore groups just because they get 6 + INT mod/level and there are only four groups.



> Even then, they will fall behind, as in regular D&D one can boost one's "specialty" skills insanely high using magic, and the IL guys likely won't get that, but get "Breadth" instead of "depth" when it comes to skills.




EDIT--But increasing quantity does not compensate for lack of quality. Now, characters without magic items do need more ways to get mileage out of a skill. The way Jump works, for instance, you're not going to Crouching Tiger leaps without some major design concessions. But again, giving characters more ranks in other skills doesn't resolve that.


----------



## A'koss

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Well, we can wait and see what the Thief and the Arcanist have besides sneak attack and magic, respectively. That could be where the roleplay crunch (is that a contradiction in terms? oh well) goes, class-wise.



Well, (and Felon should take note of this), from what we've heard the thief is supposed to be the characters with the "social graces & charm". Another quote, "A high level thief can talk someone into almost anything with the right skills and feats." 

As for the Arcanist, "They master a variety of useful lore and knowledge, and having a reputation for consulting with spirits or unleashing the fires of hell can prove useful in social situations. Much of the time, an arcanist can use the threat of a spell more effectively than an actual incantation."



> I don't mind the extra skill points. Remember, these characters have to be badass without any magical skill boosting items a la regular D&D, so more skill points would seem to be in order.



I think it probably has as much to do with the stunt system and expanded uses as this. From the text, it seems that the Hunter has more skill points and better access than most of the other classes. And seeing how the feat system is structured, I wonder if some classes will have better access to skill bolstering feats than others.

A'koss.


----------



## bolen

how well could this product interface into Mongoose's conan?


----------



## Andor

*Skill groups*



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> D&D's skill point allotment does a pretty good job of balancing the need to give a class enough class skills and skill points to flesh out a character against the need to keep one character from fielding more than his share (especially if the class is not one of the primary skill-oriented classes). I don't see why a hunter needs more skill ranks than, say, a ranger or rogue, just because he doesn't have magic items. More importantly, I would hate to see two hunters winding up having identical ranks in every skill in the Athletics, Perception, Stealth, and Wilderness Lore groups just because they get 6 + INT mod/level and there are only four groups.




I think DnD does a miserable job of giving you enough skill points to acomplish what your character needs to, and flesh out your character. Consider for a moment the skills posessed by a roman centurion, and then figure out how many skill points that is in DnD. A fighter needs to be what level to be that competent?

Also consider what skills are likely to be in the perception skill group. Spot, Listen, maybe search. Athletics? Climb, jump, swim. Stealth? Hide, move silently. 

So each skill group is likely to encompass 2 or 3 skills. This might seem like a large multiplication of skill points, but what it really does is remove the penalty associated with picking a skill that only works well when paired up with it's companion skill. E.G. Hide and Move silently. Since you never take one without the other, it is really a single skill that costs double points. What Iron Lore is doing is removing that penalty for select classes. So sneaky types can spend one skill point to get hide AND move silenty, whereas unsneaky characters (My money is on the armigier) do not, and must continue to pay the penalty if they want to try to sneak. 

Granting other skills are not quite as requisite a pairing as hide and move silently, but spot and listen are almost always taken as a pair, and the physical skills (climb, jump, swim, balance) are so rarely used that is seems a mere kindness to give them a group rate.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

bolen said:
			
		

> how well could this product interface into Mongoose's conan?




Probably pretty well.  In many ways I think Conan's world information would be perfect for the system and probably superior to Conan's native system.  The one exception might be the magic system in Conan which is pretty amazingly tailor made to what you see in the books, even if the magic using class itself isn't altogether that awesome as a result.

From what I've seen I think the only class you might have to maintain from Conan or adapt would be the Nomad.  But I think making a riding, charging, and wheeling class for Iron Lore would be pretty dang nifty.

The only general issue I see is that Conan's classes and monsters aren't balanced against each other too finely and Iron Lore's are so I don't know that you would be able to maintain that feel as easilly, but you could probably figure it out eventually and you would certainly have more options in that regard than Conan gives you right out of the box.


----------



## SteveC

Interesting discussion. It seems to me from what we've been shown that IL is Mike's attempt to bring high-action *Feng-Shui esque* combat to D20. That's an idea that appeals to me a lot, but it will require some fundamental shifts in the D&D mindset. From what we've seen, it looks like Mike is trying to make characters more versitile and give them abilities that would typically be available only with magic items, and, again, that's a major shift in the mindset of the game.

Here's an example: the Hunter's ability to give characters bonuses to hit or negate cover involves the players describing things about the gameworld that are typically left up to the gm. "Look to your left, there's a break in the wall where you can shoot through" is par for the course in a game like *feng shui*. In fact, not saying things like that actually gives your character a penalty in combat! In typical D&D terms, the GM is well within his rights to say "no, actually there's nothing there" in response to that comment, or they might also say, "well there might be something there, but you need to take a standard action to make a search check to find it."

I think the big issue for whether or not you're going to like Iron Lore is whether or not you like more of the free-wheeling off-the-cuffness of some of the more cinematic games.

I've also seen a number of comments that this style of play leads to an over-emphasis on combat. That may be so, but if you look at it in context of the stories that use these sorts of characters, the good ones are every bit as much about character as they are about combat. Look at *The Killer*. Chow Yun Fat is playing an archer in Iron Lore terms, but so much of the film is about what his skills and choices in life bring him to. Sure he's a killer, but some of the most important scenes in the movie are about the repurcussions that come out of that fact. I guess what I'm saying is that if Iron Lore lets me tell some fast-paced exciting stories about combat, I'll leave it up to myself to tie them together in ways that make it all mean something.

If none of that sounds like fun to you, perhaps Iron Lore isn't the game for you.

--Steve


----------



## tetsujin28

Felon said:
			
		

> Feel free to elaborate on what you find so absurd. Might show a little more character than making a one-sentence snipe at someone you don't happen to agree with.



Because honestly, who cares if you think the ad copy is "juvenile" and IL would lead to "tedious" gaming? That's only your opinion. There are plenty of people (probably the majority of the non-internet "gaming elite") to whom boo-yah fights are the bee's knees. Just look at the popularity of Exalted, or the fact that, no matter how much internet gamers whine and moan about the "back to the dungeon" approach, that approach _sells_. Now I don't think that IL is "back to the dungeon", but it definitely appears to be "back to blood-and-guts adventuring".

If it's not a genre for you, goody. Exercise your mighty powers of capitalism, and don't buy it. In the meantime, the rest of us will be enjoying our juvenile boo-yah blood-and-guts adventuring fantasies.


----------



## tetsujin28

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> It's Tetsujin28, he's already got character tokens to burn and I'm pretty certain that his one sentence snarks are his way of gaining one or two in the middle of round to be followed by a devastating forum combo.



I love the token rules, as I've said before


----------



## tetsujin28

Werther von G said:
			
		

> Could be; I've only skimmed TRoS, although it's high on my list to things to investigate. Does it have sub-groups that fill the role that classes do in D&D or Hermetic Houses do in Ars Magica?



Not really. It's a category-allocating, points-distributing game. You prioritize things like Status, Attributes, Skills, Magic, &c in a range from A-F. This then gives you X points to spend on the abilities related to that category. It has no "classes" or "houses", as such.


----------



## Felon

tetsujin28 said:
			
		

> Because honestly, who cares if you think the ad copy is "juvenile" and IL would lead to "tedious" gaming? That's only your opinion.
> 
> (Snip the rest of the obnoxious idiotic inflammatory comments)




To paraphrase you: this has got to be one of the silliest statements I've ever seen here.

Yes, it is just an opinion. I don't know what you think a messageboard is for, but sharing opinion's is pretty much it. Some us actually make supportive statements and embark on discussions, but I guess when you don't agree with somebody this snarky crap is the best you can manage.


----------



## tetsujin28

Wah.

See, here we all are, discussing IL. And you seem to be only able to concentrate on how it doesn't fit your opinion of TRUE ROLEPLAYING (tm). To which might be added: OK. We get it. You don't like it.

Why stick around in a thread about a game that seems to stick in your craw so much?


----------



## Felon

tetsujin28 said:
			
		

> Wah. See, here we all are, discussing IL. And you seem to be only able to concentrate on how it doesn't fit your opinion of TRUE ROLEPLAYING.To which might be added: OK. We get it. You don't like it.




What's your point? I'm discussing IL too, and if you actually read my posts before cranking up the flamethrower, you'd have noticed I'm actually quite excited about it too, just concerned from some of Mearls' recent comments that it will be about as deep as a first-person shooter. 

And yeah, that's a worthwhile concern for some folks. If you actually would care to dispute something, then by all means do that. That's the way ENWorld works. You want to is inflame people and make one-sentence snipes, go troll rpg.net. They eat that stuff up.



> Why stick around in a thread about a game that seems to stick in your craw so much?




Threads are not just for gushing. I hope IL lives up to my expectations. I am concerned it may not. That spawned some discussion that some people were interested enough to issue rebuttals to. That's how grown-up conversations work, ideally.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Felon said:
			
		

> Threads are not just for gushing. I hope IL lives up to my expectations. I am concerned it may not. That spawned some discussion that some people were interested enough to issue rebuttals to. That's how grown-up conversations work, ideally.




Sometimes these 'grown-up' conversations about fantasy role-playing games also have a sizable component of taking jabs with good humor and consideration.  Not harping, just sayin.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Tesujin and Felon:

< moderator hat on >

Please leave each other alone, and lets get back to talking about Iron Lore rather than each other, OK?

</ moderator hat off >

Cheers


----------



## mhacdebhandia

I will quote Mike Mearls from his *LiveJournal*http://www.livejournal.com/users/mearls/14412.html almost precisely two years ago, in a manner which I hope will answer the questions about the way he's presenting his game:



> Simply put, the more you do to drive away people who won't like your game's play style, the better your design will function.
> 
> It's a very simple idea. If I'm designing a car, I should design it with people who want to drive in mind. I don't ask people who hate cars what I can do to make my car more appealing to them. The same thing goes for all aspects of building an RPG. Pick your target play style, then build rules to support that . . .
> 
> . . . Character creation should ram certain options down players' throats, whether they like it or not. If you pick the right options to force on people, the only folks who won't like your design are the ones who wouldn't like it anyway.



I happen to strongly agree with him. I don't think _Iron Lore_ should make any rules concessions to those interested in playing a game of political intrigue, because that's not what the game is for.

I think specific trumps generic every time.


----------



## Felon

Andor said:
			
		

> I think DnD does a miserable job of giving you enough skill points to acomplish what your character needs to, and flesh out your character. Consider for a moment the skills posessed by a roman centurion, and then figure out how many skill points that is in DnD. A fighter needs to be what level to be that competent?




I don't know. What skills are needed, how many ranks, and perhaps most importantly, how smart is the centurion? I often find it odd that folks will resent the notion that a fighter needs to be exceptionally smart to be exceptionally skilled. 



> Also consider what skills are likely to be in the perception skill group. Spot, Listen, maybe search. Athletics? Climb, jump, swim. Stealth? Hide, move silently....Granting other skills are not quite as requisite a pairing as hide and move silently, but spot and listen are almost always taken as a pair, and the physical skills (climb, jump, swim, balance) are so rarely used that is seems a mere kindness to give them a group rate.




This is a very good point. I find myself trying to subtly hint to a couple of DM's that my characters are basically wasting points on Listen because they seem to prefer Spot hecks. 

If 6 points/level represents the extreme end of skill point allotment, and "groups" are typically just a couple of skills, I could go for that.


----------



## Particle_Man

One point brought up earlier in the thread:

We don't see a "calvary" class a la Nomad in Conan.  Would this be a good idea?  I think the trouble is that Calvary, unlike the others has the problem of not being able to use their powers a lot of the time (ie., in any area in which they cannot bring their horse) and so would need something to compensate, but then if they had that something to compensate, would be overpowered at the time that they *do* have their horse with them.


----------



## Azgulor

bolen said:
			
		

> how well could this product interface into Mongoose's conan?




This was the first thing I thought of when I first heard and read about Iron Lore.  In one of the posts on Malhavoc's boards, this question came up.  If I remember correctly, Mearls responded that the two could be combined.  As to how seamlessly, I guess we'll have to wait and see.  

Azgulor


----------



## Werther von G

tetsujin28 said:
			
		

> Not really. It's a category-allocating, points-distributing game. You prioritize things like Status, Attributes, Skills, Magic, &c in a range from A-F. This then gives you X points to spend on the abilities related to that category. It has no "classes" or "houses", as such.




Ah! So, sort of like *Shadowrun* then? I can understand that. (Although Shadowrun provides, through its templates, some class-like options.)


----------



## A'koss

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> One point brought up earlier in the thread:
> 
> We don't see a "calvary" class a la Nomad in Conan. Would this be a good idea? I think the trouble is that Calvary, unlike the others has the problem of not being able to use their powers a lot of the time (ie., in any area in which they cannot bring their horse) and so would need something to compensate, but then if they had that something to compensate, would be overpowered at the time that they *do* have their horse with them.



I think riding ability is best handled by skills, feats & stunts (or a Prestige Class?) for that exact reason. Althought a neat idea, IL characters seem to designed so you can "turn it on" in nearly every encounter. 

And on a slightly different tangent, I think the best news I got out of the last design diary was that the Weapon Master class is shaping up to the Duelist class, v2.0.  As I touched upon earlier in this thread, the 1st ed. Duelist was (conceptually) my _all-time_ favorite D&D class and I was hoping to be able to replicate that style in IL. And for those too young to remember , the Duelist was a lightly armored, quasi-assassin, single-combat specialist that appeared as an "NPC" class in Best of Dragon Vol. II, I think. 

It's news like that which pushes me further and further away from the DM chair. This is the game I want to _*play*_ in.

A'koss.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> One point brought up earlier in the thread:
> 
> We don't see a "calvary" class a la Nomad in Conan.  Would this be a good idea?  I think the trouble is that Calvary, unlike the others has the problem of not being able to use their powers a lot of the time (ie., in any area in which they cannot bring their horse) and so would need something to compensate, but then if they had that something to compensate, would be overpowered at the time that they *do* have their horse with them.




I think it's very possible to do, Conan's Nomad actually does it very well in that all of the class's abilities work very well with horses, bonuses to charging, landscapes, certain weapons and mobility are the classes forte, but that doesn't mean that without the horse the abilities are useless.  Well, aside from horse specific abilities that give you bonuses on taking care of and choosing horses but I don't really think those are game unbalancing since the whole party is likely to benefit from those when the party has horses.

There are two other ways I think you can do the class:

first, is a sort of beastmaster basic concept.  That way even when you can't bring a horse into a situation you still gain the horse related to bonuses to animals that you can bring into the situation.  This may seem like a twinky concept but I submit that's only because of the movie fantasy archetypes for this stretch from hawking nobles to dog keeping peasants to Hagrid.

Second, is a knight.  That is someone who's real skill is impressing the world with his nobility, both as a status and virtue.  To my mind this is innately related to riding horses in combat as establishing that sort of hierarchical relationship is pretty much intrinsic to convincing a horse to take you into combat and that basic approach is far from useless in non-horse situations.

Now, I can easilly see ways of taking anyone of these three concepts into the Iron Lore system and fitting them into what we know of the class structure, and I think any one of them would rock terrificly, particularly the knight since you could open up the whole virtue in combat based ethos that people seem to be picking up, but I think that Iron Lore would probably let you do this another way:

through racial traits.

That is if you think of yourself as a Pirate or a Nomad I don't think Mearls is going to make you waste feats to play your concept.  One of the defining traits of Iron Lore as of now is that you don't wait to play your concept you play it right out of the box.  You wanna necromancer, you play a first level arcanist necromancer, or at least a fourth level.  You wanna play an assassin you pick up an Executioner with the City Rat trait.  Templar? Armiger with Man of Faith.  

And I think we are going to see that right out of the box: traits for pirates and nomads and knights all the basic meta-archetypes.  We pretty much see that right now with the Child of Faith, City Rat, and the various Barbarian traits Mike name dropped in the picture challenge earlier in this thread.

Now that said, I'm certain there will be feats dealing with combat from horseback, how could there not be, but that's always been true and never really been what defined a nomad versus say an Archer who could ride anyway.


----------



## Felon

Well, there are all kinds of mounted combatants after all. Archers are an obvious choice for light cav, and harriers may be as well if they can fire more bowshots in a round than anyone else. Armigers and executioners would be effective as different components of heavy cavalry.

What do you really need to be effective cavalry besides certain feats, Ride skill, and maybe some Handle Animal.


----------



## sword-dancer

Werther von G said:
			
		

> Could be; I've only skimmed TRoS, although it's high on my list to things to investigate. Does it have sub-groups that fill the role that classes do in D&D or Hermetic Houses do in Ars Magica?



No, it´s a classless system, where you buy your character together with a priority ressources, and then add to them if fitting your spritual Attributes.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Felon said:
			
		

> Well, there are all kinds of mounted combatants after all. Archers are an obvious choice for light cav, and harriers may be as well if they can fire more bowshots in a round than anyone else. Armigers and executioners would be effective as different components of heavy cavalry.
> 
> What do you really need to be effective cavalry besides certain feats, Ride skill, and maybe some Handle Animal.




Well, there's no denying effective mounted combatants, but there's a difference between that and a nomad or a knight, where mounted is the defining initial element.

So yeah, give em armiger, archer, or executioner but recognize there is room for someone who is a great horseman and that *is* what they do.


----------



## Felon

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> So yeah, give em armiger, archer, or executioner but recognize there is room for someone who is a great horseman and that *is* what they do.




The problem is, there often isn't "room". Having a character essentially defined by a halft-ton of equipment he has to lug around lacks a certain element of pragmatism. 

And if you bear in mind that a horse is external to the character, and what IL's overall goal is, it's not surprising that we don't see a horseman class.


----------



## SixFootGnome

*Nomad or Knight*

I'd incline to say that being rich and deftly navigating feudal obligations would be an equally valid description of what defines a knight, and having no permanent dwelling as defining for a nomad.  I understand what you're trying to say about there being a 'mounted combat' mystique, but I don't feel that it is truly central to either of those more than it is for someone else who elects to do so.  Rather, there is just this nebulous concept of mounted combat, which I think could be adequately expressed through feats and skills rather than through a dedicated class.

That isn't to say that feats and skills rather than a dedicated class is a better solution save only that it prevents the sticky issue of balancing someone whose primary class ability is much easier to interfere with than is typical.

I'm hoping that the man-at-arms gets diverse mastery options and more than IL-standard feats.  Then some of those can be set aside to do riding while still having a normal number of feats for normal combat from-the-saddle.  That's about all the enablement that I really see as needful.  The core problem with mounted combat normally is that in order to get the good feats for it the character has to otherwise put himself *way behind* most other characters in terms of his dismounted capabilities.  If the man-at-arms is truly capable as a generalist, he may be able to choose mounted combat as one area of skill without completely hosing himself otherwise.


----------



## A'koss

*Regarding Skill Groups in IL.*

I was reading over some of the comments Mike made on the Malhavoc board in response to one poster who asked why Move Silently and Hide in Shadows were separate skills and not combined as in AE. He said something to the effect that "This will all become clear with Skill Groups." It made me wonder if there are other benefits to Skill Groups other that just having related skills in one place for cheap ranks. Perhaps Skill Groups allow you to combine the skills in the group in ways you couldn't if you just cherry-picked them. Skill Group = single skill roll?

Reading too much into it?

A'koss.


----------



## Felon

I think that lends credence to the supposition that skill groups will allow a character to buy ranks in multiple skills with a single skill point, assuming the class grants that skill group.

Of course, if cross-class skills are eliminated, we may see an inundation of tumbling acrobats. Guess that's not a problem, unless you aspire to be the party's resident acrobat.


----------



## A'koss

Felon said:
			
		

> Of course, if cross-class skills are eliminated, we may see an inundation of tumbling acrobats. Guess that's not a problem, unless you aspire to be the party's resident acrobat.



A little early to tell methinks. There could very well be classes specifically geared towards the acrobatic style of fighting - Harrier perhaps? Thief?

I also noticed that the Hunter doesn't have class abilities at most of his even levels. That might give us a clue as to how many feats IL characters get - 1 @ 1st level and every 2nd level thereafter? That way you roughly get one new ability every level, whether class or feat. We'll see what if the Archer holds true to this pattern...

A'koss.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

SixFootGnome said:
			
		

> I'd incline to say that being rich and deftly navigating feudal obligations would be an equally valid description of what defines a knight, and having no permanent dwelling as defining for a nomad.  I understand what you're trying to say about there being a 'mounted combat' mystique, but I don't feel that it is truly central to either of those more than it is for someone else who elects to do so.  Rather, there is just this nebulous concept of mounted combat, which I think could be adequately expressed through feats and skills rather than through a dedicated class.
> 
> That isn't to say that feats and skills rather than a dedicated class is a better solution save only that it prevents the sticky issue of balancing someone whose primary class ability is much easier to interfere with than is typical.
> 
> I'm hoping that the man-at-arms gets diverse mastery options and more than IL-standard feats.  Then some of those can be set aside to do riding while still having a normal number of feats for normal combat from-the-saddle.  That's about all the enablement that I really see as needful.  The core problem with mounted combat normally is that in order to get the good feats for it the character has to otherwise put himself *way behind* most other characters in terms of his dismounted capabilities.  If the man-at-arms is truly capable as a generalist, he may be able to choose mounted combat as one area of skill without completely hosing himself otherwise.




Hmm, I'd say that being rich and deftly navigating feudal obligations is in many ways distinctly un-knightlike, but I'll give you much of the rest.

It's just that there is a mystique that I think DnD is particularly silly about not exploring.  It's not that you can't do it right through feats and traits, but that there is a level of rightness that you miss.  I think that in many ways is rather silly about punishing people who want to ride a horse as a stick, it's true of unarmed fighters as well, and then giving them huge benefits otherwise.  It's not a terrible system, but it does lead to the situation you describe above.

I don't think it has to be that way.  I think that if you are good at riding a horse and combat from the top of a horse it will give you plenty of lessons that will also serve you well when you aren't riding a horse.

Were I to put it in the terms that IL used for its other classes, and let's call this class the Cavalier for the moment:

*Cavalier:* Drawing on charisma, endurance, and perfect timing the cavalier is an unmatched horseman.  His charges hit with devastating power.  If a foe unmounts him, he calls upon his durability and matchless courage to carry him through the fray. 

It certainly fits the overall 'theory' of the game particularly if it's going to include item dependent classes like the archer and, well, everyone except for the theoretical unarmed combat focused weapon master.

Not to say that I don't recognize the difference between the size of a horse and most other mundane equipment, but it's a martial archetype that I think is under-used in the gaming system.  To carry over from another model I mentioned earlier:
*
Beastmaster*:  While other warriors rely on steel and art, the beastmaster uses his domineering personality to craft weapons from his animal companions and to crush the spirit of his foes.  A master of horse, hound, and hawk, the beastmaster harnesses the human spirit as a noble leader or demoralizing sadist. 

As I said I think there are a number of different ways to do this, but I don't really think of this as a criticism of Iron Lore as a backhanded bit of praise.  I've rarely seen a system that made me want to rectify this problem in DnD as much as this has.  Well, AE did it pretty well with the Totem Warrior, though it had that AE mystic touch and lacked a mount oriented version.

On a complete and total side note.  Trying to sum up classes in the manner of that design diary is tremendous hoot.  I highly recommend it.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

On a totally different note, looking over the original 8 page preview in light of the new information is pretty interesting.

Particularly the feat.  The mastery system makes a lot more sense, and makes Hunters look dang scary if they get tactical feats with the amazing powers and progression of the Vorpal Hurricane feat they have in the preview.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Archer class is now up on the Malhavoc site. Very interesting.


----------



## Andor

Wow. A bunch of speculation confirmed there:

You do get a feat every even level. 

BAB progression can exceed 1 per level. 

Some interesting new stuff too: 

Split BAB progression.

Some bows have a cap on possible bonus damage.

A token pool specific to a single foe, which resets when you switch targets. Makes me wonder if the Waepon Master works the same way.

A token powered sneak attack (effectively).

A lot of the projectile feats grant additional attacks.

The archer should get a 5th iterative ranged attack at 17th level but doesn't. This could be a system cap at 4 iterative attacks or iterative attack progression could vary by class.

Nifty.


----------



## Felon

Here's the URL:

http://www.malhavocpress.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mpress_IL_excerpt3



> The archer is a master with ranged weapons. Though the name of this class indicates a close connection to bows, many "archers" prefer to fight with thrown weapons, crossbows, or slings.




OK, Mike's officially not allowed to name character classes anymore.


----------



## bolen

It looks much more balanced then conan (I will have to cannibalize  it)


----------



## SixFootGnome

*Cavalier?*

"Hmm, I'd say that being rich and deftly navigating feudal obligations is in many ways distinctly un-knightlike, but I'll give you much of the rest."

That all comes down to definitions and concepts.  I'm guessing that your schema for a knight would be a chivalric, arthurian guy.  I was using knight in the sense of one holding that title within the feudal system, be it historically or in other tales besides those arthurian.  Besides which, remember that in arthurian mythology, Mordred was a knight...

As to the idea of a cavalier class, the core problem comes down to this: Is your cavalier more powerful than other classes if he gets to use his horse and about as powerful if not, or is he comparably balanced to other classes while in his forte and feeble from limited options outside his forte?  A good example would be the rogue, who's really good under optimal circumstances but badly hosed in tight quarters or in fights where sneak attack doesn't apply.

I won't say that it is impossible to forge a third path besides making the cavalier 'too good mounted and only acceptable otherwise' and 'pretty decent mounted and lame otherwise' but I do think that it is nontrivial to accomplish something other than one of those alternatives.


----------



## A'koss

Still chewing on all the Archer goodness... It looks like you'll have some greater flexibillity in customizing your archer than I thought you would. Mike was very clever in allowing the archer to make combination effect shots (eg. 1 Legendary + 1 Death effect) and the different tiers of special attacks. That gives you a lot of cool flexibility but at the same time it reigns the archer in somewhat in that he needs to be patient in order to make the sweet shot. The different BABs, interesting... I agree that I think the Weapon Master will likely mirror the Archer in many respects. 

Definitely some confusing bits throughout - Some of the special attacks seemed a little unclear whether they applied to a single shot or all the shots in the round. Mike's use of the word "darts" is a little disjoining too. 



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> OK, Mike's officially not allowed to name character classes anymore.



It stuns me that he can come up with all the cool game mechanics and yet, fails so miserably here... 

A'koss.


----------



## Michael Tree

SixFootGnome said:
			
		

> As to the idea of a cavalier class, the core problem comes down to this: Is your cavalier more powerful than other classes if he gets to use his horse and about as powerful if not, or is he comparably balanced to other classes while in his forte and feeble from limited options outside his forte?



 That's not the only core problem, IMO.  Another big problem is that "horse-mounted combatant" isn't really that strong an archetype.  You could make a heavily armored knight on a heavy warhorse who charges in formation with a lance, a lightly armored mongol on a pony who darts back and forth sniping with a bow or making lightning fast raids, a mounted leader who rides into battle leading his troops, and so on.

Since IL's classes are all based on archetypal combat styles, just take the combat class you want, put him on a horse, and take mounted combat feats.  Heavy knight?  Armiger on a horse.  Lighting fast raider?  Harrier on a horse.  Cavalary bowman?  Archer on a horse. Cavalry commander? Hunter on a horse.



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> OK, Mike's officially not allowed to name character classes anymore.



*sighs* 
.
.
.
*nods*


----------



## JEL

I like it, but I agree that it could use some better wording and clarification in places.


----------



## Felon

A'koss said:
			
		

> It stuns me that he can come up with all the cool game mechanics and yet, fails so miserably here...




Why not "marksman" or "sharpshooter" or something less weapon-specific, I have to wonder? 

Ah well, I'll settle for the cool mechanics I guess. We see how he handles the whole DR-penetration issue that was such a bone of contention earlier in this thread. Works for me.


----------



## Azgulor

bolen said:
			
		

> It looks much more balanced then conan (I will have to cannibalize  it)



Really?  I came away thinking it's somewhere between on par-with or less-balanced.

I also think the Arrow Ladder Shot is dorky (everything else was intriguing, however).  For Green Arrow or Hawkeye in a superhero game, ok.  But I can't see Legolas or Robin Hood saying, "Quick let me fire a quiver of arrows to provide sniping postions or escape points there, there, and....there."  I guess I can all to easily envision such a scene being played out in the Dungeons & Dragons cartoon with Hank's uber-arrows.

If Iron Lore helps emulate Swords-&-Sorcery ala Conan, Fafhrd & Gray Mouser, etc. as I originally thought, this book is a must have.  If this book is Fantasy Super Hero Action Hour, I'll pass.

Azgulor


----------



## A'koss

Felon said:
			
		

> Why not "marksman" or "sharpshooter" or something less weapon-specific, I have to wonder?



Heh, those would have been my picks as well. 

I also noticed that the "archer" is a lot like that Marvel comics villian who can throw anyting he gets his hands on and never misses (Bullseye?). Anyway, the archer seems to be able to apply his special abilities to *any* ranged weapon that falls into his hands. You don't even need to be proficient in it if I'm reading this right... Does this mean I can make a death attack with a thown chopstick if I wanted?

And regarding the "dorky" ladder shot. Yeah, it's a bit dorky... but IIRC, I've seen it done by an archer in a "Savage Sword of Conan" issue. 

A'koss.


----------



## Andor

Azgulor said:
			
		

> I also think the Arrow Ladder Shot is dorky (everything else was intriguing, however).  For Green Arrow or Hawkeye in a superhero game, ok.




No way man, there is nothing dorky about making a ladder with ranged weapons. How else do you get the berserker up the cliff to fight the boss? Now I just need to make a character who can do it with silverware. Perhaps with an effete british accent....


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Azgulor said:
			
		

> If Iron Lore helps emulate Swords-&-Sorcery ala Conan, Fafhrd & Gray Mouser, etc. as I originally thought, this book is a must have.  If this book is Fantasy Super Hero Action Hour, I'll pass.
> 
> Azgulor




I'll get back to my pet cavalier issue in a moment, but I thought this deserved a seperate response.

The ladder shot actually put a lot of my fears to ease.  All too often, in my opinion, Sword and Sorcery games forget that at the edges of Sword and Sorcery lie the realms of the legendary.  It's one of the explicit portions of the formula.  It's a pretty high level formula and it works for me in terms of the type of character you should be encountering and playing at that level.  

It's also a little crafty, not in the I'm a sneaky mouse sense but in the Conan makes his own helmets and traps sense using his sword, hammer, and a bit of tin.  

That said, I also like that it is one option among many and really the only option with that flavor so if you want to forbid the player from taking it for style reasons there's no reason for the player to really complain.  Further, the way it's set up, I'd be very surprised if a player took it having been playing in your campaign with your aesthetics as long as he or she has.

I'll be very pleased if most of the classes include at least one or two of these dorky options.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Andor said:
			
		

> No way man, there is nothing dorky about making a ladder with ranged weapons. How else do you get the berserker up the cliff to fight the boss? Now I just need to make a character who can do it with silverware. Perhaps with an effete british accent....




I so loved that movie


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

SixFootGnome said:
			
		

> That all comes down to definitions and concepts.  I'm guessing that your schema for a knight would be a chivalric, arthurian guy.  I was using knight in the sense of one holding that title within the feudal system, be it historically or in other tales besides those arthurian.  Besides which, remember that in arthurian mythology, Mordred was a knight...
> 
> As to the idea of a cavalier class, the core problem comes down to this: Is your cavalier more powerful than other classes if he gets to use his horse and about as powerful if not, or is he comparably balanced to other classes while in his forte and feeble from limited options outside his forte?  A good example would be the rogue, who's really good under optimal circumstances but badly hosed in tight quarters or in fights where sneak attack doesn't apply.




Well, I don't think we are that far off on what a knight is, but for me the core issue is that a knight, by his very title, identifies himself as a mounted warrior.  And a knight is that regardless of whether he is wealthy, landed, or has any sort of complicated feudal obligation.  For me, it's perfectly appropriate for Mordred to be a knight as well as Galahad or the meanest freerider in the service of Frederick Barbarosa.  That we see an ethos of honor and authority associated with such a fighter is a symptom of how he fights.  Getting a horse to go into combat with you requires character in a way that other fighting styles do not.  And where they do it is a different character.  An archer may be thought of as sneaky and crafty and that's a symptom of his fighting style.  Same with a horseman.

Iron Lore makes classes that are more powerful in their specialized area.  An archer is way better at ranged combat than non-archers.  So a knight or cavalier should be better at mounted combat than non-knights or cavaliers.  Both classes should have ways of dealing with other scenarios that are reflective of their specialty and effective, but their focus should be clear.  Other classes should be good enough at those classes specialties so that you don't have to have them, but they shouldn't have that same level of uber-competence.



			
				Michael Tree said:
			
		

> That's not the only core problem, IMO. Another big problem is that "horse-mounted combatant" isn't really that strong an archetype. You could make a heavily armored knight on a heavy warhorse who charges in formation with a lance, a lightly armored mongol on a pony who darts back and forth sniping with a bow or making lightning fast raids, a mounted leader who rides into battle leading his troops, and so on.
> 
> Since IL's classes are all based on archetypal combat styles, just take the combat class you want, put him on a horse, and take mounted combat feats. Heavy knight? Armiger on a horse. Lighting fast raider? Harrier on a horse. Cavalary bowman? Archer on a horse. Cavalry commander? Hunter on a horse.




See I can't disagree that horse-riding should be something everyone is capable of doing.  But at the same time I couldn't disagree that ranged combat, multiple attacks, and wearing armor are things that most people should have some capacity or potential capacity to achieve.

But I think that being a mounted fighter, in both fiction and real life, has an ethos to it that is at least as strong as that of an archer.  If riding a horse is your real focus than it forces tactics and behavior on you in the same way that recognizing the skills and tactics of a focus in ranged combat will.

I think I've already done some work to differentiate the personal ethos of a horseman versus that of other fighters, but I think it's also important to differentiate the combat ethos.

An armiger on a horse is there to get extra speed to go into where he can take blows and give them without being at the mercy of arrows.

A harrier on a horse is there get extra speed and power to go into where he give out his huge number of blows.

An archer on a horse is there get extra speed and power so that he can avoid taking blows.

A horseman is there not just for the extra speed and power but also the sense, strength, and endurance of the horse itself.  Where the above classes use the horse to lengthen the range of their initial tactics, the range of the horse encapsulates the tactics of the horseman.  Rather than charging in and getting stuck in, as the armiger or harrier would, the horseman charges in strikes using the power of the horse and then rushes out or through his enemies to look for the next best striking point.  Rather than aiming and avoiding blows, as the archer would, the horseman uses the speed of his mount and the range of his weapon to limit the tactics of his enemy and to strike at him indiscriminately but strategicly ensuring that his opponents are properly herded and baited.

And that's the horseman's power off of a horse as well.  The hunter uses his knowledge of the enemy to draw them into traps, the horseman uses his knowledge of timing, battlefield psychology, and movement to herd his enemies and strike for maximum effect to adapt not the battlefield but his enemies tactics.  Where many classes understand the value of shock in a charge the horseman understands the value of movement.  Melee battles between horseman on foot are long periods of maneuvering and positioning punctuated by fast sharp powerful exchanges broken as quickly as they were engaged and ending with both men cut in a thousand places but one man's head lying beside the other.

There is more I could say on the particular skills and general character that are more or less unique to horseman or cavaliers, but I shall leave it at this.

I certainly don't mean to be hijacking the thread, but, again, it is the very specificity and content of Iron Lore that provokes in me the desire to see this archetype done right. If all goes well I look forward to building such a class or seeing such a prestige class shipped with the game.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I so loved that movie




That's what it was!  I was reading that bit I kept thinking I've seen that done before, just not with arrows...


----------



## SixFootGnome

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> Well, I don't think we are that far off on what a knight is, but for me the core issue is that a knight, by his very title, identifies himself as a mounted warrior.




I understand that this is your schema, but it simply isn't objectively true:



> knight
> O.E. cniht "boy, youth, servant," common W.Gmc. (cf. O.Fris. kniucht, Du. knecht, M.H.G. kneht "boy, youth, lad," Ger. Knecht "servant, bondsman, vassal"), of unknown origin. Meaning "military follower of a king or other superior" is from c.1100. Began to be used in a specific military sense in Hundred Years War, and gradually rose in importance through M.E. period until it became a rank in the nobility 16c. The verb meaning "to make a knight of (someone)" is from c.1300. Knighthood is O.E. cnihthad "the period between childhood and manhood;" sense of "rank or dignity of a knight" is from c.1300. The chess piece so called from c.1440. Knight in shining armor is from 1965. Knights of Columbus, society of Catholic men, founded 1882 in New Haven; Knights of Labor, trade union association, founded in Philadelphia, 1869; Knights of Pythias, secret order, founded in Washington, 1864.




Service to royalty is the fundamental defining attribute of a knight, regardless of chess or fantasy genre usage having given a different impression.  There are a wide array of dudes who make their living on horseback whom it would be completely inappropriate to label 'Knight.'  Similarly, a knight with no horse is definitely still a knight.  A knight who never learned to ride is even still a knight, because knight is a title conferred upon him by his liege in return for an obligation of service.

Let's move past the definitional issue and just call our hypothetical archetype 'horseman'.  As Michael Tree pointed out, what does a horseman do?  You seem to be focusing on a lance-toting cavalryman implementation, but there are numerous people who might want a horseman class but want a completely different mechanical effect.  While you're trying to say that you define any other use of a horse in battle out of your true 'horseman' archetype, that definition is ideosyncratic, not universal.  

The guy who wants a mongol warrior who *never* leaves the saddle would say that your archetype is the 'reach-monkey' type on a horse, and not nearly so true a horseman as his idea.  Similarly the heavy horseman who wants a gigantic mount with loads of armor and wants to ride in and trample the snot out of people while whacking them from above...  

Ultimately, I don't see a single coherent archetype 'horseman' that would satisfy any broad array of people coming into the class.  That's the problem.


----------



## Michael Tree

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> A horseman is there not just for the extra speed and power but also the sense, strength, and endurance of the horse itself.  Where the above classes use the horse to lengthen the range of their initial tactics, the range of the horse encapsulates the tactics of the horseman.  Rather than charging in and getting stuck in, as the armiger or harrier would, the horseman charges in strikes using the power of the horse and then rushes out or through his enemies to look for the next best striking point.  Rather than aiming and avoiding blows, as the archer would, the horseman uses the speed of his mount and the range of his weapon to limit the tactics of his enemy and to strike at him indiscriminately but strategicly ensuring that his opponents are properly herded and baited.
> 
> And that's the horseman's power off of a horse as well.  The hunter uses his knowledge of the enemy to draw them into traps, the horseman uses his knowledge of timing, battlefield psychology, and movement to herd his enemies and strike for maximum effect to adapt not the battlefield but his enemies tactics.  Where many classes understand the value of shock in a charge the horseman understands the value of movement.  Melee battles between horseman on foot are long periods of maneuvering and positioning punctuated by fast sharp powerful exchanges broken as quickly as they were engaged and ending with both men cut in a thousand places but one man's head lying beside the other.



A lot of what you're describing is ethos-based, not game mechanics based.  IL classes aren't based on ethos, they're based on combat roles.  And I see horsemen as fulfilling a variety of combat roles, and using their extra training in horsemanship to enhance those roles and give them entirely new perks.  If a horseman is all about use of speed and manevering, making lighting fast raids and then retreating to strike somewhere else, that sounds a lot like what the harrier does.  If he does so to bait targets into following and making unwise movement, then surely there's some feat or Bluff stunt that can take care of that.  If a horseman strategically controls the battlefield, ensuring that their enemies are properly herded and baited, or moving into strategicaly beneficial positions themselves (ie. giving their own group a tactical benefit, either way), part of that is just roleplaying, and the rest is what the hunter does.

Just because the character is, game mechanically, another character class who also chooses to take advantage of a horse, that doesn't mean that that's how the character thinks about it.  An armiger horseman doesn't think of himself as a heavily armored combatant who chooses to rides a horse to make up for his poor foot speed, he thinks of himself as a heavy cavalry charger.


----------



## Particle_Man

When it says on the archer that you can spend tokens on a deadly shot ability and a sniper shot ability at the same time, does a single token to "Double duty", paying for both a deadly shot ability and a sniper shot ability, or does the ability to spend tokens on a deadly shot and a sniper shot on the same attack merely mean that you can spend X tokens on the deadly shot ability, and Y tokens on the sniper shot ability, if you have X + Y tokens, and have the deadly shot ability and sniper shot ability apply to the same (token-expensive) attack?  I think it is the latter, myself.


----------



## Erekose13

No double duty, you have to spend aim tokens for whatever abilities you want to use.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Michael Tree said:
			
		

> A lot of what you're describing is ethos-based, not game mechanics based.  IL classes aren't based on ethos, they're based on combat roles.  And I see horsemen as fulfilling a variety of combat roles, and using their extra training in horsemanship to enhance those roles and give them entirely new perks.  If a horseman is all about use of speed and manevering, making lighting fast raids and then retreating to strike somewhere else, that sounds a lot like what the harrier does.  If he does so to bait targets into following and making unwise movement, then surely there's some feat or Bluff stunt that can take care of that.  If a horseman strategically controls the battlefield, ensuring that their enemies are properly herded and baited, or moving into strategicaly beneficial positions themselves (ie. giving their own group a tactical benefit, either way), part of that is just roleplaying, and the rest is what the hunter does.
> 
> Just because the character is, game mechanically, another character class who also chooses to take advantage of a horse, that doesn't mean that that's how the character thinks about it.  An armiger horseman doesn't think of himself as a heavily armored combatant who chooses to rides a horse to make up for his poor foot speed, he thinks of himself as a heavy cavalry charger.




Fair enough. I'm not arguing that other classes don't deserve to be on horseback.  But just as any class can use a sword or any weapon really, that doesn't discount the viability and legitimacy of a dedicated weapon master class.  I doubt sincerely that the rest of the classes think of themselves as weapon neophytes.

So start from that premise, are their archetypes for whom the mastery of horsemanship and the skills related to that are essential in the same way that mastery of a weapon can result in a weapon master style class.  I would argue yes, and am more than willing to go into that further.

Let's for the sake of argument give me that for the moment, however, and figure out how a horseman would look rules-wise.  Well, obviously, the horesman would be better than other combatants at mounted combat.  Or at least those portions of mounted combat that pertain specifically to mastery of a horse.  An armiger may be better at getting stuck in from horseback due to his mastery of armor and durability.  Probably true of a berserker in many ways as well.  A lance weilding weapons master might be better at jousting if you accept that jousting is a duel that's mostly about lances.  An archer would be better at aiming arrows off of a horse.  A harrier, in many ways, strikes me as the least useful horse-rider in that his schtick is multiple attacks and given the archers schtick protection they are probably at short range.  Still, harrier better at multiple attacks from horseback than the horseman.

Well, what does that leave the horseman?  Three things:

First, the horse itself.  Presumably the horseman is better at actually using a horse in combat.  Overrun maneuvers, trample attacks, getting coordinated strikes between horse and rider, using the horse as cover, and all that sort of thing.  Not too mention getting more speed or durability out of a horse, and other more ancilliary benefits like increased intelligence out of the horse and awareness of what the horse is sensing or reacting to.

Second, those advantages which a horse generally confers.  This is in parallel to an archers use of the bow.  Everyone gets increased range out of a bow, the archer gets more range or more out of that range than everyone else.  Everyone gets increased speed, power, and full attack options from horseback.  Presumably a horseman gets more or more out of the speed, power, and full attack options that come from horseback than everyone else.

Thirdly, the horseman gets those advantages that come from the effort that actually has to go into mastering the above advantages.  To get more out of a horse you have to be able to master, in several very literal senses, the horse itself.  This isn't simply a case of physical control, but also of character and empathy.  Further, the labor of becoming a horseman is one of tremendous stamina and persistence.  Those have practical applications for an Iron Lore character, where the Hunter is a creature of intelligence the horseman is one of charisma.  Where the Berzerker specializes in the toughness that enables one to survive a blow the Horseman focuses on the endurance necessary to ride across a desert without sleeping.  The effects would not be without overlap, I'm certain that a horseman would have some buff skills and high hitpoints, but they would be distinct.  

In terms of combat skill, the horseman is, without a doubt, a master of weapons, but the use he puts it too is distinct.  A horseman needs to know how to use weapons in conjunction with the opportunities afforded to him by his horse and his opponent. Timing is his forte, the telling blow not the killing blow inflicted by the archer or the crippling blow inflicted by the executioner.  The horseman's strikes are strong, yes, but their special quality is that they are disrupting.  The Hunter uses infantryman's tactics, he prepares and uses the terrain.  The horseman is herder, he disrups his foes directly, whether he is bursting through their lines with charges or scattering their formations through indirect fire the horseman's goal is never the blow he is landing, but the next one he, or his allies, can land.  Where the harrier is an in and out style of mobility the horseman's is one of moving through or past.

*The* two great horsemen, in my mind, are Alexander the Great and Ghengis Khan. Where Alexander is the charismatic soul of the horseman discovering Beaucephalis's fear of his own shadow, leading men so devoted they push themselves off cliffs to defeat his enemies through initmidation alone, and pioneering the power of the perfectly timed and disruptive charge for his culture and those that followed.  And Ghengis Khan is the persistent and enduring soul.  Rising from the chains of slavery to lead his people through innumberable struggles from those of unification to the unending problem of securing their rights from people's who would never recognize them and triumphing over them so definitively that he becomes the greatest of world conquerors.  He lead his armies through deserts thought uncrossable by the people who lived within them, he taught his enemies to fear the power of organized and strategic arrow fire, and he taught his own people the value of driving an enemy through misinformation, fear, and their own superior intelligence and knowledge of nature.  Both of these men are horseman.  Alexander wore no particularly heavy armor, he weilded no lance as though it were its own religion.  Ghengis neither closed with his foe in a slathering rage nor took careful aim to snipe him individually.  And though both of them were known as clever combatants, they lead through action and loyalty and equally important to both their legends are the generals who gave them brains and tactics to match their brilliant personalities and strategies.  As different as they were from each other, they are utterly unlike any other class advertised for Iron Lore, and yet uniquely appropriate to the class construction that Iron Lore offers us.  Class constructions that can allow hunters to use one of three weapon sets and enable archers to define themselves not by the bow but the ranged attack so that the same class is equally capable of using daggers, bows, and javelins though it could not be optimized for all three.

Though I chose one of two western words for knight that do not directly mean horseman, the other being Miles for professional soldier, I stand by my assertion that the horseman, the cavalier, the chevalier, the eques, the ritter, and the caballeros are all proofs of the particular power and mystique of the horseman as a defining feature of a trope or story of a hero and adventurer.  It's not insignificant that the oracle that immediately foretells Achilles' moment of greatest glory is a horse, or that the Greek and Trojan heroes of the war speak so long and repeatedly on the glory and power of their horses and the degree to which they can trust them where their followers slog it out on foot.

If this class or concept does not appeal or seems not to fit your idea of how your Iron Lore game will turn out, then so be it, of the classes that appear now Mike has made it explicit that not all of those classes will be for everyone, and that very argument is the final inspiration that allows my mind to contemplate the value of a class that gains tokens for movement or for riding and handle animal checks.  

As it is I am very excited to see how riding is handled in the game, what sort of feat group riding feats will fit under, how many riding and nomad themed traits there are, and what sort of pursuit rules the game will introduce.  So please do not interpret my repeated arguments for the horseman or knight as anything other than a rift or rhapsodic witnessing to the flights of RPG artistry that this game drives me to, I am as certain that I will be pleased as I will be pleased to create an Iron Lore style horseman class and pimp it mercilessly and relentlessly.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

And I swear this is the last time I will mention this unless I start another thread, but...

Horseman should totally be better at pursuit regardless of whether they are on horseback or on foot, unless their foe is a Monk.

Cause I'm pretty certain Jacky Chan can escape a horseman, not on a straight away mind you, but through any environment slightly less flat than a pancake.


----------



## Felon

Azgulor said:
			
		

> If Iron Lore helps emulate Swords-&-Sorcery ala Conan, Fafhrd & Gray Mouser, etc. as I originally thought, this book is a must have.  If this book is Fantasy Super Hero Action Hour, I'll pass.




Well, it *is* Fantasy Superhero Action. I think it's pretty obvious this is not a deadly game of stealthy attacks and indirect assault. Characters will do things that Conan, the Grey Mouser, and Aragorn wouldn't do in their wildest adventure. You won't just be kicking ass as a result of having surprise on your side, opponents conveniently too disorganized to attack in unison, and nobody having a handy crossbow laying around to pin you to the wall. You'll be plowing headlong into the masses, either dodging all of their blows at the same time, or just letting them hit you and just laughing it off. 

It is more like Xena or Samurai Jack, who are the equivalent of fantasy superheroes.


----------



## Particle_Man

Right.  The whole point is that a 20th level IL character can take on monsters that a 20th level D&D character can.  And 20th level D&D characters are pretty much fantasy super-heroes.  (The "gadget" type, I guess, to extend the analogy).

I think there might be an element of "rock paper scissors" that might require people to be coy on how they spend their tokens.  If the DM's bad guy has the choice of spending tokens to up his defence bonus, but the archer has spent tokens to completely negate that defence bonus, it would be very tempting to spend the bad guy's tokens in another direction (to suck up damage, or whatever else that bad guy can do).  And the same thing could happen in reverse if the DM is the archer.  Mabye people would write down how they spend tokens and declare them as they become relevant?

Note: I have not playtested the game, and I may misunderstand tokens completely, so this  may not be a problem at all in a real game.  Or it may be a "problem" that already is "solved" in game.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Well there are supposed to be special NPC classes with slightly simpler more villanous/strategic mechanics, and I don't think that most of the monsters, since they are DnD monsters, will have much in the way of tokens.

Mearls has said that there are monsters who use tokens but they use them straight out of the box and are generally fairly straightforward.

It will be interesting to see what the mechanics are both for surprise and for adjudicating competing token bids.


----------



## Azgulor

Felon said:
			
		

> Well, it *is* Fantasy Superhero Action. I think it's pretty obvious this is not a deadly game of stealthy attacks and indirect assault. Characters will do things that Conan, the Grey Mouser, and Aragorn wouldn't do in their wildest adventure. You won't just be kicking ass as a result of having surprise on your side, opponents conveniently too disorganized to attack in unison, and nobody having a handy crossbow laying around to pin you to the wall. You'll be plowing headlong into the masses, either dodging all of their blows at the same time, or just letting them hit you and just laughing it off.
> 
> It is more like Xena or Samurai Jack, who are the equivalent of fantasy superheroes.




Thank you for the two perfect examples - it's highlighted the incorrect assumption that I made.  In reading the ads and design diaries, I was interpreting Mearls' comments for what I would want the game to be.  Specifically, that Iron Lore classes COULD play on par with their D&D counterparts when I should have been reading that Iron Lore classes WILL play on par.  So Xena & Samurai Jack definitely fit the bill.  Unfortunately 90% of fantasy film and fiction MAY not.

Which is fine.  Given D&D's popularity, I'd have to admit that it's the largest target audience.  It's just not the kind of game I want to run or play in.  However, given the limited info thus far, I can't rule out a purchase.  It's just changed from "Salivating must-have! when is August going to get here?" to "Research carefully and examine closely before buying."

Ah, well.

Azgulor

(Fortunately Game of Thrones and Thieves' World are coming out soon, so my need for "gritty" may be satisfied anyway.)


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Hmm, Well I can't say I disagree with your conclusion.  There's no doubt in my mind that Iron Lore is here to do heroic fantasy and to be an elaboration of DnD rather than a correction.

Though rhapsody on a theme might be a more appropriate catch all then elaboration, as I don't think it's about the complexity or minutae of the game.

But the response did intrigue me enough to hop up another thread on it.


----------



## Felon

Azgulor said:
			
		

> Thank you for the two perfect examples - it's highlighted the incorrect assumption that I made.  In reading the ads and design diaries, I was interpreting Mearls' comments for what I would want the game to be.  Specifically, that Iron Lore classes COULD play on par with their D&D counterparts when I should have been reading that Iron Lore classes WILL play on par.  So Xena & Samurai Jack definitely fit the bill.  Unfortunately 90% of fantasy film and fiction MAY not.




Yes, I imagine it is hard for most writers to depict fantastic, over-the-top combat without descending into self-parody. Kind of like writing a Paul Bunyon tall tale.

I think to a large part we have to turn to Asia for quicker comparisons. That whole wuxia genre people here speak of.


----------



## Mac Callum

*Mounted PC's*



			
				Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> As it is I am very excited to see how riding is handled in the game, what sort of feat group riding feats will fit under, how many riding and nomad themed traits there are, and what sort of pursuit rules the game will introduce.  So please do not interpret my repeated arguments for the horseman or knight as anything other than a rift or rhapsodic witnessing to the flights of RPG artistry that this game drives me to, I am as certain that I will be pleased as I will be pleased to create an Iron Lore style horseman class and pimp it mercilessly and relentlessly.



I think you're going to have to be "content" with Traits (Son of Horses), Feats, and Stunts.  Personally, I think any Stunts that allow you to jump from one charging horse to another, or a Trait that allows you to speak to them, would make a really kick-ass Horseman.  You could also make your own Mastery Feats if Iron Lore doesn't have exactly what you're looking for.  Imagine a Hunter with the Tactician Feat "Master of Cavalry", which allows him to spend tactical tokens on groups of horsemen within 90' of him.  That would go a long way towards Ghengis Kahn.  (And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Alexander's army almost completely heavy infantry?)

The main problem is "balance within the story."  All of the other classes seem to be designed so that they could be on foot or mounted, and still good at what they do.  That means if all the PC's are on horses, great!  If all of the PC's are afoot, great!  But if you're playing "The Horseman," and suddenly the group goes inside the dungeon, you're screwed.  That's not fun for you or your fellow PC's.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Alexander's army was mixed force.  The Alexandrian and Hellenestic model was revolutionary for Greek forces in that it had a very deliberate mix of heavy infantry, light infantry, and various cavalries.

Under his father Alexander was the cavalry commander for the Macedonian forces and he introduced the custom of Hellenestic generals leading from the heavy cavalry contingents of the army.  He was particularly famous for leading the charge himself.

Heavy infantry was certainly key to Macedonian success, but the introduction of heavy cavalry to the Greek model was what enabled the Macedonian army to conquer both the other Greek states and guarantee success in Asia.

Balance within the story I am not so worried about.  An archer's not as useful in a dungeon or closed environment either.  So with the horseman you either adjust the adventure, accept that sometimes you're not gonna be doing your best, or just rely on ancilliary benefits, like your skill list semi-unique fighting style, and, possibly, any other animals you may be working with.  Horseman in history and fantasy frequently being famed for their relationship to dogs, hawks, and other animals of the hunt as well.

I will be content with the traits and feats I get, my point with IL and this topic of conversation is that IL really gets so into the nitty gritty that I think you could really do this character type right using IL's structure.


----------



## Mac Callum

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> Horseman in history and fantasy frequently being famed for their relationship to dogs, hawks, and other animals of the hunt as well.



There probably would be room for a "beastmaster" type character, niche-wise.  You certainly wouldn't be stepping on any of the other character's toes.


> I will be content with the traits and feats I get, my point with IL and this topic of conversation is that IL really gets so into the nitty gritty that I think you could really do this character type right using IL's structure.



Hmm, maybe.  The horseman, probably.  The more generic beastmaster, who's also good with dogs, hawks, etc., I'm not so sure about.  I don't know how you'd be able to realisticly increase the attack power of your animals to scale with the other PC's.


PS - This is "Irda Ranger" from Monte's boards.  I used to be Irda Ranger here too, but my account got lost in a software upgrade to the boards a year or two ago.


----------



## Mac Callum

Felon said:
			
		

> From what I've read so far I think a lot of it will have to do with the fact that D&D classes have some broad concepts inherent to them, while IL classes appear to be packaged exclusively based on their combat role. A ranger represents a broader concept than "archer". The paladin probably has more aspects to it than the armiger. And the differences between a ranger and paladin amount to a lot more than their fighting styles.



Or as Mearls put it, System v. Story.  As I see it, AU and D&D had a lot of story stuff built into the classes (as you noted).  The Fighter has about zero 'story' elements, but every other class has "more than zero", with the Paladin and Druid probably being the high water mark.  IL seems to be built with as little story pre-built into the classes as possible.  Personally, I like that.  That means the "fixed and playtested" part of the rules are for combat resolution only, while the story part is completely open-ended.  Since no one is specialized in being the face man, that means they're all equally good at, doesn't it?  Since the Bard isn't around to show everyone up, any PC can do "roleplaying stuff" as well as any other.  I see that as a selling point, personally.

As for the "9 out of 10" remark, well, maybe in Mearl's campaign that's true, but it won't be in mine.  "Roll initiative" would definately be the wrong answer when trying to illicit info from some random NPC.  Luckily (1) the rules don't prevent me from roleplaying, and (2) I don't need rules to tell me how to roleplay.  I actually don't like Diplomacy for the most part, since I've had PC's rely on that rather than think "Hm, how should I approach this."  It's a crutch I'd rather not have my group rely on. 



> The reality is, not every D&D class is supposed to kick ass. In fact, many aren't, due to limitations on hit points, AC, and offensive options that make them poorly-suited to the "boo yah" mentality.



No system is perfect ...



> Bards, monks, rangers, and paladins are not classes folks play because they can consistently clean house--not that they can't in their own fashion, but copious amounts of ass-kicking is not what lies at their core.



That's the stuff I'd rather leave to Traits, the character's bio, etc.  Any PC, of any class, is free to take a Paladin's Oath or sweet-talk a lady.



> I'm still interested in the book, but I can't say I think it's being presented in a good light by its author.
> 
> So tell ya what, get him to recant or clarify a few statements, and I'll be the first to breathe a sigh of relief.



Yeah, Mearls should definately leave the marketing (and class names) to Monte.  I never pay too much attention to marketing hype anyway though, and try to tease rules apart from how the designer expects me to use them.  I don't plan on asking Mearl's permission to use IL to run a city-based, plot-heavy adventure (not that I'm saying you or anyone else would).  I just need to know if the rules do what I expect them to.  So far, I think they will.


----------



## Mac Callum

Felon said:
			
		

> Would you want a system where characters just got one rank in every skill in the book? Probably not. Now, why not? Because characters would lack definition? Because no character would excel over another in any department? There are good reasons why you don't want the typical character co-opting two-dozen out of the three-dozen or so skills available.




For one, Stunts, Feats and Skills seem to be fairly inter-woven.  In the playtest spotlight (I think) they mentioned how a Thief could do jumps the Archer couldn't, even though they had a similar number of ranks.

For another, I expect the Hunter is near the high end of the SP/level range, and even he will have gaps in his skill sets.  I'm sure that everyone will have something they can shine at.



> D&D's skill point allotment does a pretty good job of balancing the need to give a class enough class skills and skill points to flesh out a character against the need to keep one character from fielding more than his share (especially if the class is not one of the primary skill-oriented classes).




Three points,

One, I have never been satisfied with the 2 SP / level that Fighters get.  I have never been able to "round out" my characters the way I wanted to.  Especiially with some skills being all but mandatory for some classes (Spellcraft?), I'd usually be left with one or two "optional" skills to fill out a PC if I was lucky.  That was never enough for me.

Two, there are no skill-oriented classes in IL.  No Rogue, Ranger, or Bard.  No Akashic.  The full complement of skills has to be covered by the PC's who are also fighter types.  That means they need more than 2 SP/ level, or there will be huge gaps in what the party is capable of.

Three, not every group is going to have a representative of every class.  That means you need more croos-training.  Armigers need to be able to take Survival (without shafting the skills they need to be Armigers) in the event no one is a Hunter.  To do that, you need extra SP/ level.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Good to have you here as well, Irda Ranger/Mac Callum.

In terms of the Horseman, I agree that you can really only go so far with animal companions that aren't mounts, but that's why I'd give beastmaster traits to the Horseman and just call it a horseman or huntsman.  The mount aspects would be the core of the class and the beastmaster bits would be side benefits for when your mount isn't around.

I agree that beasts have never levelled up all together satisfactorilly in DnD, but I think Tokens might be a way around that.  Instead of having a 20th level hound to go with your 20th level Horseman, you end up with a Freekin tough hound trained by a 20th level Huntsman to accompany you.  For no tokens you can have the thing helping you out intelligently with aid another attacks or maybe taking out some mooks with its own powerful teeth and jaws.  By investing tokens, on the other hand, you can have it hit with the power of your own training or surivive a hit with your own luck and durability.

Sides you had a character like this one around and then you could call it the Huntsman, put it far more definitively in the wilderness silo, and rename the Hunter the Cavalier and rearrange a few of its abilities, I'd recommend giving it some slightly less 'useful' skill groups, reducing the skill ranks per level to 4, and giving it more armor, so that it had a far more aristocratic and officer-like tone.

In other news, from what I've seen of the character builds so far I don't think anyone's in danger of having all the skills.   My bet is that the Arcanist ends up with a LOT more skills than we are used to seeing in the Wizard, Sorceror, or Cleric and that the Thief might very well be a sort of hyper-skill using monkey, but that for the rest you're just finally ending up with characters who can actually play in anything that isn't a fight.  

As it is in DnD I have to plan to make certain that we have at least one character who's competent at doing everything since everyone else is more or less incapable of doing everything from talking to people to swimming.  It's a weird dynamic when taking on the undead is thrilling rather than terrifying and crossing a river is the reverse.


----------



## Mac Callum

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> It's a weird dynamic when taking on the undead is thrilling rather than terrifying and crossing a river is the reverse.



That's a frickin' awesome line.  Almost sig-worthy.  Also painfully true.

I thought "Huntsman" just got drunk and killed defenseless fuzzy things? 

I suppose it could work, but I've never really like the Animal Companion schtick, even with Rangers or Totem Warriors.  Might I suggest an ability though?  You can use a Ride check to help your mount avoid damage.  Maybe you could do a Handle Animal check to help a dog in the same way, as long he's within 10' of you?  It's a thought.  Personally, I don't plan on tinkering with the classes until I've played the game "as is" for a bit.


> My bet is that the Arcanist ends up with a LOT more skills than we are used to seeing in the Wizard, Sorceror, or Cleric and that the Thief might very well be a sort of hyper-skill using monkey.



If we were putting down money, I'd actually take that bet.  I don't think either of those classes is going to be a skill-monkey.

My picks:
Arcanist Skill Groups: Knowledge, "Alchemy, Healing, and Poisoncraft", "Concentration, Spellcraft, and UMD"
Thief Skill Groups: Perception, Stealth, "Thieve's Tools", "People Skills", and Athletic

Two side bets: 
1. Perception isn't just Spot and Listen.  It's Sense Motive too.
2. UMD may be necessary to use any magical item, or at least to use it without it consuming your soul or something.

Anyway, neither of those classes needs to know Survival, Perform, Handle Animal, Forgery (a useful one for both, but not core), Ride, Speak Language, etc.  There are skills it would be useful to have, and you might purchase with your extra SP, but aren't essential to the concept.  

I have two reasons for saying this.

1.  The classes we've seen have a good selection of skills.  Skill groups makes a Skill Monkey unnecesary.  
2.  Skills are useful in combat.  Give a character too many skills, and he might shine "a bit too much" in combat compared to the others.

But that's just a guess.  I sure as hell don't know anything you don't.


----------



## woodelf

Felon said:
			
		

> Yes, A'Koss, that's probably the best design element I've read about so far.
> 
> This is probably the worst:
> 
> [paraphrase: it's all about fighting]
> 
> So what's the strategy here? Advertise how your game is shallow and that you aspire to provide us with the Jerry Bruckheimer version of an RPG? I won't say I hate every Bruckheimer movie I've ever seen, but I do want to see other movies when I go to the theatre.
> 
> Now combine it with it the following statement:
> 
> [paraphrase: classes strongly shape combat tactics]
> 
> So, all you ever do is scream "boo-yah!" and move from one explosive, action-packed scene to the next--with nary a moment to slow down, think, or savor anything--and your role in every fight is pretty clearly scripted. How does this not amount to tediousness?
> 
> I'm still interested in the book, but I can't say I think it's being presented in a good light by its author.




One: IME, Mearls is an excellent game designer, but sometimes a bit narrow-minded in exactly this way (focusing on a single playstyle). He is, in general, not a good persuader. His rules, luckily, do the work for him, because i don't think i'd ever have bought one of his books based on his trying to persuade me [that is to say, potential customers in general] to do so.

Two: Your description of the perceived tone of IL pretty much matches, IMHO, the tone that D&D3[.5]E conveys. On the one hand, that's to be expected: i hear a *lot* more complaints about D20 System stuff that isn't balanced for violent encounters than stuff that isn't balanced for, say, royal court encounters. On the other hand, people certainly play D&D3E games in other ways, so i don't see why the same can't be true of IL.

And, in this sense, it may actually be a good thing. One of the problems of D&D3E, where balance is concerned, is its reliance on a certain playstyle to maintain that balance. Switch to a heavily-political, almost-no-combat game, and any semblance of balance in D&D3E disappears. That's because some of the classes have exceptional non-combat abilities while othres have essentially none, and the system assumes a balance where a small bit of combat ability is equivalent to a large bit of social ability. If IL balances all the classes around just _one_ area (physical/combat ability), and gives them all equal (if secondary) access to other types of ability, it may improve balance, regardless of playstyle. IOW, everybody gets an equal share of spotlight in combat. And now, everybody is equally well-equipped (which is to say, not very) in non-combat areas, too. If you're playing an IL game, and it moves into some palace intrigue, true, all of the characters will be a bit out of their depth. But it'll be _all_ of them--there won't be one character who totally outshines all the rest, with tons to do while the rest are bored.

Not to mention, i've known quite a few RPers who run very RP-intensive games with little or no combat, and _prefer_ a ruleset that only handles combat/physical things, because they feel that rules for social stuff just get in the way of RPing, and that the rules should only handle the parts that can't be acted out by the players.


----------



## woodelf

SixFootGnome said:
			
		

> I can't say that I entirely get the urge to do this class equivilency exercises. I think that a paladin would probably be (pick class) plus (applicable traits) plus (roleplay). That could mean that he's a berserker who flies into a righteous fury, or an armiger who defends the weak, or a member of the clergy of the Lord of Swords sworn to use his for the cause of light, or...
> 
> In other words, paladin in roleplay. I wouldn't fixate on looking for an IL combination of classes to reconstitute the mechanical abilities of a DnD class. You'll probably be better served by doing a conversion of the paladin class to IL using the guidelines for that which are supposed to be there if you can't come up with any better mechanical skeleton to put the paladin-roleplay onto.




Especially given the number of popular fantasy archetypes that D&D3[.5]E can't do really at all, and the even larger number that can't be done without multiclassing. Arcana Unearthed/Evolved does a better job than D&D3E at representing typcial high-fantasy archetypes, and, so far, it looks like IL does a better job for less-wizardy fantasy (like Conan and Lanhkmar). 

Also, frankly, i really don't care if there's a specific class that tries to represent paladin, barbarian, or several other of the D&D3E classes that shouldn't be classes, IMHO, because what defines them isn't their capabilities, its their attitude. ["berserker" would be ability-based, and that's really what the class should be--no need to tie berserking to background, and _really_ no need to tie being from a primitive background to berserking.]


----------



## Felon

Mac Callum said:
			
		

> One, I have never been satisfied with the 2 SP / level that Fighters get.  I have never been able to "round out" my characters the way I wanted to.  Especiially with some skills being all but mandatory for some classes (Spellcraft?), I'd usually be left with one or two "optional" skills to fill out a PC if I was lucky.  That was never enough for me.




Again, I think most people who are unsatisfied with skill point allotment are measuring it against a character with only 10 Int. You probably wouldn't be happy with your attack rolls with only a 10 STR or your HP with only a 10 Con. If players wan their fighters to be more skilled, bump INT.



> Two, there are no skill-oriented classes in IL.  No Rogue, Ranger, or Bard.  No Akashic.  The full complement of skills has to be covered by the PC's who are also fighter types.  That means they need more than 2 SP/ level, or there will be huge gaps in what the party is capable of.




Actually, I suspect you'll find the Thief and likely the Arcanist are the skillmongers.



> Three, not every group is going to have a representative of every class.  That means you need more croos-training.  Armigers need to be able to take Survival (without shafting the skills they need to be Armigers) in the event no one is a Hunter.  To do that, you need extra SP/ level.




I don't follow the reasoning here. Every class needs extra SP so they can co-opt the roles of other classes? 

I would say that if Mearls is setting up these skill groups for each class, he may as well go ahead give the classes max ranks in each group and then assign some discretionary SP on the side. It's safe to say that pretty much every Hunter is going to max out his Perception, Stealth and Wilderness Lore groups.


----------



## Felon

woodelf said:
			
		

> Especially given the number of popular fantasy archetypes that D&D3[.5]E can't do really at all, and the even larger number that can't be done without multiclassing.




That's what's really disappointing with the driection D&D is going.  D&D continues to become morre and more inbred. Rather than designing a game that will appeal to newcomers who come in with visions of the LotR films or Conan comics in their head, they opt for this completely self-contained magic-intensive system that doesn't bear any resemblence to any kind of heroic fantasy that anyone might be familiar with. When you reach a point where Conan is flying around on winged boots or the Fellowship of the Ring can teleport to Sauron's tower the blink of an eye, and death is just an expensive pit-stop, maybe--just maybe--it's time to back up a step or two. 

It's really amusing to me that we keep having these threads about "low-magic" systems, when the systems arren't actually low in magic, they're just not ridiculously inundated with it.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Felon said:
			
		

> I don't follow the reasoning here. Every class needs extra SP so they can co-opt the roles of other classes?
> 
> I would say that if Mearls is setting up these skill groups for each class, he may as well go ahead give the classes max ranks in each group and then assign some discretionary SP on the side. It's safe to say that pretty much every Hunter is going to max out his Perception, Stealth and Wilderness Lore groups.




Actually, I think you'll find that MacCullum's resoning here is more or less a mirror of your own reasoning on the combat vs role-play oriented classes in Vanilla DnD.

Even though he applies it to maintaining balance in terms of class skill distribution overall, not so that you can take over the roles of other classes necessarilly so much as to prevent any one class becoming a necessary silo, I think it works just as well for your complaint that there aren't enough social classes.

Note that classes gain access to skill groups but essentially all other skills are class skills for Iron Lore characters.  If MacCullum is right in his other argument that the Perception skill set contains Sense Motive, and I think it's a dang good argument, then I think even before you applly all the 'extra' skill points that skill groups give players you are actually going to see social skills distributed a lot more evenly throughout the classes as well as the characters.

And I like that, I think that given the distribution of skill sets we've seen so far the system already pretty much gives you full ranks in your essentials and then a few extra points to distribute as you see fit.  The issue is that going with the 'full discretion' of skill points that you could put into skill sets you give the player many more options in terms of multi-classing or using his skill sets effectively toward something like a prestige class.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Mac Callum said:
			
		

> If we were putting down money, I'd actually take that bet.  I don't think either of those classes is going to be a skill-monkey.
> 
> My picks:
> Arcanist Skill Groups: Knowledge, "Alchemy, Healing, and Poisoncraft", "Concentration, Spellcraft, and UMD"
> Thief Skill Groups: Perception, Stealth, "Thieve's Tools", "People Skills", and Athletic
> 
> Two side bets:
> 1. Perception isn't just Spot and Listen.  It's Sense Motive too.
> 2. UMD may be necessary to use any magical item, or at least to use it without it consuming your soul or something.
> 
> Anyway, neither of those classes needs to know Survival, Perform, Handle Animal, Forgery (a useful one for both, but not core), Ride, Speak Language, etc.  There are skills it would be useful to have, and you might purchase with your extra SP, but aren't essential to the concept.
> 
> I have two reasons for saying this.
> 
> 1.  The classes we've seen have a good selection of skills.  Skill groups makes a Skill Monkey unnecesary.
> 2.  Skills are useful in combat.  Give a character too many skills, and he might shine "a bit too much" in combat compared to the others.
> 
> But that's just a guess.  I sure as hell don't know anything you don't.




I like your reasoning here, though I disagree.  Post-Arcana Unearthed I think the real potential for skill monkeys isn't just breadth of skill it's also depth.  Double attribute bonuses and extra skill focused feats, for instance, and easy access to take 10 rolls and limited abilities.

And that's what I think a thief will be, a character who focuses on stunts.  The depth skill monkey where the Arcanist is the breadth one with a wealth of knowledge, craft, and mystical skills.  Possibly also skill sets that differ based on specialization.  Necromancers picking up heal and herbalism fer instance.  

I like your ideas for the perception group and UMD.

Here's the structure I'd guess at:

Thief: Perception, Stealth, Athletics, Agility, Intrusion(open lock, disable d, and search), and Deception(bluff, disguise, forgery).  That's six right there which puts the thief into the 8 skill ranks range for certain.  And I ain't even put Urban or Social skill areas in there, which I only stepped back from doing cause that would put it at something like 10 skill areas.

Arcanist: I'd pretty much go with your reasoning cept I'd put craft and decipher script somewhere in there not to mention the variable skill set I mentioned earlier.  All told that's way more of a skill monkey than the wizard and pretty much requires 6 skill ranks or more.


----------



## A'koss

Felon said:
			
		

> I don't follow the reasoning here. Every class needs extra SP so they can co-opt the roles of other classes?



 Remember that one of Mike's goals with Iron Lore was to create a game where you do not assume any one class will be in the party. I think with all the additional feats, traits, class abilities and combat options that skills will be at least _somewhat_ less important in distinguishing between the classes. I suspect classes like the thief will have abilities that will allow them to get more mileage out of the skills they have. 



> That's what's really disappointing with the driection D&D is going. D&D continues to become morre and more inbred. Rather than designing a game that will appeal to newcomers who come in with visions of the LotR films or Conan comics in their head, they opt for this completely self-contained magic-intensive system that doesn't bear any resemblence to heroic fantasy that anyone might be familiar with.



Absolutely, I've beens saying the exact same thing for many a moon now... D&D is a great game that unfortunately isn't designed to run any of the styles of sword and sorcery fantasy I bought D&D for in the first place.

A'koss.


----------



## Mac Callum

Felon said:
			
		

> I think most people who are unsatisfied with skill point allotment are measuring it against a character with only 10 Int.



Maybe for "most people" you'd be right, but not for me.  I'm talking humans with a decent Int (for a Fighter).  Not enough.  I want my Knight to know his lineage back 12 generations and know how he's related to three different Kings (Knowledge (Royalty) 3 Ranks).  I don't expect him to forge his own plate armor, but he should be able to fix a broken harness or a broken crossbow, shouldn't he? (Craft (Armorsmith & Weaponsmithing) 1 Rank each).  He doesn't just ride his mount with skill, he trained the beast himself and is responsible for its care (Ride, Handle Animal, 6 ranks each).

In short, he's a professional.

My Samurai should have several Ranks in Perform (Haiku), and even more ranks in Knowledge (Royalty), plus some in Diplomacy.  He isn't some uncouth yahoo from the countryside.  Besides being a peerless horseman and dangerous fighter he is a respectable gentleman who knows the 4 ways of pouring tea.

I want my Rangers to sing ancient ballads in languages that haven't been spoken in a thousand years about people whom the oldest of the elves have almost forgotten.  I want a Paladin who owns a vinyard and, when not adventuring, brews a mean bottle of sacramental wine.  When adventuring he can speak with the Druid intelligently about the six best kinds of soil.

That's what *I* meant by rounding out.  D&D doesn't let me do that.



> I don't follow the reasoning here. Every class needs extra SP so they can co-opt the roles of other classes?



As others said, not to co-opt, but to cover for.  Every class should be dispensible, so no one is forced into a role.  That means more than one class has to have more than crappy access to Disable Device, Sneak, Diplomacy, etc.


> I would say that if Mearls is setting up these skill groups for each class, he may as well go ahead give the classes max ranks in each group and then assign some discretionary SP on the side. It's safe to say that pretty much every Hunter is going to max out his Perception, Stealth and Wilderness Lore groups.



There's a good argument for that.  Assume Max ranks in these skills, distribute the rest of your skills as you see fit. 


> That's what's really disappointing with the driection D&D is going. D&D continues to become morre and more inbred. Rather than designing a game that will appeal to newcomers who come in with visions of the LotR films or Conan comics in their head, they opt for this completely self-contained magic-intensive system that doesn't bear any resemblence to any kind of heroic fantasy that anyone might be familiar with.



_Preach it_.

I really hope Iron Lore allows me to do the kind of adventures I read about as a kid.  I've been dying to do a campaign set in Midkemia, Ray Feist's world from the Riftwar series.  That world's pretty magical, with dragons, immortal warriors, undead, spellcasters, etc., but D&D is so way beyond that I can't even bring the two within shouting distance of each other.  For one thing, I think there's one magical sword in the whole series, and it's only magical because a quasi-God hid a spark of his essence it it.  There sure aren't any humans running around making Flaming Longswords +2 at the drop of a hat.  The one other magical item I can recall off the top of my head duplicated (in essence) an minor Weather effect which created fog over a square mile max; and using it almost killed the Magician.

For God's sake, I can't even run _The Wizard of Earthsea_ with D&D, and a Wizard was the main frickin' character.

Anyway, my point is I TOTALLY agree with you here.

(I guess luckily for WoTC they have games like _Neverwinter Nights_ to draw in new fans, and authors like Ray Salvatore faithfully cranking out their d20 Soaps)



			
				Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> I think a thief will be a character who focuses on stunts.



Hm, good bet.  Giving them access to spells or a high BAB doesn't make sense, so in IL, what else is there?  Maybe that's what their tokens do.


> Arcanist will have breadth with a wealth of knowledge, craft, and mystical skills. Possibly also skill sets that differ based on specialization. Necromancers picking up heal and herbalism fer instance.



I can see that.  I wonder what else being a specialist gets you.  Given the limited nature of spellcasting, maybe only Necromancers can make undead?  AU/AE has spoiled me into thinking that spellcasters are incredibly broad and flexible, but perhaps not this time.


> Thief: Perception, Stealth, Athletics, Agility, Intrusion(open lock, disable d, and search), and Deception(bluff, disguise, forgery). That's six right there which puts the thief into the 8 skill ranks range for certain.  And I ain't even put Urban or Social skill areas in there, which I only stepped back from doing cause that would put it at something like 10 skill areas.



I know, it almost seems too many.  I left out some stuff I thought would be a good fit to include the "People Skills", because the character description said he has a silver tongue.

Wherever "Decipher Script" goes, I bet it's grouped with "Forgery."


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Well, now, let's not get too down on DnD.  I think the number of different well realized settings that have come out of the game, let alone been inspired by it, are an able testament to the game's skill at creating fantasy settings.

But I certainly agree that the style of play among the community and game, for some time now, has put too little emphasis on skill points which are among the coolest points of 3.5.  I'm very very happy about how much Iron Lore is doing to bring them out into the spot light.

One thing I've often seen in games is that they treat skills like a problem since there are so many ways to boost their modifiers.

I often think that one of the unspoken justifications for fighters getting such horrible skill points for what is essentially supposed to be the most generic class is that the system assumes their stats are going to get jacked up through the roof.  

Which is fine, except that it hijacks any number of character concepts especially the idea that the fighter is some sort of generic character class.  Instead he ends up being some sort of sheltered uber gladiator who looks like he never leaves the compound except to run at and kill whatever his handlers point toward.

Mutants and Masterminds is far far worse, so don't think I don't love the fighter for how much flexibility he does have, or that there aren't plenty of good reasons for the fighter to have such low skills.

I'm just glad to see a system come along and develop along the lines that make everyone having plenty of skills make more sense.


----------



## Mac Callum

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> Which is fine, except that it hijacks any number of character concepts especially the idea that the fighter is some sort of generic character class.  Instead he ends up being some sort of sheltered uber gladiator who looks like he never leaves the compound except to run at and kill whatever his handlers point toward.



I find this quote amusing. 

I think you're right about the assumptions.  Without spells and magical items to boost Skill totals DM's won't feel the need to make DC's insanely high just to be challenging.  It will allow people with Skill totals in the 5-8 range to still do some cool stuff if they're allowed to roll a couple times/ take 10-20.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Mac Callum said:
			
		

> I find this quote amusing.
> 
> I think you're right about the assumptions.  Without spells and magical items to boost Skill totals DM's won't feel the need to make DC's insanely high just to be challenging.  It will allow people with Skill totals in the 5-8 range to still do some cool stuff if they're allowed to roll a couple times/ take 10-20.




Actually, I think that a lot of systems were keeping skill checks artificially low, when they're at their proper levels that's when you get to do stunts.


----------



## JohnSnow

> That's what's really disappointing with the direction D&D is going. D&D continues to become morre and more inbred. Rather than designing a game that will appeal to newcomers who come in with visions of the LotR films or Conan comics in their head, they opt for this completely self-contained magic-intensive system that doesn't bear any resemblence to any kind of heroic fantasy that anyone might be familiar with.




To me, this is the key point about what Mearls is trying to do. Personally, I think D&D needs to take a step back and away from uber-fantasy, and try embracing its origins. I know that lots of people LOVE high fantasy, but to my way of thinking, high fantasy should be added on to, not replace, good action fantasy. I'm as big a fan of Fahfrd and the Grey Mouser, Conan and the rest as Mike Mearls. I know that (Eberron creator) Keith Baker is a huge fan of Martin's _A Song of Ice and Fire_ as I am. And I know that Andy Collins has experimented with various ways to moderate the amount of magical "impact" on his D&D games.

I guess I'm just of the mindset that prefers magic as "spice" not the main course. Yes, that's partially because I just enjoy straight medieval action. It's also partially because no matter how much I enjoy magic, a little flavor goes a lot further than all magic all the time (and emulates the source material that got me interested in gaming a lot better).

I've gotten flack on the Wizards boards many times for my contention that D&D should be more like the novels that inspired it. Despite that, I stand by the assertion that the further you get from those novels, the more problematic a game you're creating. Sure, it may still be fun, but I can't "play" Lord of the Rings (or Fahfrd and Grey Mouser, or Conan, or...)

I'm hopeful that Iron Lore will restore some of that "feel" to d20 Fantasy. Even if it means that a high-level PC is "Hiawatha-esque" without any equipment. Personally, I can live with a 20th level archer being able to accomplish things that are hard to imagine in the "real world." However, as long as that high-level archer's abilities feel "legendary" and not "anime," I'll be fine.


----------



## bolen

So if this is a Robert e Howard/George RR martin game It is a must buy.

However if it is a Zena/comic book game with Uber powerful characters I will pass.  Unfortunately I could not get into one of the demo games at Gen Con.  Perhaps they will open up extra ones at the con (HINT HINT HINT)


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I'm hopeful that Iron Lore will restore some of that "feel" to d20 Fantasy. Even if it means that a high-level PC is "Hiawatha-esque" without any equipment. Personally, I can live with a 20th level archer being able to accomplish things that are hard to imagine in the "real world." However, as long as that high-level archer's abilities feel "legendary" and not "anime," I'll be fine.




Not a bad take.  Though I don't really know that anime and legendary and in opposition to each other.

What I really like is that it feels so granular.  That you can break fights up into specific actions and abilities and really run with them and interpret them.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> However, as long as that high-level archer's abilities feel "legendary" and not "anime," I'll be fine.




Or wuxia. Don't need more wuxia in D&D either.


----------



## Erekose13

bolen said:
			
		

> So if this is a Robert e Howard/George RR martin game It is a must buy.
> 
> However if it is a Zena/comic book game with Uber powerful characters I will pass.  Unfortunately I could not get into one of the demo games at Gen Con.  Perhaps they will open up extra ones at the con (HINT HINT HINT)



Monte has replied on his boards that there will be demos at the Malhavoc table for the whole con.


----------



## Azgulor

bolen said:
			
		

> So if this is a Robert e Howard/George RR martin game It is a must buy.
> 
> However if it is a Zena/comic book game with Uber powerful characters I will pass.




And therin lies my problem.  When I first heard about Iron Lore, I interpreted it as the former - which would make emulating fantasy as depicted in novels and movies much more attainable.  However, upon closer inspection, and especially after the "Arrow Ladder" ability of the Archer, it looks like it will be much closer to the latter.

I want to play Conan style swords-n-sorcery.  I want to play gritty Song of Fire & Ice drama, action, and tragedy.  I don't want to play Zena, Hercules, or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.  

So I'll be satisfied with my Conan RPG and anxiously await the Game of Thrones and Thieves' World RPGs.  But Iron Lore isn't on my MUST BUY list anymore.

Azgulor


----------



## JohnSnow

> And therein lies my problem. When I first heard about Iron Lore, I interpreted it as the former - which would make emulating fantasy as depicted in novels and movies much more attainable. However, upon closer inspection, and especially after the "Arrow Ladder" ability of the Archer, it looks like it will be much closer to the latter.




Y'know, I find it REALLY hysterical that people are jumping to conclusions based on the archer's "Arrow Ladder" ability. For starters, it's an ability that MOST characters aren't going to have before 13th level (probably 15th!). It's not even available until 11th, and I imagine most characters will be more attracted to either one of the other sniper shot abilities or an additional deadeye shot ability instead. So at 15th level, is this ability REALLY that Xena/comic book-y? From the class preview:



> When you make your attack, you may spend 1 aim token for every 5 feet of the creature's height to create a "ladder" of arrows. You perforate the target with projectiles that you and your allies can then use as rungs to climb up the target (Climb check, DC 5). You use 2 arrows per 5 feet of height; completing this attack requires a full-round action. If your attack misses, the "rungs" are spaced too far apart to be usable, or perhaps some of the arrows loosen and fall. You can start an arrow ladder on one round and complete it on the next.
> 
> This attack inflicts damage for one ranged attack as normal. If the damage fails to beat an object's hardness, you fail to form the ladder. Your weapon must inflict piercing damage to use this ability. You can choose to create a persistent ladder, or it can fall apart after one use.




So, basically, you can spend an aim token so that the arrows you shoot are stacked on top of each other and you can use them to assist your climb. It doesn't make you "fly" up the wall, and you STILL have to beat the hardness. This is even doable in the "real world." It's just pretty HARD to properly place the arrows. Hardly what I call ridiculous at a level when core D&D is handing out "immovable rods."


----------



## A'koss

Just so everyone knows, the next playtest spotlight is up at Malhavoc's site:

http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mpress_IL_playtest2

It's Piratecat's group and it sounds like they quite enjoy it. Not too much new is revealed but they did run some non-combat scenerios... _"Kevin really enjoyed playing the thief in a political murder mystery," Adam said. "Switching between aliases to match which political faction the players were speaking to was a lot of fun for him -- and very entertaining for the group as a whole." _

Another interesting tidbit... _"However, he said the players probably enjoyed the concept of token pools the most. "They sought out every opportunity to earn and spend tokens within the game," he recalled, "often running two or more different pools at a time, depending on their character's abilities." _

And another... _"As DM, though, Adam's favorite mechanic was zones (a supplemental rules set coming in the October release Mastering Iron Lore. "[The] guidelines for adding areas to the battlefield where PCs and NPCs alike can trigger special effects really encouraged me to come up with cool places to fight, such as half-submerged ruins bubbling with explosive swamp gases," he said."_



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> So, basically, you can spend an aim token so that the arrows you shoot are stacked on top of each other and you can use them to assist your climb. It doesn't make you "fly" up the wall, and you STILL have to beat the hardness. This is even doable in the "real world." It's just pretty HARD to properly place the arrows. Hardly what I call ridiculous at a level when core D&D is handing out "immovable rods."



I know... If you're going to harp on something Xena-like, look to the 20th level abilities where you can bounce arrows around corners. An "arrow ladder" shouldn't even be that hard to do IRL so long as you can penetrate the material you need to climb.


----------



## Felon

See, this is the sort of thing I needed to see. Groovy.


----------



## Azgulor

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Y'know, I find it REALLY hysterical that people are jumping to conclusions based on the archer's "Arrow Ladder" ability. For starters, it's an ability that MOST characters aren't going to have before 13th level (probably 15th!). It's not even available until 11th, and I imagine most characters will be more attracted to either one of the other sniper shot abilities or an additional deadeye shot ability instead. So at 15th level, is this ability REALLY that Xena/comic book-y? From the class preview:
> 
> 
> 
> So, basically, you can spend an aim token so that the arrows you shoot are stacked on top of each other and you can use them to assist your climb. It doesn't make you "fly" up the wall, and you STILL have to beat the hardness. This is even doable in the "real world." It's just pretty HARD to properly place the arrows. Hardly what I call ridiculous at a level when core D&D is handing out "immovable rods."




Well, since the amount of available information about the product is limited, it's probably garnering more attention than it would otherwise.  Also, the fact that I consider the Archer an archetypical staple of fantasy (Legolas, Robin Hood, etc.) and have NEVER seen a decent Archer class (IMO) that puts it on equal footing to their melee-oriented counterparts had me eagerly awaiting additional info on this class.  I had extremely high (perhaps unreasonably so) hopes for this class based on the quality of Mr. Mearls work (which I have found to be among the best in the industry).

Maybe it was the presentation (laying escape routes in advance, etc.), maybe it struck me as a trademark trick I would quickly grow tired of, maybe I just thought it was cheesy.  Probably, it was because I could actually hear the groans of my players in my ears as I envisioned a session where a PC or NPC suggested or used such a class "ability".

Think of it this way: I advance in the class so that I'm Ranged Death against moving opponents that presumably are defending themselves because they want to live.  Is shooting a series of arrows against a structure/tree/etc. so that I can use them as an impromptu ladder really a challenge that I need to dedicate a class ability to do it?  And one I'll achieve/take at high level to boot?

All of that aside, I never said the book wouldn't be good.  Hell, I never said the class wasn't good.  My reservation (and this seems a pretty consistent opinion of the posters that had similar interpretations to mine) was that the book was not necessarily trying to emulate swords-n-sorcery rather than default D&D High Fantasy.  It's trying to present an equivalent D&D power level and style of play without the crutch of omnipresent magic.  The error was mine, in that I expected the book to be something that it now APPEARS not to be.  I'm certain Iron Lore will be a financial success - but I'm now uncertain that I'm part of it's target audience.

Azgulor


----------



## Felon

Azgulor said:
			
		

> Think of it this way: I advance in the class so that I'm Ranged Death against moving opponents that presumably are defending themselves because they want to live.  Is shooting a series of arrows against a structure/tree/etc. so that I can use them as an impromptu ladder really a challenge that I need to dedicate a class ability to do it?  And one I'll achieve/take at high level to boot?




No, and what's worse, as a class ability a player would probably be looking to use it at every available opportunity, which would quickly grow trite. It might be cool the first time you pull it off, but after the tenth time...? The arrow ladder trick should definitely be more of a once-in-a-while stunt than a core feature.


----------



## Andor

Azgulor said:
			
		

> All of that aside, I never said the book wouldn't be good.  Hell, I never said the class wasn't good.  My reservation (and this seems a pretty consistent opinion of the posters that had similar interpretations to mine) was that the book was not necessarily trying to emulate swords-n-sorcery rather than default D&D High Fantasy.  It's trying to present an equivalent D&D power level and style of play without the crutch of omnipresent magic.  The error was mine, in that I expected the book to be something that it now APPEARS not to be.  I'm certain Iron Lore will be a financial success - but I'm now uncertain that I'm part of it's target audience.
> Azgulor




Well it seems to me that they are trying to hit more that one style of play with the book. This gives them a broader audiance, obviously. If you don't want your archer to use the ladder of arrows, don't select it, it's an optional ability after all. If you don't think it matches your style of campiagn rule-0 it. I do think this product has the potential to allow lankmahr style games. I suspect there will be a section on different campign types and how to rule-0 those campigns for consistancy. Also note that the abilites that everyone is boggling at are 11th and 20th level abilities respectively. At those levels you are a raging force of nature anyway, allowing cinematic abilities is appropriate in characters that are tougher than warhorses. 

From what I've seen, since all the really funky abilities are higher level, you could probably remove a big chunk of the cinematic stuff simply by mandating multiclassing.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Azgulor said:
			
		

> My reservation (and this seems a pretty consistent opinion of the posters that had similar interpretations to mine) was that the book was not necessarily trying to emulate swords-n-sorcery rather than default D&D High Fantasy.  It's trying to present an equivalent D&D power level and style of play without the crutch of omnipresent magic.




...without the crutch of omnipresent magic _items_.



> The error was mine, in that I expected the book to be something that it now APPEARS not to be.  I'm certain Iron Lore will be a financial success - but I'm now uncertain that I'm part of it's target audience.




Yep.



			
				Andor said:
			
		

> Well it seems to me that they are trying to hit more that one style of play with the book.




That would be in direct contradiction to one of mearls' more insightful design philosophies.


----------



## Plane Sailing

A'koss said:
			
		

> Just so everyone knows, the next playtest spotlight is up at Malhavoc's site:
> 
> http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mpress_IL_playtest2
> 
> It's Piratecat's group and it sounds like they quite enjoy it.




I believe to be strictly correct its another group which Piratecat plays in - the defenders of daybreak is one group, Sagiro's campaign is another group with overlaps, and this is yet a third group. 

Especially notable for having _"Adam Windsor, an Australian temporarily based in the United States for work"_ - perhaps better known here as Capellan, author of the fabulous Space Ship Zero, X-Path and Forge of FU adventure/storyhours. At last we know what he looks like 

Cheers


----------



## Mac Callum

Wulf,

When are you going to forgive Mearls for his lousy marketing ability?  As a game designer, shouldn't you be more focused on the actual content, rather than Mearl's assertions about it?  At the end of the day, no one's going to buy the book based on what the author says.  We've all seen too many authors try to hype their own work for that.  We're going to thumb through it at the store, read reviews here at EN World, talk with playtesters, read the Design Diaries between now and August, etc. etc, and base our decision on that.  At this point your posts just sound churlish.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Mac Callum said:
			
		

> Wulf,
> 
> When are you going to forgive Mearls for his lousy marketing ability?




Huh?



> As a game designer, shouldn't you be more focused on the actual content, rather than Mearl's assertions about it?




I can only focus on what's been revealed so far, same as anyone else.



> At this point your posts just sound churlish.




If you say so.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> If you say so.




Man, no offense to anyone involved in this nascent conflict,  but you quoted a poster and the sum of your response was to add an additional word to his statement _in italics_.  

If that's not deliberate and churlish snarkiness then we must not be on the internet.

Not saying you have to stop, your opinions are generally much valued, but at least own what you are doing.


----------



## Andor

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> That would be in direct contradiction to one of mearls' more insightful design philosophies.




Well, okay, perhaps not deliberately designed to encompass more than one style. Nonetheless it is almost impossible to design something as complex as a game system that doesn't allow multiple styles. You are trying to portray a world after all and worlds are broad things. In ours for example we have astronauts, stone age barbarians, pacifist neo-pagans, firebrand fundamentalists, nomadic horsemen, and city dwellers who never learn to drive. 

My point being that if you want to portray grim and gritty, it's not what Iron Lore is meant to do, but it will probably require much less finagleing to make it work than 3.5 does. Leiber, Howard, Burroughs: Any author whose heros rely on muscle and skill and brains is probably suited to Iron Lore, with perhaps some minor tweaking.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

I encourage folks to go back to page 3 and 4 and read my comments on this thread. To recap:

1) I am very, _very_ interested, as a designer, in what mearls has done

2) I acknowledge and defer to his greater experience and talent

3) I have said repeatedly that I expect Iron Lore will be great

4) I don't consider myself a competitor to Malhavoc or vice versa (I shouldn't even have to say it, it should be self-evident)

Having re-read my earlier enthusiastic comments and predictions, and having sat quiet for about 6 pages to review the releases along with the rest of you, I think most of my predictions were pretty close.

I will admit I'm currently a little disappointed for two reasons:

1) I am hoping to be _taught_ something (though this thread has already provided a lot of cool insight to Mike's design philosophy)

2) I am a fan of low magic, low fantasy gaming. Iron Lore is shaping up to be low magic, high fantasy. 

I don't think it's churlish to agree with a poster who put that sentiment into almost exactly the words necessary to express the sentiment.

There _is_ no conflict here other than what folks feel necessary to read into it themselves. 

Through the course of this thread, I have made design comments, and I have made personal comments. The personal comments run along the lines of "I am sure it will be great," and "I buy all of Malhavoc's crunch..." and the designer comments are very specific questions to Mike based on the exact same information that everyone else has: Mike's comments here and a look at the previews. It is not out of line to discuss what we can based on either of those sources (creating interest and discussion is the _point_ of those previews).

I'm not sure where that leaves me, but I can tell you that I don't intend to surrender the  right to comment on a thread that interests me because other folks seem determined to paint me in a competitive-- no, adversarial-- relationship with Mike. 


Wulf


----------



## JoeGKushner

Andor said:
			
		

> Leiber, Howard, Burroughs: Any author whose heros rely on muscle and skill and brains is probably suited to Iron Lore, with perhaps some minor tweaking.




I don't think so. From the previews so far, these characters are more on the line with like Exalted or other anime style characters no? Conan may be able to choke even the strongest man to death but doesn't look like he'd match up with the design ideas here.


----------



## Andor

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I don't think so. From the previews so far, these characters are more on the line with like Exalted or other anime style characters no? Conan may be able to choke even the strongest man to death but doesn't look like he'd match up with the design ideas here.




How do you figure? The ladder of arrows is the only ability so far that look even vaugely anime-ish and that, as been pointed out, has been done in Conan too. 

When I think anime fantasy I think of heros leaping hundreds of feet and mages vaporizing whole villages with a single spell. So far we haven't seen any of that in Iron Lore.


----------



## JoeGKushner

Andor said:
			
		

> How do you figure? The ladder of arrows is the only ability so far that look even vaugely anime-ish and that, as been pointed out, has been done in Conan too.
> 
> When I think anime fantasy I think of heros leaping hundreds of feet and mages vaporizing whole villages with a single spell. So far we haven't seen any of that in Iron Lore.




Replacing magic items with innate abilities leads me to believe that ladder of arrows won't be hte last nod to the direction of the well selling and well supported Exalted line.


----------



## buzz

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Replacing magic items with innate abilities leads me to believe that ladder of arrows won't be hte last nod to the direction of the well selling and well supported Exalted line.



I would think it less a nod to _Exalted_ and more the expected outcome when trying to create classes that fit into the default D&D CR system wihtout relying on magic items. You can even see this in the 1e barbarian class. PCs get past 10th level and, magic or no, they're going to be capable of some hairy @#$!. 

_Exalted_ seems to me a whole 'nother animal.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Replacing magic items with innate abilities leads me to believe that ladder of arrows won't be hte last nod to the direction of the well selling and well supported Exalted line.




There is a guy I've seen thinking about translating Exalted into this and I personally have thought about using this to simulate heroic mortals in Exalted, who are just about as grim and gritty as you can get, but this strikes me as an extremely different beast than Exalted.

Plus Exalted don't ever need a ladder to do anything.  You just run or leap up the wall.

At the most, from what we've seen, the very highest level of Iron Lore characters will be operating on the level of the very lowest level of Exalted.  Now I don't know what sort of fantasy you read, but that strikes me as all too appropriate.  Particularly given that the lowest levels of Exalted are meant to operate as heroic adventurers, albeit blessed ones.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> There _is_ no conflict here other than what folks feel necessary to read into it themselves.
> 
> I'm not sure where that leaves me, but I can tell you that I don't intend to surrender the  right to comment on a thread that interests me because other folks seem determined to paint me in a competitive-- no, adversarial-- relationship with Mike.
> 
> 
> Wulf




I hope noone was asking you to surrender your right to comment.  And I don't think anyone was painting, but hopefully your comments will clear up any further misinterpretation.

If you do find any of my words nearly representing what you mean to say, please simply provide your own phrasing in its entirety unless you mean to snark or hurrah.  It's very hard for me to interpret otherwise.

I look forward to hearing more from you over the course of this and other threads.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Andor said:
			
		

> Well, okay, perhaps not deliberately designed to encompass more than one style. Nonetheless it is almost impossible to design something as complex as a game system that doesn't allow multiple styles. You are trying to portray a world after all and worlds are broad things. In ours for example we have astronauts, stone age barbarians, pacifist neo-pagans, firebrand fundamentalists, nomadic horsemen, and city dwellers who never learn to drive.




I'd argue that what you're more likely to see is that one man's specific style probably encompasses bits of pieces of any number of someone else's discrete styles.

As such it's perfectly appropriate to say that IL is built to encompass a number of different playing styles without contradicting Mike's design goal of building to a specific ethos and not trying to be all things to all people.


----------



## Mac Callum

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I encourage folks to go back to page 3 and 4 and read my comments on this thread.



I have read this thread "cover to cover", and agree that your recap "recaps" most of your posts; just not all of your comments.


> I will admit I'm currently a little disappointed for two reasons:
> 
> 1) I am hoping to be _taught_ something (though this thread has already provided a lot of cool insight to Mike's design philosophy)
> 
> 2) I am a fan of low magic, low fantasy gaming. Iron Lore is shaping up to be low magic, high fantasy.
> 
> I don't think it's churlish to agree with a poster who put that sentiment into almost exactly the words necessary to express the sentiment.
> 
> There _is_ no conflict here other than what folks feel necessary to read into it themselves.
> 
> Through the course of this thread, I have made design comments, and I have made personal comments. The personal comments run along the lines of "I am sure it will be great," and "I buy all of Malhavoc's crunch..." and the designer comments are very specific questions to Mike based on the exact same information that everyone else has: Mike's comments here and a look at the previews. It is not out of line to discuss what we can based on either of those sources (creating interest and discussion is the _point_ of those previews).
> 
> I'm not sure where that leaves me, but I can tell you that I don't intend to surrender the  right to comment on a thread that interests me because other folks seem determined to paint me in a competitive-- no, adversarial-- relationship with Mike.
> 
> 
> Wulf



Wulf, 

I like (and have bought some of) your work.  I like your story hour.  I've appreciated your posts in other threads.  I have no reason to be "determined" to read a competitive/ adversarial tone in your posts - but I saw it anyway.

It's entirely possible it's just me, but when I read your posts that perhaps were trying to express disappointment they came across as slightly adversarial, but mostly defensive about something.  What that would be, I don't know.  I could guess, but then I'd really be in deeper water than I feel comfortable, not knowing you personally.

Anyway, I'm not trying to get start any kind of fight here, but if I saw a tone in the comments that you didn't intend, chances are I'm not the only one who saw it.  Just something to think about.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> If you do find any of my words nearly representing what you mean to say, please simply provide your own phrasing in its entirety unless you mean to snark or hurrah.  It's very hard for me to interpret otherwise.



The number of times I have seen someone replying to something with adding a single word upon something already said is beyond count. Rarely, if ever, have I seen it intended as a snark or churlishness. Maybe instead begging for the entirety of his thinking you just give a bit more leeway in the possibility you are misinterpreting and halt the accusation flinging of not-obvious intent?  *shrug*

Being on the Internet as long as you imply you must be more than familiar with the difficulty in interpreting purely on text...

In fact, as I read Wulf's one-word italic addition to be nearly total agreement... but for the one word he added. Churlish?


----------



## Mark

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> I'd argue that what you're more likely to see is that one man's specific style probably encompasses bits of pieces of any number of someone else's discrete styles.





I don't think there is any product that couldn't be described as a mix of a number of styles.


----------



## Azgulor

Mac Callum said:
			
		

> It's entirely possible it's just me, but when I read your posts that perhaps were trying to express disappointment they came across as slightly adversarial, but mostly defensive about something.  What that would be, I don't know.  I could guess, but then I'd really be in deeper water than I feel comfortable, not knowing you personally.
> 
> Anyway, I'm not trying to get start any kind of fight here, but if I saw a tone in the comments that you didn't intend, chances are I'm not the only one who saw it.  Just something to think about.




Um, Mac Callum, I truly am not trying to be argumentative, but I think actually think it _IS_ you.

I've read nothing in Wulf's posts to suggest a negative opinion of the book.  I do read them as someone interested in how the product would approach a genre of fantasy that Wulf likes: high adventure, low magic.  As more info about IL has come out, it doesn't appear that IL will be tackling that genre.  Rather, per Mearls' designer diaries and the initial IL announcements on the Malhavoc website, IL characters will be able to stand on equal footing with their D&D counterparts.  That's definitely High Fantasy, High Magic.

Although I failed to do it in my post, Wulf was kind enough to drive the distinction home in a response to my post:  D&D supports High Magic and character ability primarily through the acquistion of ever-increasingly-powerful magic items.  Iron Lore presumably (again, based on Mr. Mearls tidbits) will support the same power curve _without_ magic items and through character abilities/feats/talents/etc.

(And I'm still trying to figure out how Wulf's clarification and support of my point equates to a churlish response as suggested by Dr. Strangemonkey...)

Azgulor


----------



## JoeGKushner

buzz said:
			
		

> I would think it less a nod to _Exalted_ and more the expected outcome when trying to create classes that fit into the default D&D CR system wihtout relying on magic items. You can even see this in the 1e barbarian class. PCs get past 10th level and, magic or no, they're going to be capable of some hairy @#$!.
> 
> _Exalted_ seems to me a whole 'nother animal.




But at 20th level, those 'replacments' for magic items and other standards, is going to continue to rise no? Replacements to overcome damage reduction and other core elements, such as teleportation, dimension door, bulls strength and other buff spells, will have to be built into it, or it won't be compatible with either Arcana Evolved or D&D as both have lots of magic built into 'em, even if you just use the spellcasters and toss the magic items.


----------



## Felon

Mac Callum said:
			
		

> I have read this thread "cover to cover", and agree that your recap "recaps" most of your posts; just not all of your comments.....It's entirely possible it's just me, but when I read your posts that perhaps were trying to express disappointment they came across as slightly adversarial, but mostly defensive about something.




My take on it is that Wulf often just doesn't sugar-coat his remarks with niceties. You can see that in one his replies to me earlier in this thread. 

Having said that, I'd love it if some moderator would come in and tell us to stop talking about Wulf and get us talking about IL again.



			
				Andor said:
			
		

> How do you figure? The ladder of arrows is the only ability so far that look even vaugely anime-ish and that, as been pointed out, has been done in Conan too.




The heroes in Leiber and Howard's stories were not superheroes. They relied heavily on stealth and picking foes off quickly one at a time. This is because plowing into multiple opponents was a good way to get killed, particularly if they were armed with weapons that can strike at a distance. And on the occassions where they encountered monsters, they were fighting an uphill battle. Pitted against other men they were hell-on-wheels, but going toe-to-toe against something bigger, stronger, and more savage than themselves was a very bleak option.

Then again, maybe Howard and Leiber's heroes were just very low level.


----------



## Andor

Felon said:
			
		

> The heroes in Leiber and Howard's stories were not superheroes. They relied heavily on stealth and picking foes off quickly one at a time. This is because plowing into multiple opponents was a good way to get killed, particularly if they were armed with weapons that can strike at a distance. And on the occassions where they encountered monsters, they were fighting an uphill battle. Pitted against other men they were hell-on-wheels, but going toe-to-toe against something bigger, stronger, and more savage than themselves was a very bleak option.
> 
> Then again, maybe Howard and Leiber's heroes were just very low level.




Well, it's been explicitly stated that the goal of Iron Lore is to allow you fight with the same puissance as the equivilent party in 3.5. That having been said if you want your PCs scared of monsters then give them a troll at 3rd level. 

It seems to me that the problem several people are having with Iron Lore has less to do with the system than the fact that the exp chart continues past 7th level. Even Conan was not a 20th level character. Once you get past the low double digits you are into superhero territory. At 15th level you are a hollywood action hero. At 20th you are pretty much a greek god. This is simply a facet of the d20 system. The problem lies in the fact that the game has 20+ levels and expects you to be allowed to reach them. If you don't want characters who can become 20 times more powerful than they used to be, try another system. Or stop scaling experience rewards to grant another level every 4 sessions.


----------



## buzz

Andor said:
			
		

> It seems to me that the problem several people are having with Iron Lore has less to do with the system than the fact that the exp chart continues past 7th level. Even Conan was not a 20th level character. Once you get past the low double digits you are into superhero territory. At 15th level you are a hollywood action hero. At 20th you are pretty much a greek god. This is simply a facet of the d20 system. The problem lies in the fact that the game has 20+ levels and expects you to be allowed to reach them. If you don't want characters who can become 20 times more powerful than they used to be, try another system. Or stop scaling experience rewards to grant another level every 4 sessions.



Exactly. Malhavoc has been up front that IL PCs will be able to compete with D&D PCs of similar level. Knowing what high-level D&D characters are capable of, no one should be expecting that IL will be "nasty, brutish, and short" (as it were) all the way to 20th.



			
				JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> But at 20th level, those 'replacments' for magic items and other standards, is going to continue to rise no? Replacements to overcome damage reduction and other core elements, such as teleportation, dimension door, bulls strength and other buff spells, will have to be built into it, or it won't be compatible with either Arcana Evolved or D&D as both have lots of magic built into 'em, even if you just use the spellcasters and toss the magic items.



Not arguing that, just arguing "nod to _Exalted_". _Exalted_ PCs start where D&D PCs are just hitting the _Epic Level Handbook_. Not much that has been revealed about IL gives me the same feeling of over-the-top anime superheroics that _Exalted_ emulates.

It does, however, seem like it'll do a fine for, say, Aragorn holding off an approaching army of orcs with nothing more than a bastard sword and a leather jerkin.


----------



## Felon

Andor said:
			
		

> It seems to me that the problem several people are having with Iron Lore has less to do with the system than the fact that the exp chart continues past 7th level. Even Conan was not a 20th level character.




Sort of. The problem some people are having is that you can't have it both ways, saying that IL heroes can kill the same monsters that D&D characters can while simultaneoously making comparisons between IL and ficitional heroes that can't fight the same monsters that D&D characters can.


----------



## Mac Callum

Felon said:
			
		

> The heroes in Leiber and Howard's stories were not superheroes. They relied heavily on stealth and picking foes off quickly one at a time. This is because plowing into multiple opponents was a good way to get killed, particularly if they were armed with weapons that can strike at a distance. And on the occassions where they encountered monsters, they were fighting an uphill battle. Pitted against other men they were hell-on-wheels, but going toe-to-toe against something bigger, stronger, and more savage than themselves was a very bleak option.
> 
> Then again, maybe Howard and Leiber's heroes were just very low level.




I imagine that this description could be perfectly adjudicated in IL.  Plowing headlong into a crowd of Armigers / Beserkers backed up with Archers would be suicide _if they were a high enough level_.  Taking on monters can be an uphill battle if they're a high enough CR.

In other words, "bigger, stronger, and more savage" are relative terms, which the Level / CR sytems handles pretty well.


----------



## Mac Callum

Felon said:
			
		

> Sort of. The problem some people are having is that you can't have it both ways, saying that IL heroes can kill the same monsters that D&D characters can while simultaneoously making comparisons between IL and ficitional heroes that can't fight the same monsters that D&D characters can.



Huh?  Conan can take out things no D&D or IL character _of 1st level_ could kill, but he would be threatened by things a 20th level character would handle with ease.

The only thing that tells me is that a rules representation of Conan would be higher than 1st but lower than 20th level.

What I think is cool about IL is that you could make a rules rep of Conan without having to hand waive or ignore why he needs the Standard Wealth Table's worth of equipment.


----------



## Mac Callum

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> But at 20th level, those 'replacments' for magic items and other standards, is going to continue to rise no? Replacements to overcome damage reduction and other core elements, such as teleportation, dimension door, bulls strength and other buff spells, will have to be built into it, or it won't be compatible with either Arcana Evolved or D&D as both have lots of magic built into 'em, even if you just use the spellcasters and toss the magic items.



Replacements for DR-piercing and direct-boost-granting items, yes; but I'm not sure why you need to compensate for the loss of Teleport or Dimension Door.  Usually, those don't effect the CR system much, just your ability to get in and out of situations that or too hairy to approach or retreat from normally.

A good example if the Archer's BAB progression with the Bow.  You'll notice that it neatly dovetails with a Fighter's BAB progression + a magical bow appropriate for that level.  That's a direct Attack boost.  The token abilities also nicely match some of the damage boosting capabilities of magical weapons at higher level.  I imagine that general Feats available to everyone will handle the DR-piercing bit (or a general mechanic that pierces DR as you advance in total character levels).

I don't see any need to replace Teleport.  In fact, I regularly nix Teleport, or 'shaft' it in some way to make it less common.  I need to because in hong's parlance a world with free and safe Teleport is just a little to wahoo for me to wrap my brain around.  I'll be happy to see it gone.  Same goes high level divination too. 

If IL seems incompatible with Arcana Evolved or D&D, I think it's really the implied settings which are not compatible.  Eberron and the Diamond Throne just don't work without access to high level magic.  Eberron could not be staffed solely with NPC's with class levels from IL, so yeah, in that sense they're incompatible.

But in a general CR-sense?  They seem to be so far.  (Notwithstanding specific examples, such as Elmer Fudd, which will probably have to wait until we have the whole ruleset).


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Mac Callum said:
			
		

> A good example if the Archer's BAB progression with the Bow.  You'll notice that it neatly dovetails with a Fighter's BAB progression + a magical bow appropriate for that level.




Golly, if that doesn't lend credence to my prior _churlish_ post.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Golly, if that doesn't lend credence to my prior _churlish_ post.




If you're ok with being a churl, I'm okay with you being a churl.  Or at least posting like one.

I meant no offense by it, simply to illuminate what Mac Callum might be responding to.  We're a friendly board and I appreciate it that people are watching out for each other's style.  In a prior thread I used the term prejuidice in what I felt was a perfectly innocuous sense, was called on it, and was only too happy to respond and adapt to the criticisms.  Many of the posters I most respect most have gone through similar processes in any number of threads.  I'm certainly happy to elucidate further on the subject of snark, but really it's only the smallest of sins and a not illegitimate style of posting.  My only point was to illuminate a potential point of irritation so that it might be smoothed over, not to defame anyone's sense of sophisitication in argumentation and style.  I might do that under other circumstances, but it's really not apropos to anything at hand including the current posters.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Golly, if that doesn't lend credence to my prior _churlish_ post.




And to respond to the argument:

I honestly don't think it does.  You might be able to clarify but as far as I can tell magic is the ultimate point of calling a spade a spade.  You can't claim magic is in a game unless someone puts it there.  Mike hasn't said that the Archer's abilities are magic related so unless you are saying that they are in your homebrew I don't see where your argument comes from.

Certainly if you don't have a magic bow then you aren't reliant on magic items, but if you also don't have any other way to associate the term magic with your character then it doesn't make any sense to say that the characters are less reliant on magic items but still reliant on magic?

Are you suggesting that its necessary in heroic fantasty for heros to be screwed if they don't have magic items?  'Cause I'd need to see a more involved argument on the nature of the genre to buy that.


----------



## Mac Callum

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Golly, if that doesn't lend credence to my prior _churlish_ post.



What do you want, Wulf?  Mike's already admitted that IL characters should be about par with PHB characters of the same level.  For that to work you have to make up for the item & spell granted boosts somehow.

AFAIC, the _only_ reason that these adjustments have been made are so that I, as a DM, do not have to re-figure every CR in all of the Monster Supplements I own.  AFAIC, that's a huge favor.  This is a Good Thing.  Grim Tales is terribly interesting and thought provoking, but the CR / EL tables are a lot of work.  I can't do it on the fly, and it would be nice to just run an adventure out of Dungeon or what-have-you without having to recompute every encounter.  There is absolutely no reason why an IL-only campaign can't be as gritty as you want.  Just disallow Arcanists, get rid of all the monsters, and make all of the NPC enemies humans with class levels on par with the PC's.  That way all of the Defenses Bonuses and Advanced BAB progressions just come out in the wash and you're left with a always-life-threatening slug-fest.

I wanted to move on, but it was posts like this, which harp on how IL keeps disappointing you, that made me make the original 'churlish' comment.  It disappoints you.  Fine.  We know.  Can we move on now?


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Felon said:
			
		

> The heroes in Leiber and Howard's stories were not superheroes. They relied heavily on stealth and picking foes off quickly one at a time. This is because plowing into multiple opponents was a good way to get killed, particularly if they were armed with weapons that can strike at a distance. And on the occassions where they encountered monsters, they were fighting an uphill battle. Pitted against other men they were hell-on-wheels, but going toe-to-toe against something bigger, stronger, and more savage than themselves was a very bleak option.
> 
> Then again, maybe Howard and Leiber's heroes were just very low level.




There's no doubt about any of that, except that there are more than a few occasions where the two heroes plow into multiple opponents it is one of the staples of the genre, but I don't see where you're getting that IL is somehow a violation of that ethos.

If anything the introduction of archers with the abilities listed finally makes it possible for people to fear ranged attacks without irony.

I take a lot of hope from the most recent design diary.  A dragon fight is described in which the characters have to use the terrain, tactics, and heroic daring to take it down, all without dipping into flavor text, and the dragon uses the same to fight against them.

If anything what IL is doing is not making it possible to play DnD with heroic fantasy characters so much as to make DnD a heroic fantasy world.  One in which effort dedicated to the individual task recieves a concrete reward.

An archer who isn't stealthy and doesn't set up her position so that she has time to aim the shot is completely screwed in a way that I have yet to see paralleled in other GnG games.  A Conan or BCCS archer doesn't have to do anything other than surprise the opponent and doesn't have any options for stealth beyond that.  True of heroic mortal exalted as well.  The token system makes an ambush on the part of an archer a multi-round process involving a lot of tactical sophistication and culminating in a shot that should prove to be satisfyingly deadly no matter what level of play you're working with.

I can accept that IL characters are heroic, and at high levels Heroic, but super-heroic I just don't see.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Mac Callum said:
			
		

> For that to work you have to make up for the item & spell granted boosts somehow.




To be honest, I think that this is a mistake from both sides.

If the goal is to allow you to play DnD with Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser then it's not that you are making up for the lack of magical items with other magical abilities its that you are levelling out the system as a whole.

What we have is a historical cognitive dissonance here.  We are so used to the standards of DnD from years of playing it that we have gone from thiking of 'in DnD if you lack magical items you are screwed when facing a dragon' as a complaint to thinking of it as an aesthetic necessity.

Watched Dragon Slayer the other night.  Now you can fight me on this, but I think of that as a pretty perfect example of a GnG movie, at the very least its the best heroic fantasy take on magic in film and the best dragon slayer movie of all time.  

And it struck me how much magic items just don't enter it.  There's one magic item and two masterwork items in the whole movie.   The magic item is a literal magic item.  It's not some sort of thrice blessed sword it's a rock that lets you do magic.  The masterwork item is hard to get on the one hand as its made of dragon scales and the other is simply hard to make.

The other thing that struck me is that the dragon wasn't a threat because it was a magical beast.  The dragon was a threat because it was a magic beast with the tactical advantages of fortifications, mobility, reach, strength, armor, napalm, and intelligence.  People go out to get a wizard to fight it, but noone thinks they can't hurt it through mundane means.  Just that doing so will be pretty nastilly difficult, and the only way even the wizard can see to defeat it is through suicide bombing.  Even the magic is tactical.

But the point is that noone in the movie thinks we're screwed we have to go home.  The whole point of the movie is that everyone has to think we're screwed, we have to figure out a way to get unscrewed.

It's also worth noting how much preparation figures into the story as an element of each attempt against the dragon.

The thing I'm looking forward to most about IL is how much it rewards preparation.  Cause what it's essentially down is replaced magic items with tactical sense.  The two classes we've seen require preparation and the class we've seen that explicitly doesn't, the Berzerker, still requires you to really consider and evaluate the advantage of every blow struck against you.  It's the first class where I can actually picture the eye of the hero, the whole heroic cinema trope of the hero getting into the fight and then evaluating each opponent as he prepares not only to make the next move but to recieve it, making sense.


----------



## Felon

Mac Callum said:
			
		

> I imagine that this description could be perfectly adjudicated in IL.  Plowing headlong into a crowd of Armigers / Beserkers backed up with Archers would be suicide _if they were a high enough level_.




That sort of example is based on an assumption that you're assigning no-name rank-and-file schlubs with character classes, which pretty much runs counter to d20 design philosophy. When I say Howard and Leiber's heroes didn't plow casually into hordes of opponents, I didn't mean hordes of equally heroic opponents. Didn't think I needed to clarify that, but there you have it.

By way of example, in "God in the Bowl", Conan has a run-in with a bunch of palace guards. These guys are just schmucks, but they do hold him at bay quite successfully. Conan is particularly wary of the young pup leveling the crossbow at his chest, not so much because of the young pup being some badass archer but rather because of the crossbow's ability to puncture any number of internal organs.


----------



## buzz

Felon said:
			
		

> By way of example, in "God in the Bowl", Conan has a run-in with a bunch of palace guards. These guys are just schmucks, but they do hold him at bay quite successfully. Conan is particularly wary of the young pup leveling the crossbow at his chest, not so much because of the young pup being some badass archer but rather because of the crossbow's ability to puncture any number of internal organs.



You can do this in D&D as-is, if the schmuck guards know how to Aid Another and have readied actions. It's maybe not going to be as lethal as GURPS, but them's the breaks. "God in the Bowl" is a pretty early story, too, isn't it? What equivalent level might Conan be in that encounter? Low enough to be wary of a squad of armed guards, maybe?

Things always get sticky when you try and match examples from an author-controls-all medium to RPGs, especially RPGs as gamist as D&D and most d20 RPGs.


----------



## JoeGKushner

buzz said:
			
		

> Things always get sticky when you try and match examples from an author-controls-all medium to RPGs, especially RPGs as gamist as D&D and most d20 RPGs.




Then perbhaps should comparissiosn should be left out entirely? No more X will let you emulate Y because we don't want to get sticky or anything now no?


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Felon said:
			
		

> That sort of example is based on an assumption that you're assigning no-name rank-and-file schlubs with character classes, which pretty much runs counter to d20 design philosophy. When I say Howard and Leiber's heroes didn't plow casually into hordes of opponents, I didn't mean hordes of equally heroic opponents. Didn't think I needed to clarify that, but there you have it.
> 
> By way of example, in "God in the Bowl", Conan has a run-in with a bunch of palace guards. These guys are just schmucks, but they do hold him at bay quite successfully. Conan is particularly wary of the young pup leveling the crossbow at his chest, not so much because of the young pup being some badass archer but rather because of the crossbow's ability to puncture any number of internal organs.




hmm, the clarification is sort of helpful, actually.  Though I would again point out the d20 design philosophy bit may be a poor attitude to take in this debate.  I mean are you assuming there are mooks or aren't you?  The assumption makes a big difference in your story or game.  You seem to be assuming post-clarification that there are mooks, or schmucks, but that they should be able to hold people at bay effectively.  It's a bit of weird trick you seem to want a game to pull off here for a character to have both rules dictated respect and disdain for a given class of extra, but we don't yet know if or how IL deals with the issue, A, and, B, I don't know how well you can argue that there has to be a consistent response.  It may very well be that there are any number of ways in which one guy sees himself at a disadvantage against numbers with the drop on him.  I'm not certain that all of them will apply all the time to every situation.  It's certainly not all that consistent within the genre(s) in question.  It's also certainly true that we have yet to see from Mike or the playtesters any indication that there are really superhero levels of concern over the ease of overcoming mooks.  Were they there I would expect to see the lack of threat from mooks touted as a feature as a frequent complaint of super-hero games is that they give mooks too much power.

Second off, I doubt any heroic fantasy character does much casually, unless they are very serious about being casual.  There is both genre variety and disconnect at work here.  The Musketeers are certainly part of the Heroic Adventure/Fantasy genre and they certainly delight in fighting hordes of opponents, but they also sneak about in palaces.  Even where you willingly hold small fortresses with six men against a regiment you still sneak about in palaces.

It will be interesting to see how IL deals with issues like overwhelming numbers, homefield advantage or disadvantage, and opponents having 'the drop.'   Personally I'd prefer to see a set of system level rules that can be added or dropped rather than anything inherent in the characters.  Conan and BCCS had interesting approaches to this, in their multiple opponents and advantage rules respectively, but neither of them had much of a take on the 'homefield' advantage commonly given to mooks in their stronghold.  The mention of rules for Zones in the last playtest indicates at least some sort of approach to it in IL, so I won't be surprised if there are other solutions offered to numbers and 'the drop' as well.

If not those are certainly the level of rules that are easiest to drop in from other systems.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Then perbhaps should comparissiosn should be left out entirely? No more X will let you emulate Y because we don't want to get sticky or anything now no?




Sticky's not so bad.  I do recognize a real problem in the reference to outside media in most GnG related issues, but it does provide some perspective, gives GnG as close to an aesthetic/critical quality as its going to get, and is fun.

It's a decent basis for argumentation as long as you're willing to recognize the argument is going to go both ways.

I would say that I think cinema is a better source for comparison.  RPGs are inherently cinematic or theatrical in a number of ways and given the few number of movies in the genre compared to short stories there's a higher liklihood we'll all know what people are talking about.

But l'm game for literature as well.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> But at 20th level, those 'replacments' for magic items and other standards, is going to continue to rise no? Replacements to overcome damage reduction and other core elements, such as teleportation, dimension door, bulls strength and other buff spells, will have to be built into it, or it won't be compatible with either Arcana Evolved or D&D as both have lots of magic built into 'em, even if you just use the spellcasters and toss the magic items.




No, I don't really think so.  AE would have to have those elements, IL is trying for a different approach since there isn't really an illusion of total compatibility.

That is AE was simply trying to different things within the overall rules framework and slightly modify the basic magic system.

IL looks like its going to replace or elaborate on a lot of the basic framework.  So that rather than being AE characters fighting a DnD dragon in a DnD context you will in fact be IL characters fighting a DnD dragon in an IL/DnD context.

So in the case of buff spells, for instance, I think most of their functionality is going to be subsumed into the basic structure of the classes and feats.  Higher initial attribute scores and more control over how they can be raised will probably remove a lot of the need for that.  And the rest will probably go away with the various buffs to damage and defense you can get from more tactical thinking, stunts, and the token system.  All of which are both grittier ways of accomplishing this, as they involve instanced effort and chances of failure, and more cinematic/heroic.

Teleportation and dimension door strike me as such narrative level spells that doing away with them is highly unlikely to be problematic.  The difference between, 'I teleport there,' and, 'I travel there over the course of weeks,' is really only one of flavor, words, and timing.  Since IL appears to be doing away with most of the relevant non-narrative time limits I don't see much of a problem.  Were I designing the game I would include some sort of mechanic for narrative level magic, so we might see that, but that's still far enough removed from the 'popping wizard' and far closer to the, 'Hey Fafhrd appears to be on a UFO/Olympian chariot now,' phenomena. 

You may have to do some redesign on dungeons, but when hasn't that been a possibility?  

Doing away with the silos seems to me to be the biggest step in this direction.  Not even BCCS or Conan were totally willing to do that.


----------



## Mac Callum

Felon said:
			
		

> That sort of example is based on an assumption that you're assigning no-name rank-and-file schlubs with character classes, which pretty much runs counter to d20 design philosophy. When I say Howard and Leiber's heroes didn't plow casually into hordes of opponents, I didn't mean hordes of equally heroic opponents. Didn't think I needed to clarify that, but there you have it.



Then there was a mis-step in communication.  I'm also indifferent to d20 design philosophy, and instead work with the rules presented + my common sense.  IMC the random city guardman is usually a War1 or 2, and the King's Guard are Fighter / Warmain 2-5. 

That being said, without healing magic, a critical hit from a crossbow is still gonna hurt.  In life-or-death situations you may ignore that risk and charge in, but why do that on a normal basis?  I would expect that most PC's under 7th level would at least pause before taking on a dozen crossbow bolts.

Reminds me of a D&D campaign I ran back in 2nd Ed. days.  The PCs had reached 10th - 12th level and were pretty cocky.  Trying to get them to turn west I put an army of about 2,000 mook Zhentarim in the only mountain pass south (They couldn't Teleport, and not all of them could fly).  They charge in anyway, saying "Hey, it's only mooks."  Well, 500 crossbow bolts later they weren't so sure about that.  Even if the mooks needed a 20 to hit, that's 25 guaranteed hits every round.  They killed about 200 of the mooks, but that's only because they had access to wide-area-effect spells like Fireball.  The charge of heavy cavalry took care of the Wizard, and it all went down-hill from there.  IL PC's won't even have the big-bang magic going for them.

Yup, it's part of my design philosophy that well trained troops, acting in concert, can put a world of hurt on PC's.  No need to change any rules.  Just assume that in a world swimming with high-level characters many armies and guard-forces will be trained to handle them.  After all, dying just means you get to hob-nob with Pelor.  What's so bad about that?


----------



## JoeGKushner

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> So in the case of buff spells, for instance, I think most of their functionality is going to be subsumed into the basic structure of the classes and feats.  Higher initial attribute scores and more control over how they can be raised will probably remove a lot of the need for that.  And the rest will probably go away with the various buffs to damage and defense you can get from more tactical thinking, stunts, and the token system.  All of which are both grittier ways of accomplishing this, as they involve instanced effort and chances of failure, and more cinematic/heroic..




You write "grittier" and then follow up with "cinematic/heroic." To me, the two are vastly different. Like describing a lake an an ocean. They both have water but...


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> I honestly don't think it does.  You might be able to clarify but as far as I can tell magic is the ultimate point of calling a spade a spade.  You can't claim magic is in a game unless someone puts it there.



That the Archer's BAB accelerates faster than the PHB fighter's BAB at exactly the point when you are assumed to have gotten a magic weapon with a higher magical bonus. In other words, it is designed to match BAB to BAB with a magic weapon wielding fighter.
Wulf's point that it isn't *just* the crutch of omnipresent magic, but rather of omnipresent _items_ (weapons are _items_, magic weapons are magic _items_). A bonus is a bonus, whether it comes from magic _items_ or whether is it is just built into the advancement chart from the beginning. Wulf's point is that D&D hides it in magic _items_.

His "_churlish_" post stands, Mac Callum made his point that you criticized him for.

I mean really, appending a single word is rude and vulger? And I thought an economy of words was desirable. I was always a fan of Twain's alleged statement of apology that he couldn't write a shorter letter because didn't have enough time. Who knew padding posts with extra twaddle was being considerate and kind. My editor wife will be surprised to hear this.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> That the Archer's BAB accelerates faster than the PHB fighter's BAB at exactly the point when you are assumed to have gotten a magic weapon with a higher magical bonus. In other words, it is designed to match BAB to BAB with a magic weapon wielding fighter.
> Wulf's point that it isn't *just* the crutch of omnipresent magic, but rather of omnipresent _items_ (weapons are _items_, magic weapons are magic _items_). A bonus is a bonus, whether it comes from magic _items_ or whether is it is just built into the advancement chart from the beginning. Wulf's point is that D&D hides it in magic _items_.
> 
> His "_churlish_" post stands, Mac Callum made his point that you criticized him for.
> 
> I mean really, appending a single word is rude and vulger? And I thought an economy of words was desirable. I was always a fan of Twain's alleged statement of apology that he couldn't write a shorter letter because didn't have enough time. Who knew padding posts with extra twaddle was being considerate and kind. My editor wife will be surprised to hear this.




There's something innately ridiculous about using Twain to defend against an accusation of snark let alone rudeness and vulgarity. (tempted to put an emote here but decided against it)

Right, look, maybe I'm missing something.  Here's what I understand the point to have been:

Azgulor expressed his reservations with IL as its presented.  The 'crutch' of his argument being that IL is not GnG, which he wanted it to be, because it lets you perform at the level of DnD only without magic.

Wulf amended this argument by adding the term 'items' in italics for whatever value italics might carry.  And following it up with an agreement that you are not a part of IL's audience if you like GnG.

Then some posts later Wulf states that a BAB system that gives you a high enough bonus with a bow that you can compete with a magic bow wielding bow man without wielding a magic bow is complementary to his churlish point.

Now from what I can tell from the little that we have here, this point must be of one of two natures:

1.) That the original addition of the word italicized word items was meant to imply that even though IL gets rid of magic items it is still an inherently 'magical' game given the power levels involved.

-if this is the point then I disagree with it for the reasons I mentioned earlier.  Namely that I don't think you can claim that a thing is magical based on its efficacy alone, particularly if, as seems to be the case with IL, the default level of efficacy is being moved around.  Which is an important point since the only ways you can really distinguish magic items from non in DnD is through a specific flavor, which IL's character mechanic system lacks, and a difference in efficacy, which IL also lacks.

But this point isn't a bad point in its own right.  I just disagree with what it means. 

2.) That the 'churlish' point in question is simply that IL gets rid of magical items by changing the basic bones of the character system, among other potential changes.  Which seems to be the point that you think he's making.

-if this is the point then I don't disagree as this is obvious.

But I do have other problems with it.  I mean why bring this up in contrast to magic generally?  Is there something that Wulf knows about the necessity of magic in play from other parts of the system?  If so this would seem to contradict the idea Mike previously expressed about no class being essential for a party in play as long as they had a variety of classes within the party.  Is this some kind of knock on IL's GnG 'cred'?  If so I disagree with it for reasons related to above, and if not then why include it in the context of excluding people interested in GnG from the audience for IL?  I have more general problems with such a statment, but that's the only way it's particular to the argument as its developed since then and how it relates to my pointing out that the way he communicated that was problematic.  Or was he trying to emphasize the point positively?  In which case the context seems all kinds of crazy for it and I'd be interested in hearing him elaborate on why getting rid of magic items is good, if a different kind of good from GnG which is also good but not this kind of good.

Again, I apologize if I've undervalued the term churlish, I only meant for it to convey something problematic in its association with snarkishness not something insulting.  I might argue with Wulf but I don't have a problem with him asife from dismissing Mac Cullum's complaint with an 'If you say so.'  He made up for that and I think everything's been dealt with pretty well since then, except for this apparent confusion over the direction of the argument. I've got no problems except wondering if I've apologized and explained enough to restore thread harmony.  I certainly think Wulf has, though I do expect that the elements of this that are teasing will and should continue in a friendly vein.  Cause you want to calm the snark not kill it.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> You write "grittier" and then follow up with "cinematic/heroic." To me, the two are vastly different. Like describing a lake an an ocean. They both have water but...




I suppose then that that depends on how you envision gritty.  I've always encountered it in reference to heroic fantasy or action, which is itself also cinematic.  That is that even where it is in a literary form there is a high level of attention paid to the specifics of action.

It would be in direct contrast to, say, many of the qualities of romantic or epic literature where you have a very spare idea of what a give character is actually doing or looks like and a much more elaborate conception of who the character is, who/what he relates to in the cosmology, and what he is thinking or feeling.

Cinematic has another level where people describing it mean fast or over the top and narrative styles of action.  In terms of my understanding of GnG fast nearly always fits the style, unless you are talking about Napoleanic wargamers appreciating an appropriately high body count, and the over the top and narrative qualities of cinematic fit GnG at varying levels and not at all in some instances.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

More simply:

from my understanding you have to be cinematic/heroic in order to be gritty.  Even though the reverse may not be true.

Gritty must be action oriented and sensually detailed (cinematic) and conflict oriented (heroic).

Otherwise how would you know that things are material and personal (gritty and cinematic) and threatening (gritty and heroic)?


----------



## JoeGKushner

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> More simply:
> 
> from my understanding you have to be cinematic/heroic in order to be gritty.  Even though the reverse may not be true.
> 
> Gritty must be action oriented and sensually detailed (cinematic) and conflict oriented (heroic).
> 
> Otherwise how would you know that things are material (gritty and cinematic) and threatening (gritty and heroic)?




Same way people have for years.

The GM tells them so!


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Same way people have for years.
> 
> The GM tells them so!




Presumably by describing their actions (cinematic) and the wicked and carnal intent of their enemies (heroic)?

or (for alternate churlishness)

Proving once again that Hackmaster is the grittiest system ever?


----------



## Mac Callum

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> That the Archer's BAB accelerates faster than the PHB fighter's BAB at exactly the point when you are assumed to have gotten a magic weapon with a higher magical bonus. In other words, it is designed to match BAB to BAB with a magic weapon wielding fighter.
> 
> Wulf's point that it isn't *just* the crutch of omnipresent magic, but rather of omnipresent _items_ (weapons are _items_, magic weapons are magic _items_). A bonus is a bonus, whether it comes from magic _items_ or whether is it is just built into the advancement chart from the beginning. Wulf's point is that D&D hides it in magic _items_.



I think it's more accurate to say that D&D hides its power-ups in items, while IL hides its power-ups in the class progression. (Of course, since everyone knows it's there, they're not too well hidden, really.)  IL PC's are not item dependent.

I think the distinction between the items and the class progression is a pretty important one.  As a DM you don't have to manage all the equipment for NPC's, or worry about the NPC's equipment falling into the hands of the PC's, making them too powerful.  As a DM you can award your PC's with whatever you want - lands, titles, etc., without worrying that they'll somehow try to sell it for magical items.  I can use Sunder on the PC's items without being a complete rat bastard.  They can try to disarm an enemy, take his sword, and be just as effective.  As a player you don't have to worry about getting nerfed because you lose the sword you sank 50,000 GP into. I mean, does Legolas prefer the bow from Lothlorien?  Sure.  Is he at a 5-level disadvantage without it?  No.

The boosted progressions are just there to keep the classes in-line with the CR system.  To date, that has been one of the biggest hang-ups for me.



> I mean really, appending a single word is rude and vulger? And I thought an economy of words was desirable.



Those are independent concepts.


> I was always a fan of Twain's alleged statement of apology that he couldn't write a shorter letter because didn't have enough time.



This is a complete OT, nit-pick, but I'm pretty sure that wasn't Twain.  I can't recall the name now, but I feel like it was a general in either the American Revolutionary or Civil War writing home to his father.  I feel like it was the Revolutionary because my sense is that it was a Brit.

Anyway, my Google skills have failed me, and I can't find the quote.

I am of the opinion though that whenever someone comes across a pithy quote of unknown origin, there is a strong urge to attribute it to Mark Twain.  As urges go, this probably isn't the least illogical.


----------



## buzz

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Then perbhaps should comparissiosn should be left out entirely? No more X will let you emulate Y because we don't want to get sticky or anything now no?



One simply should be aware that, with few exceptions, there are certain considerations of game-play that will figure into a design that will often trump exactly emulating the source material. This is paricularly true in games that don't rely heavily on GM fiat or narrative control on the part of the players.

In a story, whether Conan will be wary of a cadre of guards or wade through them is wholly in the control of the author; Conan will do what fits the needs of the story. In an RPG, Conan's stats will most likely clearly determine he either can or can't, barring an RPG with mechanics that are purely narrative (e.g., a system where the GM can out-bid [or whatever] the player, blocking their attempt to have Conan just cut down the guards, forcing the player to find an alternate solution).

I guess what I'm saying is that it may not be appropriate to cite a passage from Howard, because Howard was not writing an RPG adventure, he was writing a short story. The comparison isn't valueless, but it has its limits.


----------



## JohnSnow

Personally, I think this comes down to a difference in style. There's gritty, and there's "Grim and Gritty."

It seems to me that the direction Mearls is after with _Iron Lore_ is gritty, heroic, and (to a lesser extent) cinematic. Bear in mind that I've only seen the same previews that all of you have, and I have no magic insight into Mike Mearls' mind or intention. However, from what Mike has said, he was inspired to create _Iron Lore_ by the same stuff that "hooked" me on D&D to begin with. Given that, and some of his comments, I'm willing to take a stab at the "feel" Mike's trying for.

Earlier in the thread, Mike said



> Iron Lore is a game of high action and adventure. Like most fantasy games, it draws inspiration from a variety of classic sources - Robert Howard, Fritz Leiber, Clark Ashton Smith, and so on. However, if you were to ask me which movie most closely embodies Iron Lore's design, I'd say Die Hard. John McClain is the prototypical Iron Lore PC - he's tough, resourceful, clever, and he takes a beating but keeps on going.




So, if John McClain is the epitome of the Iron Lore PC, the question needs to be asked as "what sorts of things can the PCs DO?" The point I was trying to make earlier is: arrow ladder is NOT a supernatural ability. It's a stunt - a trick. One that could be accomplished in the "real world" by a highly accomplished archer. I think the whackiest you'll get in Iron Lore stunts is something like a Jackie Chan movie, not _Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon_. For instance, Jackie often scampers up walls quickly in his movies without using wires. Now, in the movies, he scouts the location and plans it out in advance, looking for this handhold and that handhold, and then he just has to execute it properly. Humanly possible, just not something most people could do "on the fly." (And Jackie often "screws up" some of these, just watch his outtakes).

And that's how I see an Iron Lore PC. They don't do anything supernatural, just things that you rarely see happen in the real world because most people just aren't accomplished enough to do it on the fly. Could they? As in, is it physically possible? Sure...if they worked at it a LOT. And by the mid-high levels, that's exactly what heroic PCs are assumed to have done!

So PCs are larger than life, and will be doing things you'd expect from Indiana Jones, John McClain, or James Bond (or the Three Musketeers, Zorro, Conan, or Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser if you want more genre-appropriate characters). At the highest levels, their exploits are legendary, and might approach the abilities of some of the "lower-power" comic book characters (Batman, Green Arrow, Hawkeye, Captain America) or legendary heroes (Roland, Robin Hood, or Hawkeye from _Last of the Mohicans_).

At least, that's how I see it.


----------



## A'koss

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I think the whackiest you'll get in Iron Lore stunts is something like a Jackie Chan movie, not _Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon_. For instance, Jackie often scampers up walls quickly in his movies without using wires. Now, in the movies, he scouts the location and plans it out in advance, looking for this handhold and that handhold, and then he just has to execute it properly. Humanly possible, just not something most people could do "on the fly." (And Jackie often "screws up" some of these, just watch his outtakes).
> 
> And that's how I see an Iron Lore PC. They don't do anything supernatural, just things that you rarely see happen in the real world because most people just aren't accomplished enough to do it on the fly. Could they? As in, is it physically possible? Sure...if they worked at it a LOT. And by the mid-high levels, that's exactly what heroic PCs are assumed to have done!



I think Jackie Chan is an awesome example - I do hope that IL allows for this style of game. But also keep in mind that HL heroes will have some inhumanly high stats (I assume) that should allow them to do things no human would be capable of. A Thief with a 28+ Dex for example and the appropriate skills should be able to do things that no olympic athelete in the RL could even dream of attempting. 

I wonder if IL will gear and weaponry designed for characters with superhuman strength or agility?


----------



## JohnSnow

Well, if you take the DMG NPC example, a 20th level PC Rogue (Dex-maximized) should have a Dex of 26 (20 +6 from gloves of dexterity).

Now, if you assume a Dex of 26, that means the character is 8 points over human maximum. This translates to a bonus of +4 on Dex-related skills compared to a character with an 18 dex. Which means that it's a 20% increase on the success ratio of a d20. Compared to the skill rank difference (23 ranks vs. 4), this is nearly meaningless. So, in the end, it's more about skill than attributes.

That's hardly what I call "superhuman abilities" - more like superhuman training.

Does the d20 system place a high premium and a great reward on "experience?" Of course, but that's a part of the system that no amount of "gritty rules" will ever change about d20. And at low levels, I don't think IL PCs will be much better than their D&D counterparts. Here's the stats for Hunter PC clipped from Malhavoc's site:

Hunter Sample 1st-Level Character
Ability Scores: Str 14, Dex 15, Con 14, Int 16, Wis 14, Cha 10

Those stats represent a 38 point buy under standard D&D. However, I think it's entirely possible that IL PCs have higher "base" stats than their D&D counterparts (they start at 10 and go up from there, for example). However, I wouldn't be surprised if characters are limited to a starting score of no higher than 18 (or maybe 20?) in any attribute.

Again, just me speculating.


----------



## A'koss

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Well, if you take the DMG NPC example, a 20th level PC Rogue (Dex-maximized) should have a Dex of 26 (20 +6 from gloves of dexterity).



You missed the Manual bonuses he's likely to have (potentially +5 more for Dex 31).



> Now, if you assume a Dex of 26, that means the character is 8 points over human maximum. This translates to a bonus of +4 on Dex-related skills compared to a character with an 18 dex. Which means that it's a 20% increase on the success ratio of a d20. Compared to the skill rank difference (23 ranks vs. 4), this is nearly meaningless. So, in the end, it's more about skill than attributes.



Note that I said Dex *and* appropriate skills. Also, there was some mention early on that Iron Lore will use Ability Checks more (or that was my impression anyway).


----------



## A'koss

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Those stats represent a 38 point buy under standard D&D. However, I think it's entirely possible that IL PCs have higher "base" stats than their D&D counterparts (they start at 10 and go up from there, for example). However, I wouldn't be surprised if characters are limited to a starting score of no higher than 18 (or maybe 20?) in any attribute.



Somewhere between 1st level maximums and potential stat boosting traits I suspect you won't see a starting max. less than 20.


----------



## Mac Callum

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> The point I was trying to make earlier is: arrow ladder is NOT a supernatural ability. It's a stunt - a trick. One that could be accomplished in the "real world" by a highly accomplished archer. I think the whackiest you'll get in Iron Lore stunts is something like a Jackie Chan movie, not _Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon_.



What he said.


----------



## JohnSnow

Thanks Mac Callum.

And while I'm certainly prepared to be proven wrong, neither of the sample characters on Malhavoc's site has an ability score above 18 (granted, it seems they don't include traits). My guess is that Mearls is sticking to standard d20 starting human maximums (before traits are factored in). The higher point buy just means characters get to be a bit better overall (i.e. strong, agile, tough, and smart, not pick 2). This is again like Conan, Fafhrd or the Grey Mouser.

And I don't know that the Manual bonuses are an inherent part of the d20 system so much as an alternative way of getting the PCs to the stats the characters in the DMG have due to items. Based on the equipment given for the DMG's sample NPCs, the most a character could afford, even at 20th level, is a couple more +2 items, manuals or the like.

Like I said, I could be wrong, but I don't imagine most 20th level IL PCs will have stats any higher than 30.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Personally, I think this comes down to a difference in style. There's gritty, and there's "Grim and Gritty."




Correct, and with respect to Dr. Strangemonkey, he doesn't _get_ grim and gritty in the same sense that GnG afficiandos do. (There's another thread for that.)



> It seems to me that the direction Mearls is after with _Iron Lore_ is gritty, heroic, and (to a lesser extent) cinematic.




I actually think "cinematic" is among the best descriptors for this style and is one of the primary things he's going for. Everything we have seen so far is certainly more cinematic than gritty.



> So PCs are larger than life, and will be doing things you'd expect from Indiana Jones, John McClain, or James Bond (or the Three Musketeers, Zorro, Conan, or Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser if you want more genre-appropriate characters).




Indiana Jones is not grim and gritty, nor Jackie Chan, 3M, James Bond, or Zorro.

They are not at all in the same genre as Conan and Fafhrd/GM.

But, hey, it's not as if everyone can agree on the definition of GnG. It's one of those "I know it when I see it" things and it's highly subjective.

Sin City is about as "grim" as it gets, but it's not "GnG." While I was watching Sin City I felt it was a pretty gritty, dark, and realistic movie, but when Dwight jumped off the side of the building, my brain came to a screeching halt and I said, "Whoa! This is a _comic book_ movie after all."

Die Hard has its moments that stretch verisimilitude (moreso in the sequels than the first). It's a tough one to place but cinematic edges out gritty here, too.

Arrow Ladder? It is physically impossible for an archer to bury arrows deep enough into a brick wall that a full grown adult could use the arrows as a ladder. I don't buy it. It's over-the-top "wahoo." (I'm fine with it against a troll, though.)

Does this "ruin" Iron Lore? No, obviously it does not. Iron Lore sounds like a rollicking FUN time. I also happen to like playing cinematic games, very much; and _of course_ we all want our characters to be able to do things that are not possible in the real world.

But there is a difference between playing a game that allows us to do things we cannot do in the real world as a matter of skill and opportunity, vs a game that allows us to do things that are simply not possible within the laws of physics.

And it is understandable if the typical GnG player does not find Iron Lore a perfect match.


Wulf


----------



## physicscarp

To be honest, I've only glanced over the first few and last few pages of this thread, so if I missed something please forgive me.  

I'm wondering what books, movies, etc. are examples of grim and griity settings/worlds/adventures?  Obviously the works of Howard and Leiber continue to pop up, but are there others?  Or is the entire genre based on the works of these two authors?


----------



## TwinBahamut

It is probably a credit to Iron Lore that not only is it the first third party supplement I have ever been seriously interested in, it is making me delurk and register for these forums.

Hello ENWorld!

Anyways, I honestly have no idea what kinds of fantasy the authors like Howard and Lieber write. Nor have I seen the movie Die Hard. I don't watch many movies.

However, Iron Lore greatly fascinates me because it seems to capture so much about what I like in my preferred genre of fantasy: the really old stuff. Tolkien is an infant compared to the stories I like. Sigurd (or Siegfried), Finn MacCumhail, Beowulf, samurai and ninjas, chinese bandits, King Arthur, Odysseus, and countless other stories of folk legend are what interested me long before I ever read a modern fantasy novel or was exposed to D&D. And to put it bluntly I vastly prefer those kinds of stories to everything that has been written since Tolkien.

Iron Lore captures that kind of feel I like. It doesn't require large numbers of magic items or even mages, neither of which are prevalent in folk tales. It also doesn't limit itself to what is strictly mundane or realistic, which matches the feel of those old stories. After all, those stories contain all manner of things such as the Irish hero Finn MacCumhail decapitating a man by backhanding him.

Really, compared to the things folk heroes pulled off, Iron Lore is almost _tame._ Even the much talked about arrow ladder ability isn't too far fetched. I am a weakling and archery novice, but even with a mere 20 pound bow and blunt target arrow I can put an arrow deep enough into a target that it could probably support some weight. A skilled archer with a middle ages 150 pound bow and barbed arrow could probably put up a decent makeshift ladder. Maybe not into brick, but cetainly into a tree, or some other kind of medium hardness material. It certainly is nowhere near as logic defying as Legendary Shot. And who would take Arrow Ladder anyways compared to all the other cool Sniper Shot abilities?

I am really looking forward to Iron Lore, and intend to convert a D&D homebrew setting over to it this summer.


----------



## Capellan

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Especially notable for having ... Capellan ... At last we know what he looks like




Somehow, I doubt it was worth the wait


----------



## Nightfall

Now Cappy! Don't down grade yourself. This is a great way to get Gamer chicks!


----------



## JohnSnow

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Indiana Jones is not grim and gritty, nor Jackie Chan, 3M, James Bond, or Zorro.
> 
> They are not at all in the same genre as Conan and Fafhrd/GM.
> 
> But, hey, it's not as if everyone can agree on the definition of GnG. It's one of those "I know it when I see it" things and it's highly subjective.




Fundamental difference of opinion I guess. I think of Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser as gritty and heroic. Neither they, nor Conan, meet my definition of "Grim and Gritty." So I don't disagree that Iron Lore is not GnG, I just disagree with the assertion that because it's not, it doesn't represent early pulp sword & sorcery (Conan/Fafhrd/Mouser) well. But as you said, these things are highly subjective. Personally, I think of Lieber's Sword books as gritty, heroic fiction. Other than the elements of the Twain being manipulated by forces outside themselves, the stories aren't particularly "grim." Both of them live to a ripe old age, after all, and rampant death of protagonists is a pretty solid staple of GnG fiction. The fact that they take on Cthulu-esque nightmares and live to tell the tale makes the point even more solidly.




> Arrow Ladder? It is physically impossible for an archer to bury arrows deep enough into a brick wall that a full grown adult could use the arrows as a ladder. I don't buy it. It's over-the-top "wahoo." (I'm fine with it against a troll, though.)




Per the ability description, the arrows have to beat the wall's hardness. Per the 3.5 PHB, stone has a hardness of 8. So it's not possible to for an arrow to beat the hardness without either a critical hit (which don't apply to constructs/walls) or an extra strong bow.

IF a stronger than average archer were to use a reasonable poundage (say 75 lb. draw weight?) bow to shoot arrows into a wall, you could produce a penetration high enough (300 psi+) to lodge the arrows in a wall. People in the modern era seriously underestimate the penetration power of a bow.

Someone could then use those arrows as essentially footholds/handholds to climb up the wall. The only real problem is whether the arrows will break under the weight, not whether they'll fall out.

I essentially see this as planting the arrows deep enough to turn them into pitons. And in a masonry or brick wall, you're probably shooting the arrows into the mortar, not lodging them in the bricks/stone. Difficult? Yes. Could I do it? Not on purpose, but I have missed and lodged an arrow between the bricks in a brick wall (with only a 30 lb. bow, I might add). So is it physically impossible? No.


----------



## Mac Callum

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> It is probably a credit to Iron Lore that not only is it the first third party supplement I have ever been seriously interested in, it is making me delurk and register for these forums.
> 
> Hello ENWorld!



Hello!  Welcome, and well met!


> Anyways, I honestly have no idea what kinds of fantasy the authors like Howard and Lieber write. Nor have I seen the movie Die Hard. I don't watch many movies.



Whoa.  I haven't read those guys either, but I thought everybody's seen Die Hard!  


> However, Iron Lore greatly fascinates me because it seems to capture so much about what I like in my preferred genre of fantasy: the really old stuff. Tolkien is an infant compared to the stories I like. Sigurd (or Siegfried), Finn MacCumhail, Beowulf, samurai and ninjas, chinese bandits, King Arthur, Odysseus, and countless other stories of folk legend are what interested me long before I ever read a modern fantasy novel or was exposed to D&D. And to put it bluntly I vastly prefer those kinds of stories to everything that has been written since Tolkien.
> 
> Iron Lore captures that kind of feel I like. It doesn't require large numbers of magic items or even mages, neither of which are prevalent in folk tales. It also doesn't limit itself to what is strictly mundane or realistic, which matches the feel of those old stories. After all, those stories contain all manner of things such as the Irish hero Finn MacCumhail decapitating a man by backhanding him.
> 
> Really, compared to the things folk heroes pulled off, Iron Lore is almost _tame._ Even the much talked about arrow ladder ability isn't too far fetched. I am a weakling and archery novice, but even with a mere 20 pound bow and blunt target arrow I can put an arrow deep enough into a target that it could probably support some weight. A skilled archer with a middle ages 150 pound bow and barbed arrow could probably put up a decent makeshift ladder. Maybe not into brick, but cetainly into a tree, or some other kind of medium hardness material. It certainly is nowhere near as logic defying as Legendary Shot. And who would take Arrow Ladder anyways compared to all the other cool Sniper Shot abilities?
> 
> I am really looking forward to Iron Lore, and intend to convert a D&D homebrew setting over to it this summer.



Man, I bet you wore out your green-cover sourcebooks from 2nd Ed. 

Good description, though.  Great description!

As for the skilled archer, this guy, who forges his own bodkin arrows, says you can put an arrow through 1/16" of steel or 6" of seasoned oak.  That's definately good enough for a ladder.  I suppose you could just pretend that the Archer aims for cracks in the stones or the mortar between bricks, if it helps you 'feel' it.

(Eh, the hyperlink button doesn't seem to be working - see here: http://yarchive.net/metal/arrowheads.html, and search for 'punch')


----------



## Mac Callum

> Per the ability description, the arrows have to beat the wall's hardness.



Wow, I totally missed that.  That sure makes it a lot easier to believe.


> People in the modern era seriously underestimate the penetration power of a bow.



I've heard that a modern crossbow can put a bolt through an engine block.  That's certainly good enough.


----------



## TwinBahamut

Mac Callum said:
			
		

> Hello! Welcome, and well met!
> 
> Whoa. I haven't read those guys either, but I thought everybody's seen Die Hard!
> 
> Man, I bet you wore out your green-cover sourcebooks from 2nd Ed.
> 
> Good description, though. Great description!
> 
> As for the skilled archer, this guy, who forges his own bodkin arrows, says you can put an arrow through 1/16" of steel or 6" of seasoned oak. That's definately good enough for a ladder. I suppose you could just pretend that the Archer aims for cracks in the stones or the mortar between bricks, if it helps you 'feel' it.



Actually, I started D&D with third edition, never having played AD&D second edition. I'm a bit younger than the average guy around here (ten years younger if the 1974 talk around here is any indication). So I have no clue what the green-cover books were. Sorry.

It is why the Mike Mearls comment about first edition NPC classes went right over my head. Can someone explain that one a bit more? And ask Mr. Mearls to stop ignoring the younger D&D players with his references back to that era?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> However, Iron Lore greatly fascinates me because it seems to capture so much about what I like in my preferred genre of fantasy: the really old stuff. Tolkien is an infant compared to the stories I like. Sigurd (or Siegfried), Finn MacCumhail, Beowulf, samurai and ninjas, chinese bandits, King Arthur, Odysseus, and countless other stories of folk legend are what interested me long before I ever read a modern fantasy novel or was exposed to D&D. And to put it bluntly I vastly prefer those kinds of stories to everything that has been written since Tolkien.




That is indeed an excellent summation. I finally got around to reading Gilgamesh this past summer; it's a great read and its absence from your list encourages me to recommend it to you.

I think the term "mythic heroism" is a pretty good fit for Iron Lore.

At any rate it is a much better descriptive fit than "low magic."


----------



## med stud

When my father was a kid (10-11 years old) he and my uncle made bows from yew that could put arrows about half a foot into trees. So a ladder would be viable, maybe not in the time the ability takes. It's also a matter of the arrows holding for the weight of the climber; if you have handholds and keep close to the trunk I suppose you could make it, though. These abilities are over the top but OTOH there are people who can balance on seven chairs piled on each other and one guy from Texas (I saw it on some kind of documentary) that routinely hit baloons at 200 or 300 yards with a handgun. Human beings can be obscenely good at things if they give it enough dedication.

I think this looks interresting, not so much for the GnG-aspect as for the removal of the magical items, the tactical aspects and the revamp of the skill system.

The magical items lost all their value in my eyes when they are being talked about as plug-and-play units. It's not Narsil, the blade that once was broken, it's a keen longsword +3 that some hobo with wizard levels made in exchange for 32000 gold pieces. The other aspect is that my brain breaks down and cries when trying to make economics make any sense with the prices of magical items.

The tactical aspects are self explanatory.

But, my main problem with 3.X is the skill system. In 2e, for all that it didnt have, you could put a high intelligence on a fighter and have a scholar warrior. In 3e he lacks so many skills that he is essentially pointless outside of his field. A fighter almost cant be a political leader since he has a hell of a time getting enough Diplomacy, Sense Motive and Bluff for it along with necessary Knowledge skills. This means that a face is needed for the group, but the problem is that the face is often the only one capable of making good impressions; if the face is given opportunity to use his abilities to the max the rest of the group has nothing to do.

----

I dont know if this is going to be all it promises to be but I will buy it if I run a d20 campaign again.

On a side note, emulating the kind of stories where even the most skilled swordsman in the world has to be afraid of five soldiers with crossbows is not really d20 territory (IMO,Im not God who can tell people what to think  ); the hit points make it so to a large degree. The best way of simulating that for me and my group was to take The Riddle of Steel, removing the SAs and tack on Willpower and virtues from Exalted. It made for a very strategical game where backstabs and ambushes are the key to survival and formal duels are very much a psychological game where you have to make an inferior foe accept a duel to not appear as a coward, and even then it was much Machiavellianism with poisonings and "accidents" happening to the superior fighter if he didnt keep his guard up. The channeling of virtues (from Exalted) made it so that some desperate fights were possible (like a PC hiding in a place with only one way out when five enemies are about to enter; channel Valor and surprise them and you could actually get away with it).
A d20 game on the other hand is better for the more heroic approach; the five crossbowmen in the ambush can really take down your HPs to a critical level but they wont (probably) instantly kill you.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Mac Callum said:
			
		

> Wow, I totally missed that.  That sure makes it a lot easier to believe.




I had actually written a post "harping" on that this morning. I don't think it makes it more believable; rather, I think it's a back-door acknowledgement of how "wahoo" it is, especially since I expect that doing 9 points of damage will be a rather mundane task for the Archer.

It's akin to saying, "The Iron Lore monk can walk on water. However, this only works if he has perfected the technique of not breaking the surface tension of the water."

"Ah, that explains how he does it. Now it's a lot more believable."


----------



## Cerbie

*Some thoughts...*

I think I'll wait for IL for my campaign now. I got WoT d20, and have been using that for a base, and done well, I think. Converting magic has had some minor hitches, though. However, even when working well, there's been a major problem: portability.

I can make stunts (I was going to base it on playing cards), rework skills, and get a skill-based magic system going, and have it work as functional knowledge. I can get specializations in weapons working well (and will likely do a archer->gunslinger conversion--and someone else should have named the class ), and gotten inherit combat benefits into already-taken skills that would normally be bought for rounding out the character. Thus far, I haven't liked what many games have tried to do to implement it.

...but not only is it time-consuming, it is snowballs. I can't get it all working on my own in such a way that I could drop in a rust monster, or dragon, or random cool NPC badass. With IL claiming approximate compatibility to normal D&D (is this a reason for being OGL rather than d20?), and almost certain to actually have it, it will make DM prep far easier than what I have been working on. While I also tend not to favor games with metric tons of classes (IMO, over 5 --combining the WoT classes was dead simple), the multiclassing combinations from the released preview classes (Hunter and Archer) look good enough to let that slide.

Unless the Arcanist is total crap (and the way there have been pretty much *0* details about it so far, I doubt it is ), I will buy and use IL.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

Me said:
			
		

> ... some alleged Twain quote...






			
				Mac Callum said:
			
		

> This is a complete OT, nit-pick, but I'm pretty sure that wasn't Twain.  I can't recall the name now, but I feel like it was a general in either the American Revolutionary or Civil War writing home to his father.



Yeah, which is why I only ascribed it as an "alleged" Twain quote. I'm aware that no one has proven he said it, despite that it is repeatedly said that he did.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

A'koss said:
			
		

> I think Jackie Chan is an awesome example - I do hope that IL allows for this style of game. But also keep in mind that HL heroes will have some inhumanly high stats (I assume) that should allow them to do things no human would be capable of. A Thief with a 28+ Dex for example and the appropriate skills should be able to do things that no olympic athelete in the RL could even dream of attempting.




You know, I'm still wondering if that's the way things will work or not.  I mean when WotC did the vow of poverty for a non-item using character they included a lot of suped ability scores, but noone has mentioned it in IL so while it's sort of intuitive for me that that would be a feature and I've been watching for it I'm developing some doubts.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Correct, and with respect to Dr. Strangemonkey, he doesn't _get_ grim and gritty in the same sense that GnG afficiandos do. (There's another thread for that.)
> 
> I actually think "cinematic" is among the best descriptors for this style and is one of the primary things he's going for. Everything we have seen so far is certainly more cinematic than gritty.
> 
> Indiana Jones is not grim and gritty, nor Jackie Chan, 3M, James Bond, or Zorro.
> 
> They are not at all in the same genre as Conan and Fafhrd/GM.
> 
> But there is a difference between playing a game that allows us to do things we cannot do in the real world as a matter of skill and opportunity, vs a game that allows us to do things that are simply not possible within the laws of physics.
> 
> And it is understandable if the typical GnG player does not find Iron Lore a perfect match.
> 
> Wulf




Right I re-posted my response over in the other thread in question.  Interesting and enlightening claims.

All I'd like to say is that I find it impossible to claim that Conan and Fafhrd/GM are not cinematic and thus in the same genre as the others.  There's a huge body of criticism, formal and informal, that harps on the cinematic quality of those stories as essential to their nature.  You could certainly say that those others belong in different sub-divisions of cinematic from Conan and Fafhrd/GM, but I don't think you can go so far as to deny that they don't share the action and material oriented qualities that all of them share as essential to their character.

And Zorro you just can't say that at all.  Zorro as written and as played, at least for the most and best parts, is a very limited and realistic character in terms of what's possible for humans.  Douglas Fairbanks introduced a lot of acrobatics to the character, but Doug was actually that good and none of them required the truly elaborate preparation that Jackie does.  He didn't get shot that often, it's true, but I imagine that's true of most people who surprise small groups of Musket users at night with a melee weapon, speed, and a lot of capery.  Aside from those muskets and the lack of magic he's very much in that category and a pretty clear candidate for profound influence on F/GM.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I had actually written a post "harping" on that this morning. I don't think it makes it more believable; rather, I think it's a back-door acknowledgement of how "wahoo" it is, especially since I expect that doing 9 points of damage will be a rather mundane task for the Archer.
> 
> It's akin to saying, "The Iron Lore monk can walk on water. However, this only works if he has perfected the technique of not breaking the surface tension of the water."
> 
> "Ah, that explains how he does it. Now it's a lot more believable."




Hmm, given that the real issue isn't the bow and the marksman so much as the ability of any old arrow to hold weight at that angle...

Would you also accept:

'The Iron Lore monk can walk on water because he has the right shoes and knows how to walk in them?'

No denying its a wonky ability just wondering how far the 'cool with physics' criteria goes.


----------



## Felon

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> If, as you say, it's simply something you know when you see then it would seem to me to both lack any claim to rigor and require subjective caveats, even to the level where typical probably requires qualification, or to not so much be an aesthetic with any sort of principles or structure as a refined set of rather arbitrary cultural expectations.  In which case it would function as a clique dynamic along the lines of various punk subcultures united by markers and internal recognition that develop strange exclusionary identities for brief periods of time  before being reintegrated into the general punk melange. Hmm, I may have to cross-post this into the other thread.




OK, so that all could have been stated more clearly with fewer words. Are you intentionally trying to drive home the previously-mentioned quote from Mark Twain? I beg you to spare any other threads. 

Don't try to over-analyze common sense. it's evident in a matter of seconds whether or not something is so ridiculously beyond the realm of possibility that the immediate reaction is to snort in disdain. It's a gut reaction, though the term "common sense" allows for a certain margin of folks to lack that faculty.



> No denying its a wonky ability just wondering how far the 'cool with physics' criteria goes.




It goes as far as your gut takes you.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> If, as you say, it's simply something you know when you see then it would seem to me to both lack any claim to rigor and require subjective caveats, even to the level where typical probably requires qualification, or to not so much be an aesthetic with any sort of principles or structure as a refined set of rather arbitrary cultural expectations. In which case it would function as a clique dynamic along the lines of various punk subcultures united by markers and internal recognition that develop strange exclusionary identities for brief periods of time before being reintegrated into the general punk melange.




If there's a point in there worth the trouble of rereading that 5 or 6 times, let me know.



> Hmm, I may have to cross-post this into the other thread.




Don't look for me over there, cause it was posts like this that drove me out of there in the first place.

You'd be able to communicate twice as effectively if you used half as many words.

Then again, I'm just a jet-lagged technical writer criticized for brevity and clarity, so maybe it's me.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> Hmm, given that the real issue isn't the bow and the marksman so much as the ability of any old arrow to hold weight at that angle...




That's _part_ of the real issue.



> Would you also accept:
> 
> 'The Iron Lore monk can walk on water because he has the right shoes and knows how to walk in them?'




If he's clumsily trying to walk across water-- shuffling, really, at best-- wearing boat-like shoes on each foot, we can accept it, but it's not going to be particularly gripping action.

If it's _Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon_ or _Hero_ where the protagonists flit across the surface of the water, no.

Neither of these cases is likely to show up in Iron Lore, of course-- but nothing that a PC can do in 6 seconds is likely to be believable.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Felon said:
			
		

> OK, so that all could have been stated more clearly with fewer words. Are you intentionally trying to drive home the previously-mentioned quote from Mark Twain? I beg you to spare any other threads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't think so, not for the sense I was trying to arrive at.  If you could demonstrate a good rewrite I'd gladly amend to it.
> 
> Further, I reject your plea for mercy.  No thread shall be spared.  Within the hour all your base will belong to us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't try to over-analyze common sense. it's evident in a matter of seconds whether or not something is so ridiculously beyond the realm of possibility that the immediate reaction is to snort in disdain. It's a gut reaction, though the term "common sense" allows for a certain margin of folks to lack that faculty.
> 
> It goes as far as your gut takes you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Common sense is fine for adolescents and people at the edge, not adults with the leisure to discuss a hobby or culture.
> 
> In terms of the thread in question I have absolutely no hesitation in calling 'common sense' simply a prejuidice, and no desire to clarify it as the nice sort of prejuidice either.
> 
> Particularly since, by your argument here, you'd need demographic certitude to claim legitimacy other than through assumption and exclusion.
> 
> I'm not over-analyzing common sense I'm outright rejecting it.  It's a stupid way to look at media.  Cause if it's your taste, then it's just your taste and you should own it as such rather than give it a puffed up name, dignity it doesn't have, and a false sense of commonality.  And if you want to make an argument around your overall sense of a thing then you really can't call it common and run with it, you've got to specify and negotiate.  If you don't want that then you don't have to do it, but you can't then join the fight weilding 'common' like a banner.  It's like praying for victory before a game, it may be a great sentiment for you, but the other's sides doing it too.
Click to expand...


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> And Zorro you just can't say that at all.  Zorro as written and as played, at least for the most and best parts, is a very limited and realistic character in terms of what's possible for humans.




Zorro's world (at least, the one most people have been exposed to) is ultimately a pretty harmless one. It's hard to cross-pollinate swashbuckling with grim-and-gritty.

To put it another way, the reason that Zorro doesn't "ring true," from a GnG perspective, isn't the "wahoo" of the action (although that's part of it), but rather the pervasive feeling that the protagonist (and many of his enemies) are in no real danger. 

Zorro _just doesn't_ drive his blade through the heart or throat of his enemies when pushing them down a flight of stairs or bowling them over like bowling pins will do. 

Verisimilitude is broken specifically _because_ Zorro would choose the more cinematic approach-- this in itself is not very realistic, even if the physical action is possible.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> I'm not over-analyzing common sense I'm outright rejecting it.  It's a stupid way to look at media.  Cause if it's your taste, then it's just your taste and you should own it as such rather than give it a puffed up name, dignity it doesn't have, and a false sense of commonality.  And if you want to make an argument around your overall sense of a thing then you really can't call it common and run with it, you've got to specify and negotiate.  If you don't want that then you don't have to do it, but you can't then join the fight weilding 'common' like a banner.  It's like praying for victory before a game, it may be a great sentiment for you, but the other's sides doing it too.




So... you're not just saying you don't get it, you're saying you don't _want_ to get it.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> That's _part_ of the real issue.




Hmm, fair enough, though I have my suspicions.



> If he's clumsily trying to walk across water-- shuffling, really, at best-- wearing boat-like shoes on each foot, we can accept it, but it's not going to be particularly gripping action.




Depends, if it's dark enough, you add the threat of discovery, and you put in some quipping I think you can do it.  

I've seen people do it in a non narrative context and it's actually not so muc clumsy as weird.  The motion is so different, but it's obviously working and the joints are in the right place so it's not as nightmarish as stilt walkers.




> Neither of these cases is likely to show up in Iron Lore, of course-- but nothing that a PC can do in 6 seconds is likely to be believable.




Sir, in the hyperbolic terms of the hobby I would gladly cry 'Wulfus Volt' paint some sort of barred circle over a six on my shield and travel in full panopoly to all the centers of national role-playing in order to save our hobby from the heresy that is the 6 second unit of basic action.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Zorro's world (at least, the one most people have been exposed to) is ultimately a pretty harmless one. It's hard to cross-pollinate swashbuckling with grim-and-gritty.
> 
> To put it another way, the reason that Zorro doesn't "ring true," from a GnG perspective, isn't the "wahoo" of the action (although that's part of it), but rather the pervasive feeling that the protagonist (and many of his enemies) are in no real danger.
> 
> Zorro _just doesn't_ drive his blade through the heart or throat of his enemies when pushing them down a flight of stairs or bowling them over like bowling pins will do.
> 
> Verisimilitude is broken specifically _because_ Zorro would choose the more cinematic approach-- this in itself is not very realistic, even if the physical action is possible.




Hmm, I think you're missing my point, but I'll take yours.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> So... you're not just saying you don't get it, you're saying you don't _want_ to get it.




No, by the formulation you've put together above, I'm not just saying there isn't an it to get, I'm saying that it's _wrong_ to get it.

To put it closer to the way I've actually put it.  If you want me to get it, you've got to give me something to get or just admit it's personal and arbitrary and without real merit to me or anyone else.


----------



## Felon

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> In terms of the thread in question I have absolutely no hesitation in calling 'common sense' simply a prejuidice, and no desire to clarify it as the nice sort of prejuidice either. Particularly since, by your argument here, you'd need demographic certitude to claim legitimacy other than through assumption and exclusion.




OK, let's try to save some time here: if you believe it's necessary to convene a focus group to declare with objective certainty that farts smell bad, then please state so now so you can be catalogued amongst the hopelessly obtuse.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Felon said:
			
		

> OK, let's try to save some time here: if you believe it's necessary to convene a focus group to declare with objective certainty that farts smell bad, then please state so now so you can be catalogued amongst the hopelessly obtuse.




And if you want to argue that farts are always bad in movies or books or even in real life I'd be happy to leave you in some sort of home for the terminally Episcopalian and visit you every sunday after sung services.  In the few years you have remaining until you expire from terminal bloatedness, and on that day I pray that I am not present for I imagine that will be among the most powerful expirations I could encounter.

If you thought about, were honest with yourself, and asked people in a relatively free environment I bet you would get a lot of disagreement over that issue.

In fact I bet you get a lot of disagreement about it over the course of much of your life without any of those things being true.

Those no real need to convene a focus group, unless you had figure out a way to medicate people so they consistently produced different flavors of fart, since there's really no way to arrive at certainty with regard to that.

And on a side note, this is fun.  Let's try using common sense some more, I've got reams of fart jokes and ucky anecdotes we can use to arrive at a good sense of thing.


----------



## Felon

Thanks, Monkey, that'll do just fine....


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

I guess that settles that.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

If you say so.

Again my utmost apologies for the accusations of churlishness.


----------



## Andor

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Zorro's world (at least, the one most people have been exposed to) is ultimately a pretty harmless one. It's hard to cross-pollinate swashbuckling with grim-and-gritty.
> 
> To put it another way, the reason that Zorro doesn't "ring true," from a GnG perspective, isn't the "wahoo" of the action (although that's part of it), but rather the pervasive feeling that the protagonist (and many of his enemies) are in no real danger.
> 
> Zorro _just doesn't_ drive his blade through the heart or throat of his enemies when pushing them down a flight of stairs or bowling them over like bowling pins will do.
> 
> Verisimilitude is broken specifically _because_ Zorro would choose the more cinematic approach-- this in itself is not very realistic, even if the physical action is possible.




Soo... Zorro is not Grim and Gritty because the 'player' chooses to take non-lethal options even when lethality might serve him better? It seems to me (and if I'm wrong please tell me how) that what you define as grim and gritty is therefore a play _style_ that requires both the DM and the players to cooperate to portray it properly. 

If that's true then no system will ever be Grim and Gritty as long as the PCs have even a modicum of free will. You just need a system to get you to 'gritty' and you need to mix in the 'grim' yourself.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Felon said:
			
		

> Having said that, I'd love it if some moderator would come in and tell us to stop talking about Wulf and get us talking about IL again.




lets stop talking about Wulf and start talking about Iron Lore again!

- it looks as if that Wulf/Strangemonkey/etc side trek has drawn to a natural close, so lets leave that one there and get back to Iron Lore expectations, unsupported theories, dissection of previews and all those other things that make it fun waiting for an interesting new product 

Regards,


----------



## Plane Sailing

BTW, discussions that are more about "Grim n Gritty" rather than Iron Lore in particular should probably live in this Grim n Gritty thread.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=132151

Cheers


----------



## Staffan

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> It is why the Mike Mearls comment about first edition NPC classes went right over my head. Can someone explain that one a bit more?



It's a bit before my time too, but I'll give it a shot. In the days of yore, Dragon used to publish new classes every now and then. Most of these were supposedly NPC-only. I only have a vague recollection of them from a "Best of Dragon" collection we had in my old gaming club, but I do recall that they seemed a little more powerful than base classes.


----------



## Staffan

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> 'The Iron Lore monk can walk on water because he has the right shoes and knows how to walk in them?'



Well, first of all there is no monk class in Iron Lore.

Second, I think this is where I have to quote Chiun, master of Sinanju: "You have to run _very_ fast."


----------



## Li Shenron

I think the core idea of the Iron Lore player's handbook is very good.

However now that I have read the previews, I think it goes much further to what I would like to try (i.e. a system with little or no magic items).

The Iron Lore book seems to do an extensive work on combat which is great. But for instance I would not want to completely change the game by using entirely new classes, and the mechanics of tokens. I would rather keep using the core D&D classes and races (although I like the ideas about replacing races with treats a lot, I still have a setting here with more or less the traditional races), so I'll look forward to know how the Iron Lore "converts" the PHB classes when no magic equipment is available. If it does a good job, I'll definitely get this book


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Staffan said:
			
		

> Well, first of all there is no monk class in Iron Lore.
> 
> Second, I think this is where I have to quote Chiun, master of Sinanju: "You have to run _very_ fast."




Any conversation that includes a quote by Chiun is one that has had some level of success.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> I think the core idea of the Iron Lore player's handbook is very good.
> 
> However now that I have read the previews, I think it goes much further to what I would like to try (i.e. a system with little or no magic items).
> 
> The Iron Lore book seems to do an extensive work on combat which is great. But for instance I would not want to completely change the game by using entirely new classes, and the mechanics of tokens. I would rather keep using the core D&D classes and races (although I like the ideas about replacing races with treats a lot, I still have a setting here with more or less the traditional races), so I'll look forward to know how the Iron Lore "converts" the PHB classes when no magic equipment is available. If it does a good job, I'll definitely get this book




The conversion rules are certainly something I'm looking forward to seeing.  Among other things I'm curious about how essential tokens are to the rebalancing act.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

On a more specificly Iron Lore note:

We're arguing this on Monte's boards, but did anyone else see the reference to aliases for the Thief in the last playtester spotlight?

I like the idea I have of that dynamic, but I'm a little bit uncertain about what sort of dynamic there is.

Anyone seen any alias rules in other RPGs?  The only ones I'm familiar with are for the Spy in Swashbuckling Adventures.


----------



## Mac Callum

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Actually, I started D&D with third edition, never having played AD&D second edition. I'm a bit younger than the average guy around here (ten years younger if the 1974 talk around here is any indication). So I have no clue what the green-cover books were. Sorry.



S'ok.

The Green-cover books were:

HR1 - Vikings
HR2 - Charlemagne's Paladins
HR3 - Celts
HR4 - A Mighty Fortress (15th-16th Century European fortresses)
HR5 - The Glory of Rome
HR6 - Age of Heroes (Achilles, Odysseus, Jason, Heracles, Alexander, etc.)
HR7 - The Crusades

Seemed like your kind of thing ...


----------



## Mac Callum

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I had actually written a post "harping" on that this morning. I don't think it makes it more believable; rather, I think it's a back-door acknowledgement of how "wahoo" it is, especially since I expect that doing 9 points of damage will be a rather mundane task for the Archer.
> 
> It's akin to saying, "The Iron Lore monk can walk on water. However, this only works if he has perfected the technique of not breaking the surface tension of the water."
> 
> "Ah, that explains how he does it. Now it's a lot more believable."



Ok, maybe I'm just being dumb, but I really don't see how the Arrow Ladder ability is "wahoo."  Of limited use, and likely to make infrequent appearances, yes, I can see that - but not wahoo.

It's freakin arrows shot into a surface at regular intervals.  What's so weird about that?  _I_ can do that.  Maybe they wouldn't be lined up as nice as a "real" Archer could do it, but it's perfectly feasible.  The Hardness rule _prevents_ it from becoming wahoo.

I think that's quite different from your walking on water ability - a skill no one has claimed is "reasonable" given known physics.  If an IL stunt, feat, or yet-to-be-revealed class ability allows a PC to climb a wall by driving his _hands _through oak or stone, then yeah, that would be wahoo.  Driving steel-tipped arrows into wood or flesh is perfectly reasonable.

Unless of course, the "wahoo" part of Arrow Ladder is that the arrows could support someone's weight.  In that case, yeah, it's a little out there - but the Hardness rule makes that neither harder nor easier to believe.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

At this point I'm more than willing to accept the idea that one or the other or both sides of this debate are being irrational, obtuse, prejuidiced, willfully disdainful, churlish, and/or mean spirited, that I don't really care which side is guilty of what, and that as a result there's not much point to further discussion.

I'm sorry most people missed the fun of the original one, but the possibility of there being two discussions of the sense of flatulence in the same thread, amusing as such a conversation might be, is simply too horrifying to tolerate.

If, on the other hand, someone has a picture or movie or other demonstration of someone shooting/constructing an arrow ladder and then climbing it please bring it because that would be coolness in its own right.


----------



## Particle_Man

Well in the movie "Mystery Men" one of the heroes climbed a ladder of forks....  

RE:npc's in 1st ed.  Some were weaker.  The cloistered cleric comes to mind.  Some were cool: The Sentinel (Modern equivalent -- a Fighter with spot and listen and sense motive as class skills...hmmmm...something like dwarven defender, now I think of it...), The Duelist.  The Archer.  The Smith.  The Jester.  The Incantrix (modern version: Spell Thief).  The list goes on...

Of course, 1st ed. also had 0 level characters...


----------



## JohnSnow

Personally, I'd have to grudgingly agree with Wulf that a "fork ladder" is a bit 'wahoo.' Of course, a fork does 1 point of damage (at best) and, as such, would have a great deal of difficulty doing damage. Heck, you can't even power attack with a fork! (definitely a light weapon). 

Question: Is Robin Hood shooting an arrow at the castle (with rope attached for climbing) wahoo? Said arrow certainly holds his weight, and doesn't seem "wahoo" in the least (to me, anyway).

Wulf, I get that Iron Lore doesn't meet your definition of "Grim and Gritty" or, as you put it GnG. That's cool, and I wish you luck finding something that does. However, I will say that everything I've seen of this game makes it seem like a much better way to model sword & sorcery adventures similar to the fiction and myth that first got me interested in the genre. And THAT is what matters to me.

So, for those still interested in IL, have we learned anything new recently?


----------



## Thornir Alekeg

Well, I guess I'll chime in with my take on Iron Lore.

Is it Grim and Gritty?  Heck no.  Grim and Gritty to me implies that death is always just around the corner and that the players have to not make any mistakes if they expect to survive.  I think the lack of magical healing may be the one thing that is making people put this into the grim and gritty category.  I don't yet know how healing rules are laid out in this, so it might be a factor that you cannot get a _ heal _ spell dropped on you in the middle of a fight, but perhaps you also don't need six days of rest to recover from the 87 points of damage you took in a fight, either.

I think this system is "reduced magic, high fantasy."  Are some of the abilities "wahoo?"  Maybe, but then again, things that people want to try in many games are "wahoo."  This system gives you a way of doing thises things without having to rely on creating or finding the right magical item.  You can plan to develop your character to be able to do these things instead of relying on the DM to give you what you need.  Also, your character will be able to do some of hese "wahoo" things even if stripped naked and dropped into a slave camp.  It means you are not dependent upon your stuff.

So far I think this system has a lot of potential.  Can it end up as over the top as standard high magic D&D? Yep, I think it can, but I like the idea of empowering the character itself as opposed to the character having to rely on magical items which can be destroyed or negated.  This expresses the character's experience as being the real reason they are killing machines.

My only concern with this system is how well it will play out when the combat is not the main focus.  If it can still work OK, then I think I will love it.  I am looking forward to seeing more and hopefully having a chance to try it out.


----------



## Mac Callum

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> So, for those still interested in IL, have we learned anything new recently?



There's the second playtester spotlight if you haven't read it.  Other than that, no.

http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mpress_IL_playtest2

Darn it.  I can't get the hyperlink toggle to work.  What's the html for that?


----------



## Felon

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> Is it Grim and Gritty?  Heck no.  Grim and Gritty to me implies that death is always just around the corner and that the players have to not make any mistakes if they expect to survive.  I think the lack of magical healing may be the one thing that is making people put this into the grim and gritty category.  I don't yet know how healing rules are laid out in this, so it might be a factor that you cannot get a _ heal _ spell dropped on you in the middle of a fight, but perhaps you also don't need six days of rest to recover from the 87 points of damage you took in a fight, either.




Looks like it uses the "reserve point" system outlined in Unearthed Arcana (though it may have originated elsewhere). You have a pool of reserve points equal to your hit points. You can expend the reserve points to replenish hit points over time, at the rate of 1 per minute IIRC. The reserve points themselves recover at the same rate that hit points normally do (character level per day). That can be pretty grim, because the reserve points don't kick in during fights, only afterwards. Of course, you do run into an odd situation where the less durable characters recuperate back to full health faster than the tougher characters, but that's always been an idiosyncrasy of the hit point system. 



> I think this system is "reduced magic, high fantasy."  Are some of the abilities "wahoo?"  Maybe, but then again, things that people want to try in many games are "wahoo."  This system gives you a way of doing thises things without having to rely on creating or finding the right magical item.  You can plan to develop your character to be able to do these things instead of relying on the DM to give you what you need.  Also, your character will be able to do some of hese "wahoo" things even if stripped naked and dropped into a slave camp.  It means you are not dependent upon your stuff.




I think there's a distinction that needs to be made here. Saying that IL isn't grim-n'-gritty isn't the same thing as condemning it for lacking grim or grit. But if it produces characters that are more in Xena's league than Conan's, let's make sure the right allusions are being made.


----------



## ruleslawyer

Sounds like IL would handle a Conan archetype just fine too. Conan isn't exactly a normal man in terms of strength or endurance. He's capable of tackling lions, frost giants, nagas, and giant serpents one-on-one, bringing down swarms of were-hyenas with normal arrows, and even tangling with amorphous god-like entities. The only limits on Conan's superhumanity involve his susceptibility to large numbers of attackers and to missile weapons (although, in "The God in the Bowl," there's a strong implication that he could even strike faster than a guard at range could spear him with a crossbow). Write in some bonuses for multiple attackers and some hit point caps (like those that exist, say, in the _Conan_ RPG) and you've got your Conanesque feel right there.


----------



## Garnfellow

Felon said:
			
		

> Looks like it uses the "reserve point" system outlined in Unearthed Arcana (though it may have originated elsewhere).




I'm pretty sure this rule first appeared in Jonathan Tweet's Omega World mini-game in Polyhedron.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> Well, I guess I'll chime in with my take on Iron Lore.
> 
> Is it Grim and Gritty?  Heck no.  I think this system is "reduced magic, high fantasy."  Are some of the abilities "wahoo?"  Maybe, but then again, things that people want to try in many games are "wahoo."  So far I think this system has a lot of potential.




I agree with all of the above. I suppose it bears repeating that I think Iron Lore will be great and it sounds like lots of fun.



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> I think there's a distinction that needs to be made here. Saying that IL isn't grim-n'-gritty isn't the same thing as condemning it for lacking grim or grit. But if it produces characters that are more in Xena's league than Conan's, let's make sure the right allusions are being made.




Exactly.



			
				Mac said:
			
		

> Ok, maybe I'm just being dumb, but I really don't see how the Arrow Ladder ability is "wahoo." It's freakin arrows shot into a surface at regular intervals. What's so weird about that? The Hardness rule prevents it from becoming wahoo. If an IL stunt, feat, or yet-to-be-revealed class ability allows a PC to climb a wall by driving his hands through oak or stone, then yeah, that would be wahoo. Driving steel-tipped arrows into wood or flesh is perfectly reasonable.




You don't suppose that a character in Iron Lore will be able to do 6 points of damage with an unarmed strike (which would penetrate oak) or 9 points of damage (which would penetrate stone)? The hardness rule specifically does _not_ prevent it from becoming wahoo because it is so easy to circumvent. 

Putting a restriction on a wahoo ability in order to explain how the ability _might_ reasonably work, but failing to acknowledge that the restriction is almost no restriction at all, does not reign in the wahoo of the ability.

And yes, supporting the weight is part of it. I have a hard time believing the chain of improbabilities that lead to this ability working: getting all the shots placed perfectly, while penetrating the hardness to a sufficient degree to bury the shaft into the surface so that it will support the weight of a grown man (or four) and not snap the shaft-- all in six seconds.

I just don't like what it bodes for the style of Iron Lore, which is neither (a) what I was hoping for or (b) what it has been put forth as. That's it. That's the sum of my concern, folks. Again, Iron Lore sounds like a lot of fun. It just sounds closer to M&M to me than (for example) Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, and while I do enjoy playing both kinds of games, I was hoping more for WHFRP. 

Wulf


----------



## buzz

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure this rule first appeared in Jonathan Tweet's Omega World mini-game in Polyhedron.



It did, and Mearls even specifically commented that "someone ought to steal that reserve point idea, but pronto" (well, someting to that effect).


----------



## buzz

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I just don't like what it bodes for the style of Iron Lore, which is neither (a) what I was hoping for or (b) what it has been put forth as. That's it. That's the sum of my concern, folks.



FWIW, Malhavoc has been pretty up-front about the power level in IL. It was said fromt he get-go, iirc, that IL PCs would be on par with D&D PCs, i.e., fit inot the CR system with no tweaks.



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Again, Iron Lore sounds like a lot of fun. It just sounds closer to M&M to me than (for example) Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, and while I do enjoy playing both kinds of games, I was hoping more for WHFRP.



But, we've already got WFRP. 

And, for that matter, GT!


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

buzz said:
			
		

> FWIW, Malhavoc has been pretty up-front about the power level in IL. It was said fromt he get-go, iirc, that IL PCs would be on par with D&D PCs, i.e., fit inot the CR system with no tweaks.




Right, and maybe the mistake was mine, but I assumed that the power level would be the same but the style would be more low-fantasy. I guess I thought it's not power that's the problem, it's the application and execution of power.

I'm starting to think though that folks who are suggesting just putting a cap on advancement have the right idea. It just might not be possible to express a 12th-20th level d20 character without the wahoo creeping in.

(I'm so glad we've all had a meeting of the minds on the word wahoo without having to further define it.)



> But, we've already got WFRP.




But it's not d20!



> And, for that matter, GT!




But Mike Mearls didn't write it, Sue Cook didn't edit it, and Malhavoc didn't publish it!


Wulf


----------



## Felon

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Sounds like IL would handle a Conan archetype just fine too. Conan isn't exactly a normal man in terms of strength or endurance. He's capable of tackling lions, frost giants, nagas, and giant serpents one-on-one, bringing down swarms of were-hyenas with normal arrows, and even tangling with amorphous god-like entities.




Note that when I speak of Conan, I'm not talking about Conan by way of Marvel Comics or the utterly inferior work of the parasitic hacks Lin Carter and L. Sprague De Camp.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Right, and maybe the mistake was mine, but I assumed that the power level would be the same but the style would be more low-fantasy. I guess I thought it's not power that's the problem, it's the application and execution of power.
> 
> I'm starting to think though that folks who are suggesting just putting a cap on advancement have the right idea. It just might not be possible to express a 12th-20th level d20 character without the wahoo creeping in.
> 
> (I'm so glad we've all had a meeting of the minds on the word wahoo without having to further define it.)




...but *wait* there's more!

In general I'm good with wahoo, I just think you put a term like that into the debate and you better expect it to get debated and negotiated pretty regular.

There is one thing, though, it's very hard for me to reconcile the idea that high wahoo must equal not low-fantasy.

I'm not arguing that IL doesn't immediately give off a low fantasy vibe, though I might argue that that's how it will actually play since upping the stats of the characters effectively lowers the threat of the high fantasy creatures*, but I would argue that there's a lot of low fantasy that has a pretty high level of wahoo.

Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser running from muggers in a tent and later taking out some sort of Frost Wyrm with a cat and a pike come to mind and those aren't even the most egregious examples.  Conan wrestling with gorillas in priest suits or surving a blow from a Pictish war axe only because he made his helmet himself in 'proper' barbarian fashion also stand out.

So unless Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser's high wahoo level disqualifies them as low fantasy then I think you just got a call a spade a spade and say it's the wahoo and not the fantasy level that bothers ya.  Or both, hey, whatever.

* - on the other hand even a comparatively nerfed flying brontosaurus that spits fire and speaks spells is still a flying brontosaurus that spits fire and speaks spells.

** - on the gripping hand invisible flying furry manta ray and dewinged interstellar elephant god.  Just sayin.

*** - on the other other other hand there's no doubt that Fafhrd/GM get a lot more tension out of climbing a mountain than you are likely to see in many other fantasy short stories.  So it's all too likely that you've really got to view your wahoo as existing in some sort of balance between wahoo and non-wahoo.  Cause sure Xena and Fafhrd/GM will all of them take giants in single blows and then get captured randomly by simple mooks and they'll fight for forever without loosing limbs and you'll never read a story and expect any of them to die, but you will never see Xena get stuck in a chimney while climbing a mountain and have it be anything other than a comedy moment.  I don't know if IL will feature that level of tension over skill at every level or even if it will at all, but if it does I think it would then be a little unfair to criticize it for the ability in question rather than simply questioning the ability itself.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Felon said:
			
		

> Note that when I speak of Conan, I'm not talking about Conan by way of Marvel Comics or the utterly inferior work of the parasitic hacks Lin Carter and L. Sprague De Camp.




I assumed as such, and I think the poster you're responding to did as well.  The only one of those I haven't personally seen in an actual Howard story is the shapeless god-like entity and I'm certain that's just cause I've missed it.  The dewinged interstellar elephant god comes to mind as a replacement but I can't recall if Conan actually killed it.

Some of the more recent Marvel Comic Conan issues have been really very good.

They had a very beautiful rendition of the Ice Giant's daughter.  Even if it does make you realize, once again, how much inconsistency there is to Conan's characterization without the whole of the prose being present.


----------



## Particle_Man

The Conan comics by Kurt Busiek and Cary Nord are by Dark Horse, not Marvel.  They are getting good reviews.  In the last issue Conan solo'd 4 demons with a knife he found on an old Wizard's tomb (apparently, it was close and Conan could have died).  Earlier, he had been tricked and robbed by a merchant and two women.  I think that Iron Lore would fit both these ideas nicely.


----------



## Particle_Man

For those that want to limit the wahoo, you might look at Castles and Crusades.  It pretty much stops advancement at level 12 (in theory you could go further, but the book pretty much says "Why bother? Start a new character."


----------



## Andor

*Another way to keep levels in check.*

If it's really the high levels that kill the brain cells, why not swipe the experiance chart from Palladium? Since it does not key rewards to level your advancment will be slower and it will probably take years to pass the 5-7 range.

Wulf, untill you rip the levels out of it I don't think you will _ever_ see a d20 product that satisfies your definition of GnG. The level based hitpoint gains make it impossible to have a mid level character be threatened by a few muggers. Although if you really want to put the fear of daggers back into your characters use the 'massive damage save threshold = con' rule. One good hit from an axe can kill any character capable of failing a save then. Of course then problems crop up if ressurection isn't plentiful and cheap.... "I thought we were the most powerful guys around. So how come everytime someone dies an equally powerful dude we've never heard of crawls out of the woodwork to sign up?"


----------



## Mac Callum

Andor said:
			
		

> Wulf, untill you rip the levels out of it I don't think you will _ever_ see a d20 product that satisfies your definition of GnG. The level based hitpoint gains make it impossible to have a mid level character be threatened by a few muggers.



I think this is right.  Several mechanics in d20 (HP being one of them) make it inherantly heroic.


> Although if you really want to put the fear of daggers back into your characters use the 'massive damage save threshold = con' rule. One good hit from an axe can kill any character capable of failing a save then. Of course then problems crop up if ressurection isn't plentiful and cheap.... "I thought we were the most powerful guys around. So how come everytime someone dies an equally powerful dude we've never heard of crawls out of the woodwork to sign up?"



Actually, I think the desire to play a GnG system stems directly from wanting to avoid being "the most powerful guys around."  In a GnG setting (like Wulf describes), no one is terribly powerful.  Everyone is vulnerable.  That's why it's so hard to square with d20, which posits meaningful level advancement.

(And as for the definition of 'wahoo', I'm with Wulf.  There is no need to further define it.  Hong's Law applies.)


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Right, and maybe the mistake was mine, but I assumed that the power level would be the same but the style would be more low-fantasy. I guess I thought it's not power that's the problem, it's the application and execution of power.



Have you considered a CR bonus system, similar to your Creature Creation, for magic items? (Its just a wild thought...) 

I'm just thinking outloud, maybe some of you have already considered this...

Or does this issue mostly come down to certain creatures that have specific abilities that are difficult to overcome so that their CR rating is wildly sensitive to campaign models? Maybe instead of whipping up whole new PC classes, abilities to compensate, and rule-subsystems around them... an alternate CR rating for creatures is all that is needed. Go through each monster, and give them a CR rating for "normal" D&D characters, and another for "mundane equipped" characters, with no magic spell support.

I mean, then DMs who had campaigns somewhere in between the two extremes can compare the numbers and evaluate what his, or her, own campaign would fit.

... but could someone sell a book for it... ?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Have you considered a CR bonus system, similar to your Creature Creation, for magic items? (Its just a wild thought...)




It's safe to say I've put some thought into low-level games vis-a-vis CR, yes.   

And I'm pretty happy with what I've done myself as it stands, but not 100% happy-- and _eager_ to concede that mearls can do it better and see his whack at it. The problem is that I ultimately felt that a "hand wave" or "different style of play" was sufficient for most things; but if mearls is sniffing down the trail of more crunchy, codified, rules-based fixes, I wanna see it.

Just subsuming the character's magic weapon and cloak into his BAB profile doesn't really satisfy me. It's just a different approach to what action points already cover.


Wulf


----------



## JohnSnow

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> I'm not arguing that IL doesn't immediately give off a low fantasy vibe, though I might argue that that's how it will actually play since upping the stats of the characters effectively lowers the threat of the high fantasy creatures*, but I would argue that there's a lot of low fantasy that has a pretty high level of wahoo.
> 
> Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser running from muggers in a tent and later taking out some sort of Frost Wyrm with a cat and a pike come to mind and those aren't even the most egregious examples. Conan wrestling with gorillas in priest suits or surving a blow from a Pictish war axe only because he made his helmet himself in 'proper' barbarian fashion also stand out.
> 
> So unless Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser's high wahoo level disqualifies them as low fantasy then I think you just got a call a spade a spade and say it's the wahoo and not the fantasy level that bothers ya. Or both, hey, whatever.




Which is pretty much what I've been trying to say all along. You can scream until you're blue in the face that Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser (or Conan for that matter) are low fantasy and really need GnG rules, but the truth is that the narrative doesn't back it up. Both of them have some pretty high levels of wahoo in the heroes' abilities. What they lack is the senseless disregard for threats that comes with high-level D&D characters.

Various D20 solutions have been proposed. There's about 6 in _Unearthed Arcana_ alone: (1) Lower the massive damage threshold, (2) use wound/vitality, (3) Replace hit points with a damage save, et cetera, etc.

The one thing UA did NOT do was try to rebalance the game to eliminate the "exponential spellcaster power" and "multiple magical item dependency" or "Christmas Tree Effect" (hereafter CTE) problems. And for the flavor of d20 Fantasy _I_ want, I need to address those issues. Ideally, I'd like them addressed in such a way that I can still use modules and monsters "out of the box." And THAT is what I am hoping to get from _Iron Lore_.

Then if I want to houserule damage, I can houserule damage. Personally, I screwed around with the VP/WP idea before deciding that it complicates things too much and that a lower MDT (I personally like CON + HD) was all that was needed. That leaves the notion of hitpoints as a hand-wavey combination of actual toughness and "heroic luck." But it still allows for the GnG reality of some things that characters ought to fear (falls from great heights, critical hits) actually being dangerous.

As I said before Wulf, I understand that you've decided Iron Lore isn't what you thought it might be, but it seems to me like you're tearing it down without seeing the finished product. I get that you feel Conan/Fafhrd/Grey Mouser are best represented by "Grim and Gritty" fantasy (which you coincidentally happen to have a product for). I just happen to have a different take on those stories than you, AND I don't particularly see how you can judge the whacky, wahoo factor of this product based on seeing ONE ability that you think is "over-the-top." Like I said, I get it. You think arrow ladder is dumb. Does that hold true for all the other abilities we've seen, or are you deciding that _Iron Lore_ is silly/Xena-ish because you have decided (in your obviously superior knowledge of what constitutes "acceptable" low fantasy) that this one ability somehow "poisons" the whole concept?

Just curious.


----------



## JohnSnow

One other comment, earlier, when discussing the ELMer FuDD problem, Wulf, you said: "a handwave is a handwave after all."

Sorry to say this, but I disagree. And allow me to explain.

D&D gives high-level characters a number of "story" powers. Their intention is to enable certain kinds of storytelling. You give characters teleport because you want them to be able to bounce across leagues of distance in an eyeblink so that they can have far-flung adventures. From what Mearls calls "story" (and others call fluff), this makes good sense. But from the standpoint of what Mearls calls "rules" (and others call crunch), teleport is a highly problematic ability. Yet, it's codified in the D&D game's "rules." You can eliminate it, but you're messing with rules if you do that. Moreover, that "story-based" ability has rules/tactical consequences. Like, for example, the "high level party teleports home whenever their hit points run low" problem. However, if you leave the "crossing vast distances" ability (a "story" problem) to "story" solutions, then you can "handwave" it (the "this Griffin is willing to take you there" solution) much more consistently and with much less effect on the "rules-balance" of the game.

If I understand this correctly, Mearls is talking about creating rules-based solutions to "rules" problems but leaving the "story" solutions to the DM. For instance, a dragon has a certain DR, does a certain amount of damage from a certain range, and has the tactical ability to remain out of melee range IF it can fly. All of these capabilities give a dragon a CR. Addressing these "tactically" through the rules does NOT require handwaving - it requires rules-based answers. For instance, if the dragon tries to stay out of melee range, the PCs need either (a) ways to attack it effectively from a distance, or  (b) ways to bring it into melee range. In the interim, their defensive capabilities should be such that IF they play smart, they can survive the dragon's attacks until they can accomplish (a) or (b). Those are rules-based solutions to rules-issues. And I THINK that's what Mike has in mind. But I haven't the slightest inkling of how he plans to solve this one.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

John Snow said:
			
		

> You think arrow ladder is dumb. Does that hold true for all the other abilities we've seen, or are you deciding that _Iron Lore_ is silly/Xena-ish because you have decided (in your obviously superior knowledge of what constitutes "acceptable" low fantasy) that this one ability somehow "poisons" the whole concept?




First, thanks for your acknowledgement of my superior knowledge. It's appreciated.

Second, I make the decision based on the same things everyone else is-- the information I have available. The arrow ladder ability, coupled with the (new, very cool) Token mechanic, leads me to make an educated guess (again, based on my superior judgement, thanks) that it is probably not a single outlying data point. I expect we'll see other abilities in the same vein. 

That is to say, if I were designing Iron Lore, and I created an ability like Arrow Ladder, and I were fishing around for other powerful abilities to round out the other classes, having set the precedent, I might include a few more like it.

And, if arrow ladder is a single outlier that doesn't fit the thematic focus of the rest of the work, it should properly be edited out of the book.



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> As I said before Wulf, I understand that you've decided Iron Lore isn't what you thought it might be, but it seems to me like you're tearing it down without seeing the finished product.




There's really two different conversations going on here. One is on the nature of GnG and it's not appropriate to this thread other than its tangential relationship to Iron Lore.

Having decided and accepted that Iron Lore won't be GnG, I really don't see any point in continuing that discussion here. 

Because it leads to people asking why I'm tearing down Iron Lore, which is something I am specifically trying not to do.

So, assuming we all agree that Iron Lore isn't _supposed_ to be GnG, we can get back to discussing its merits, instead of dragging me into discussions (against my better judgement, as usual) as to why Iron Lore falls short of a target that Mike _isn't even aiming at._

Again, I confess that the error was mine in thinking that Iron Lore was going to be something else. Every preview we have seen of what Iron Lore actually IS looks fantastic.

Just because I prefer chocolate cake doesn't mean that mearls doesn't make a kickass pie.


Wulf


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> If I understand this correctly, Mearls is talking about creating rules-based solutions to "rules" problems but leaving the "story" solutions to the DM. For instance, a dragon has a certain DR, does a certain amount of damage from a certain range, and has the tactical ability to remain out of melee range IF it can fly. All of these capabilities give a dragon a CR. Addressing these "tactically" through the rules does NOT require handwaving - it requires rules-based answers. For instance, if the dragon tries to stay out of melee range, the PCs need either (a) ways to attack it effectively from a distance, or  (b) ways to bring it into melee range. In the interim, their defensive capabilities should be such that IF they play smart, they can survive the dragon's attacks until they can accomplish (a) or (b). Those are rules-based solutions to rules-issues. And I THINK that's what Mike has in mind.




That's it exactly, John.

Edited to add this: And I'm even more interested in the Spectre, because unlike the Dragon ("If it bleeds, we can kill it...") which is a "supernatural" foe that can be defeated with mundane means, the Spectre is a supernatural foe that requires supernatural means to deal with effectively. How does a Hunter, an Executioner, and an Archer kill a Spectre? We don't know yet, but Mike has promised that they'll be able to do it. 



> But I haven't the slightest inkling of how he plans to solve this one.




This is the nature of my burning professional curiosity and the reason I continue to participate in a thread I should have (continued to) abandon.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I'm starting to think though that folks who are suggesting just putting a cap on advancement have the right idea. It just might not be possible to express a 12th-20th level d20 character without the wahoo creeping in.




To my mind this seems about right in that I would assume GnG describes, among other things, a subset of heroic fantasy.  At some point in heroic fantasy you're going to 'transcend' the Grimm part and be in a very different range of the Gritty.  The world of the Illiad is GnG, but the gods never were and at some point Achilles is really only barely qualifying for the realm of the human and way too close to the realm of the gods.  I think Homer does a good job of giving that reality a very GnG spin but it doesn't change the fact that Achilles wrestles with a river and is only saved by a god transforming himself into a sheet of flame.

On the other hand I have serious doubt about whether or not even a twentieth level character should be Achilles.  Ajax or Odysseus, sure, but Achilles and Hector have something weird and situational going on.


> This is the nature of my burning professional curiosity and the reason I continue to participate in a thread I should have (continued to) abandon.




I do hope you can be kept here.  I think the GnG issue mostly comes from questions about the overlap of GnG with Heroic fantasy.  That is how if F/GM are GnG but they are also Heroic Fantasy then how does one judge which you should be faithful to in creating a F/GM game?  Your superior expertise and the fact that you've demonstrated a system for quantifying half of that problem in the past and articulated this problem here is a big part of that.  I certainly don't think its the only thing you have to contribute or that you should be held to doing so only.  And I'm grateful for the vast majority of both conversations thus far and happy there's a thread for the tangent.


----------



## ThirdWizard

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Just because I prefer chocolate cake doesn't mean that mearls doesn't make a kickass pie.




I was with you until here, but come on, man. _Chocolate cake?_ I have now lost all respect for you. I'm glad to have my inferior knowlege if superior knowlege means you like chocolate cake.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> That's it exactly, John.
> 
> Edited to add this: And I'm even more interested in the Spectre, because unlike the Dragon ("If it bleeds, we can kill it...") which is a "supernatural" foe that can be defeated with mundane means, the Spectre is a supernatural foe that requires supernatural means to deal with effectively. How does a Hunter, an Executioner, and an Archer kill a Spectre? We don't know yet, but Mike has promised that they'll be able to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the nature of my burning professional curiosity and the reason I continue to participate in a thread I should have (continued to) abandon.




Yeah, Dragon I'm ok with.  In fact the last Playtester Spotlight seemed to have a nice nod in that direction with the Berzerker luring it in and the Archer finishing it off.

The Spectre is the riddle at this point.  I had been less curious about it than the dragon simply because there had been non magical means of dealing with part of that issue in AE, but none of those have shown up in any of the classes we've seen so far so there's got to be some sort of systemic rather than character based fix.

The description of the improvised weapon fight in the last Playtester Spotlight may have been a good clue in that direction.


----------



## Irda Ranger

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> This is the nature of my burning professional curiosity and the reason I continue to participate in a thread I should have (continued to) abandon.



It's like crack, isn't it?

Not that, you know, I'm suggesting you've done crack or anything, ...

By the way, from now on that whenever John Snow posts something, just pretend there's a post immediately after it by me saying "Yeah!" or "Kickass" or "John, how are you so frickin' spot on?"


----------



## JohnSnow

First off, Irda/Mac Callum thanks for the compliment - it's greatly appreciated.



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> That is to say, if I were designing Iron Lore, and I created an ability like Arrow Ladder, and I were fishing around for other powerful abilities to round out the other classes, having set the precedent, I might include a few more like it.
> 
> And, if arrow ladder is a single outlier that doesn't fit the thematic focus of the rest of the work, it should properly be edited out of the book.




I think this is a difference of perception between the two of us about what Arrow Ladder actually IS, thematically speaking. You see it as "over-the-top wahoo," whereas to me, it's more of a gimicky, "what a skilled archer could actually DO with arrows" kinda thing. I confess that it's on the outer edge, but I don't really think it's "over the top."

By way of comparison, I had similar discussions on the WotC boards when D&D 3.5 introduced the feat "Manyshot." The immediate reaction by many was that it was WAY over the top. I, however, disagreed. Now, to a certain extent, I'll admit I'm forgiving on archery feats because I've seen (and messed around with doing) some pretty amazing archery tricks in real life. For example, after _Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves_ came out, I loaded a couple arrows in my (far-from-heroically-strong) 30-lb. bow and, well, tried to replicate the "Manyshot" trick. For the record, I did not modify the arrows in any way (as Robin did in the film) to make the shot easier. In the process, I put two arrows into a target from a distance of 15-20 yards. Neither hit the center, and they were separated by about 3' of distance. Both, however, did actually hit and STICK. My conclusion was that this "stunt" separates the power of the shot between the arrows. Ergo, with a 30 lb. bow, penetration (w/2 arrows) about equals that of a single arrow from a 15 lb. bow (maybe a bit less due to losses). With a 60-100 lb. draw weight, I imagine the stunt would be effective up to about 3 arrows (the limit for the feat, IIRC). So, the _Robin Hood: Men in Tights_ arrow bandolier is goofy...but Marvel's Hawkeye shooting 3 arrows with his 200 lb. bow(!) (and dropping them effectively "in a line") isn't. Impressive, sure, but not quite over the top. And I see arrow ladder the same way. Obviously, not everyone will. But to me, it isn't thematically that far off.

I confess to being as curious about the spectre situation as anyone. Refresh my memory, can spectres attack while incorporeal?


----------



## Felon

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> The Conan comics by Kurt Busiek and Cary Nord are by Dark Horse, not Marvel.




LOL, these young whippersnappers these days, they think they know what Conan comics are about. IN my day, Conan comics were huge-ass 80-page black-and-white deals that Marvel published twice a month for twenty years and recycled the same three or four stories in a non-stop loop. 

Now, that's what a Conan comic is! Speak not to me of this Buisek fellow lest I skew your gizzard!


----------



## ThirdWizard

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I confess to being as curious about the spectre situation as anyone. Refresh my memory, can spectres attack while incorporeal?




They are always incorporeal, however, they switch between being manifested on the Material Plane and being completely in the Ethereal. When on the ethereal they are invisible and insubstantial, only affected by a very few attacks. When manifested, they are sort of half and half, so you get the 50% miss chance because your attack might just pass right through them.

My guess is they'll just hand wave it away. At level X your attacks count as magical for purposes of Damage Reduction. But, I could be off, that just seems the easiest way to handle it.

EDIT: Correction: not all incorporeal creatures use the ethereal and must manifest. That's only ghosts, my mistake. Spectres are _not _like this. They can't dissapear like a ghost can.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I confess to being as curious about the spectre situation as anyone. Refresh my memory, can spectres attack while incorporeal?



Well, I don't believe they can ever be corporeal, so yeah. They touch the corporeal target and inflict damage (1d8) and Energy Drain of two negative levels.


----------



## Irda Ranger

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> First off, Irda/Mac Callum thanks for the compliment - it's greatly appreciated.



You're more than welcome; especially since you save me the trouble of typing what I was just about to say.


> I think this is a difference of perception between the two of us about what Arrow Ladder actually IS, thematically speaking. You see it as "over-the-top wahoo," whereas to me, it's more of a gimicky, "what a skilled archer could actually DO with arrows" kinda thing. I confess that it's on the outer edge, but I don't really think it's "over the top."



This is my feeling too.  I'm no bowhunter, but did have a longbow as a kid and did win the Boy Scout campwide archery contest (against kids who _were_ bowhunters).  Arrow Ladder doesn't seem at all wahoo to me because I've seen arrows lined up like that.  In 6 seconds?  No, but then D&D has always required a _little_ suspension of disbelief.  In this case, it's not much.  Not for me, anyway.

*BIG ANNOUCEMENT - They have changed the name.*

Iron Lore is now "Iron Heroes"
http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mpress_IL_PR2

Also, the new spotlight shows how Feats are mastered, but I haven't read it yet, so more commentary later.
http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?designdiary_mmearls_14


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> My guess is they'll just hand wave it away. At level X your attacks count as magical for purposes of Damage Reduction. But, I could be off, that just seems the easiest way to handle it.



Or maybe gain ability where they can power-up for some tokens and have their attacks harm [Incorporeal] subtype creatures. Sort of like psionic characters expending their psionic focus to do certain things granted through feats.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Or maybe gain ability where they can power-up for some tokens and have their attacks harm [Incorporeal] subtype creatures. Sort of like psionic characters expending their psionic focus to do certain things granted through feats.




From what we've seen so far tokens are class specific, and there's been little in the way of common abilities, but that's just from what we've seen so far.  We know that players have been collecting for a couple of different token pools at once so it may very well be that there is some sort of generic fate point pool such as Wulf suggests.

The psionic focus mechanic is a pretty interesting thing to bring up.  I wonder if there's going to be something similar to that.  Something where you have to build up a charge through skill rolls and then expend it.  Non-cumulative, however, so that it's not like tokens, and also not at all class based.

That would be pretty neat.  Someone mentioned Solomon Kane doing something like that far earlier in the thread.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Like the new name.  The thread title seems obsolete though now, that or ironic.


----------



## Irda Ranger

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Or maybe gain ability where they can power-up for some tokens and have their attacks harm [Incorporeal] subtype creatures. Sort of like psionic characters expending their psionic focus to do certain things granted through feats.



Well, neither the Archer not the Hunter gained anything like this, and I doubt they'd design a system where only 1/2 the classes could fight Incorporeal monsters.

It's possible that Feats will give you new ways to spend tokens, but I think it will have to be a general mechanic, and not a Feat.  If you make it a Feat, it becomes either a necessary Feat or a Feat that you choose not to take based on the implicit trust in the DM not to through certain kinds of monsters at you.  That's a level of forced-path/ meta-gaming that I'm not comfortable with.

I don't know if it will be a hand-waive or not, but it really should be general and broadly available - which of course, suggests it will be a hand-waive of some kind.  But who knows, Mearls has spent a lot of time brainstorming on this and may have arrived at a novel solution.


----------



## Irda Ranger

*Feat Mastery*

This is my analysis of the latest Design Diary, Feat Mastery.

The Feat advancement didn't work quite as I expected.  I thought that the Feats would naturally upgrade as the PC achieved new levels of Mastery, kind of like how spells got better as Casters got higher in level.  It seems though that a certain level of Master only allows you to choose a new Feat, and doesn't upgrade the Feats you already had.

That's Ok though.  It just means that the Feats you can purchase are going to be cooler and more powerful than ones you would have gotten for free (remember, there is no Free Lunch in Game Balance; everything's a tradeoff).

I like Mearl's discussion of prerequisites for Feats.  It's bothered me a little too that a 1st level fighter with a 13 in Int could take Expertise, but a 20th level Fighter with a 12 Int could not.  I didn't think it was a major concern, but this is like scratching an annoying itch. (I also always wondered what happened in you were wearing Int boosting items when you leveled up, but that's another thread.)  As you can see, the Mastery progression neatly solves this little problem.

Mearl's is right that the D&D system didn't provide a bunch of options for high-level Fighters, but that must be for the Core books only.  Considering how many supplements there are out there, I imagine there must be a bazillion cools Feats for high-level melee types.   Oh well, at least with I_H_ we won't have to buy supplements to get them.  (Which is only expected - a primarily melee-based system that didn't provide a lot of cool melee Feats would be a bit of a waste of money).

We've heard the claim that IH will speed of NPC design, and now Mearls claims that this Feat Mastery progression is part of the solution.  He's probably right, as selecting a few Feats have got to be a lot faster and easier than choosing how to spend the NPC's gold-allotment based on level.  Select the Feats, give the man a sword and shield, and you're done.  I like that.  For me, my favorite part of NPC design is the history, motivations, politics, etc.  By the time I'm done with all that, selecting magical items to make them "Level Appropriate" always seemed more like a chore than a joy.  Selecting Feats may end up being the same, but at least I can get it over with more quickly.

My only remaining question, at the end, is based on this sentence:


> In the vast majority of cases, a feat has a base mastery, usually 1, and then a series of expanded, higher mastery expansions that you can select as you progress in level. You cannot take a feat's expanded mastery options unless you already have the base feat.



Does this mean you have to take them in order (1, 2, 3, ...), or can you take them in any order as long as you have the first one and meet the Mastery requirement?  It sounds like the second (and the second improves the chances of Mastery 10 feats actually getting chosen), but I'm not 100% sure.  Mearls?

Overall, nothing earth-shattering, but a nice progression towards how the whole system works.


----------



## JohnSnow

Sorry to contradict, but I'm afraid this:


			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> My guess is they'll just hand wave it away. At level X your attacks count as magical for purposes of Damage Reduction. But, I could be off, that just seems the easiest way to handle it.




has been directly addressed by this (from page 4):


			
				mearls said:
			
		

> ecliptic observes:
> I am just afraid the book may take it a bit too far. Like a feat that makes your weapon "magic" for going through damage reduction.
> 
> ICK! No, IL does not cheese out on you like that.




So, we can infer that there's no ability/feat that makes the character's attacks count as magic.

Maybe it's a much more mundane solution. Are spectres vulnerable to fire or any other form of conventional attack? Mike never said that the characters would be able to use their "regular" weapons. And the second playtest report certainly implied that the PCs were scrounging for stuff to use against the babau demon. And it certainly fits the mystique of Conan (or Aragorn, I might add) suddenly switching to fighting with a torch/flaming brand against such things.

Anyone remember how Conan, Fafhrd or the Grey Mouser fights ghosts (in the stories, that is)?

EDIT: Interesting analysis Irda Ranger. I'll put my thoughts in another post.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Anyone remember how Conan, Fafhrd or the Grey Mouser fights ghosts (in the stories, that is)?
> 
> EDIT: Interesting analysis Irda Ranger. I'll put my thoughts in another post.




Ghosts very rarely show up in Conan, and when they do they are mostly helpful, as I recall.  

I'm only just now reading F/GM comprehensively.  From the short stories I knew before I can't recall them fighting anything incorporeal.  Though there was an adventure where most of their foes were invisible.

I like the idea of having to switch to a common substance or perform some sort of easy or common ritual.

The former concept would fit with some of Mike's work in AE.  Sacraficing something of minor value for a short term benefit.


----------



## JohnSnow

Okay, a few of us (myself, Irda Ranger and Dr. Strangemonkey, in particular) were over on the Malhavoc boards hashing around the information in this little gem:

www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=131871

What it shows is a 6th level berzerker in _Iron Heroes_. Looking carefully at the character, you see that he has Defense 16 (Active +6, Passive +0). From that and some of the other info, you conclude that the character has a +2 defense bonus due to his Dex and +4 from other sources (probably his class defense bonus). If this is the case, then the class defense bonus is an "active" bonus. Which means it probably doesn't work under the same conditions under which a D&D character loses his dex bonus (i.e. flat-footed, surprised, or flanked). This is actually even realistic, as most defense in the real world is active. If you make defense something that characters only get the benefit of when they're prepared for an attack, you make ambushes DEADLY without having to resort to the strange mechanics of some other "reduced-magic" settings (Green Ronin's _Black Company_ for example). 

As an aside, this aspect of _Iron Heroes_ might even create an acceptable explanation for why Conan or Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser were actually concerned when surrounded by low-level mooks. Against large groups of opponents, any flanking character gets to bypass nearly ALL of the defending character's defense. That makes such groups a SERIOUS threat. And since the archer preview implies that flanking works at range...

Just thought I'd share.


----------



## Irda Ranger

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> As an aside, this aspect of _Iron Heroes_ might even create an acceptable explanation for why Conan or Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser were actually concerned when surrounded by low-level mooks. Against large groups of opponents, any flanking character gets to bypass nearly ALL of the defending character's defense. That makes such groups a SERIOUS threat. And since the archer preview implies that flanking works at range...
> 
> Just thought I'd share.



And as I said at Monte's boards, I think this is a seriously good idea.  It really makes the "you're surrounded by goblin archers" a serious problem, even for high-level folks; while still letting you battle the uber-demon mano a mano.

For the "mythic heroism" feel I'm aiming for, this goes a long way in the right direction.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Against large groups of opponents, any flanking character gets to bypass nearly ALL of the defending character's defense. That makes such groups a SERIOUS threat. And since the archer preview implies that flanking works at range...
> 
> Just thought I'd share.




'Stay by the wall, stay by the wall, do *not* move away from the wall...'


----------



## JohnSnow

Okay, a few comments on feats and feat mastery. By the way Irda Ranger, nice analysis above. I agree that Mearls' comment implies that only the basic feat is required before higher mastery can be taken and not ALL of the levels. But I think we need confirmation. 

Taking Mearls most recent diary combined with a few of the other previews we've seen leads me to the following observations. First off, character classes seem to get Advanced Mastery of one category (+2 at level 1, +1/2 levels), partial mastery of a second (+1 at level 1 +1/2 levels), limited access to a third (+1 at level 3, +1/2 levels) and standard access to all others (+1 at level 5, +1/2 levels). Near as I can tell so far, the following are the "types" of feats I've been able to come up with:

Defense
Finesse (weapon subtype)
Lore
Power (weapon subtype)
Projectile (weapon subtype)
Tactics

Also, it seems characters get 1 feat at 1st level (The Archer & Hunter "samples" have only 1 feat a piece). The 6th level berzerker preview and a little logic would indicate they get 1 feat/2 levels (+ whatever they get as class bonuses). It's possible they gain their feats every odd level, and the berzerker gets 1 bonus feat, but I find it more likely that all characters gain 1 feat every even level (2, 4, 6, 8, etc.) which would give the berzerker 4 feats at 6th level (1st, 2nd, 4th, and 6th). The sample berzerker has taken level 3 mastery in Power Attack, plus the Quick Draw feat. It seems odd that characters can be eligible for level 2 mastery at 1st level and not have 2 feats...but on the other hand, their mastery level doesn't increase at 2nd level, so maybe it's so that characters with the appropriate mastery can take level 2 mastery as soon as they have the feat for it (2nd level), if they so choose.

Oh, and I'm not sure I disagree with Mearls that there aren't a lot of options for high-level fighters. There are lots of feats to pick from, sure, but not a lot of them that specifially target the "high level fighter" type. The D&D fighter basically ends up using a lot of his high-level feats to expand his breadth of options rather than actually increase his abilities. Greater Weapon Focus (and Specialization) and some of the archery feats are the sole exception. But even Great Cleave and Whirlwind Attack are available at 6th level if you pick carefully. Granted there may be some cool feats in other books (_Book of Iron Might_ for example) that I don't know about. I admit the tactical feats from _Complete Warrior_ and other sources do come to mind.

By the way are there any feat categories (for the list above) that we know about that I'm missing?


----------



## Erekose13

Regarding all the attempts to pull info from the previews so far here are a few points that you are spot on about.

Irda, your second point is right (you dont have to take all of the feat mastery levels in order as long as you have the base one)

Mastery 10 is still hard to get at, the archer, the best at projectile weapons only gets to 10 at 17th level.

You do indeed get feats faster than Core.


----------



## JohnSnow

Adjustment:

It's not a solid +1/2 levels. If the archer and hunter previews are any indication, characters stop gaining improved mastery at level 17. So that you have Mastery 10 in one category, 9 in another, 8 in a third, and 7 in all others.

Based on the currently available set of 2, that would seem to be the rule. Of course, some classes may deviate from the norm.

Oh, it's also possible to hit the berzerkers 4 feats at level 6 if he gets 2 at level 1 and 1 at every odd level. But that's not consistent with the sample archer and hunter seemingly having one feat each at 1st level.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Oh, it's also possible to hit the berzerkers 4 feats at level 6 if he gets 2 at level 1 and 1 at every odd level. But that's not consistent with the sample archer and hunter seemingly having one feat each at 1st level.




My theory is one at character creation and then one feat at every even level.


----------



## Krug

Looks like this thread needs to be changed to _Iron Heroes_.


----------



## Staffan

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> My guess is they'll just hand wave it away. At level X your attacks count as magical for purposes of Damage Reduction. But, I could be off, that just seems the easiest way to handle it.



I distinctly recall Mearls mentioning somewhere, possibly in this very thread, that "Sure, I could have just said that Xth level characters count as magic for penetrating DR. But that would be cheap, so I didn't. What did I do? You'll have to wait and see."


----------



## JohnSnow

Yup, as I quoted above (look up a few posts).

I was wrong though, it's on page 4, not page 5. Original post is now edited.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## Andor

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> My theory is one at character creation and then one feat at every even level.






			
				Archer Preview said:
			
		

> Bonus feats are in addition to the feat a character gets at every even-numbered level.




The even level feat progression is pretty settled.


----------



## JohnSnow

Wow...how'd we all overlook that one? I thought I'd gleened every speck from those previews.

Well, except the ones that didn't make sense. That reminds me. In light of this new feat mastery info, I need to go back and look at Mike's WAR picture ramble to dissect it for new, now pertinent, info.

Be back soon.


----------



## Irda Ranger

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Wow...how'd we all overlook that one? I thought I'd gleened every speck from those previews.



What's with this "we" business, Capt. Obvious?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> *BIG ANNOUCEMENT - They have changed the name.*
> 
> Iron Lore is now "Iron Heroes"
> http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mpress_IL_PR2




I wonder if this means I should change the title of my _Mythic Heroes_ book...

Man, I like Iron Lore so much better as Iron Heroes. Good, good change-- whatever the reason.


----------



## Andor

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I wonder if this means I should change the title of my _Mythic Heroes_ book...
> 
> Man, I like Iron Lore so much better as Iron Heroes. Good, good change-- whatever the reason.




Obviously you should now change it to Mythic Lore. Duh.


----------



## Irda Ranger

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Defense
> Finesse (weapon subtype)
> Lore
> Power (weapon subtype)
> Projectile (weapon subtype)
> Tactics



It might be fun to guess based on the classes.

Arcanist - Lore, ???
Archer - Projectile*, Defense*, Finesse*
Armiger - Defense, Power, Tactics
Berserker - Power*, Weapon, Stunts
Executioner - ???
Harrier - Finesse, Stunts, Defense
Hunter - Tactics*, Lore*, Weapon*
Man-at-Arms - Everything at moderate 
Thief - Stunts, The Voice, Lore
Weapon Master - Weapon, Tactics, ???

* - of course, these are the only ones we're sure of.  Everything else is a guess.

One of the questions is, what group would Quick Draw go in?  The Beserker has it 6th level, which means it could be from anywhere, if he took it at 6th.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> One of the questions is, what group would Quick Draw go in?  The Beserker has it 6th level, which means it could be from anywhere, if he took it at 6th.




Quick Draw has to have a level 1 or level 0 mastery requirement.  I think it's pretty likely he needs to have that final feat in order to get the third powerattack at the requisite mastery level.  Recall that Power-attack has mastery level 0 and then we know its nine elaborations range from 2-10 so we know the Berzerker has Power Attack 0, 2, and 3.

BTW, Power Attack has to be among the most elaborated feats.  A Master of Power Attack would have spent a huge percentage of his feats on that one trick.  Of course if the three levels of Power Attack the Berzerker has are any indication you get a lot of flexibility with that one trick.

Euugh, now I have an image of berserker performing card tricks by hitting a deck with an axe.

'All right, what card hit you in the face?  Was it a jack of spades?'

One question though, if you absolutely can only get one feat at first level then why have a +1 and +2 mastery rating at first level?  Wouldn't it be a no brainer that you would go for the +2 mastery feat?


----------



## JohnSnow

I should add that "Weapon" comes in three flavors: Power Weapon, Projectile Weapon, and Finesse Weapon.

This is born out by the feat from the preview: Vorpal Hurricane, a mastery 3 power weapon ability (with mastery level 6 and 9 variants). The first lets you threaten all the squares around you and attack any opponent who begins or ends their action in said square, at your highest BAB at the cost of a full attack action. At levels 6 and 9 you can do this as a standard action (allowing you to move before or after you do it) or a free action (this is how you defend yourself - Conan anyone?) respectively.

So apparently, not all feats have mastery levels 1-9. Verrrry interesting. Makes feats much more "spell-like" in their progression. And if you wanted to, you could forgo the Level 6 mastery and just take the level 9 mastery when you're eligible for it...hmmm.

Oh, and sorry to disagree Dr. Strangemonkey, but I think Power Attack has mastery levels from 1-10. If you assume the berzerker has advanced mastery of the Power Weapon tree, he could have taken Power attack 1 (level 1 feat), Power Attack 2 (level 2 feat), Power Attack 3 (Level 4) and Quick Draw (Level 6). Alternatively, he could have taken Quick Draw earlier if it's part of either his secondary or tertiary Feat categories. So we just don't know where QD is.

Oh, and you have to have the base level of a feat before you can take the expanded mastery levels (from Mearls' design diary). So you couldn't take level 2 feats without taking the level 1 feat first (unless the base mastery level for the feat was 2, not 1). And since the mastery doesn't improve at level 2, you'll be able to take the mastery level 2 feat at 2nd level if you have advanced mastery in that feat category (i.e. a berzerker taking Power Attack 2 with his 2nd level feat, as I stated above).


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I wonder if this means I should change the title of my _Mythic Heroes_ book...
> 
> Man, I like Iron Lore so much better as Iron Heroes. Good, good change-- whatever the reason.




Yeah, it's a great change.  I was looking at all the name changes to the articles on their site contrasted with the cover with Iron Lore in big letters and I am sad they have to go through this hastle, but at least they got a great name out of it.

Mythic Heroes is great.  I don't really think we can have too many heroes.

Though Mythic Lore honestly isn't that bad either.


----------



## TwinBahamut

I honestly don't like the new title all that much compared to the original... It seems every book these days is adding "heroes" to the title. It is going to take a while to get used to the change.

Honestly, this new system isn't quite as revolutionary as I had hoped for. It is really just a new categorization system with class-based prerequisites. It adds to some of my worries that the classes are too well defined or even pidgeon-holed. I like classes to be somewhat flexible, so I hope this is just a misunderstanding. Certainly some concrete examples of feat chains would be appreciated.

How many different feat groups can there be I wonder? So far we know of the 7, with some apparent overlap. Too many more would dilute the groups too much, so I expect there to be 9 or 10 at the most.


----------



## Dark Psion

http://gamingreport.com/article.php?sid=17231&mode=thread&order=0
-----------------------------


> The new rulebook's title became an issue when, one month ago, software developer Iron Lore Entertainment demanded that Malhavoc Press and its publishing partner, White Wolf Publishing, cease using the name "Iron Lore." While the software company did not hold a trademark on "Iron Lore," it had applied for ownership of the trademark "Iron Lore Entertainment." In a letter from its legal representatives, the software company claimed that Malhavoc's use of the title would confuse consumers.
> 
> "While I don't agree with these assertions, I'm not willing to engage in a prolonged legal battle over the title," Monte said. "Fans have been waiting months for this new book. A lawsuit would only mean many more months of waiting."


----------



## mearls

Hey all,

I haven't had a chance to stop by here in quite a while - work and moving across the continent have kept me rather busy. I can chime in on two things:

* PCs gain two feats at 1st level.

* You only need the base feat to take its expanded masteries. If you have the basic feat, you can take mastery abilities 3, 7, etc. You don't need to take them in order. In some cases an expanded mastery builds off another, lower mastery ability. In those cases (and there aren't too many) you need the lower mastery ability first.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg

mearls said:
			
		

> Hey all,
> 
> I haven't had a chance to stop by here in quite a while - work and moving across the continent have kept me rather busy. I can chime in on two things:
> 
> * PCs gain two feats at 1st level.
> 
> * You only need the base feat to take its expanded masteries. If you have the basic feat, you can take mastery abilities 3, 7, etc. You don't need to take them in order. In some cases an expanded mastery builds off another, lower mastery ability. In those cases (and there aren't too many) you need the lower mastery ability first.




I like the idea of this a lot.  This should really allow one archer to be very different from another archer of the same level, which I assume was a major part of the idea.


----------



## Irda Ranger

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Honestly, this new system isn't quite as revolutionary as I had hoped for. It is really just a new categorization system with class-based prerequisites. It adds to some of my worries that the classes are too well defined or even pidgeon-holed. I like classes to be somewhat flexible, so I hope this is just a misunderstanding. Certainly some concrete examples of feat chains would be appreciated.



I had thought a bit about this too.

If there's a lot of multiclassing or hardly any depends on what's more important - Mastery/ Feats/ Stunts, or Class Abilities.  If it's the former, you'll see a situation in D&D similar to how all of the melee classes could multi-class pretty freely, because the BAB, HP, and Feat progressions either stacked or were a fair trade-off.  In this scenario, where Feats are more important, as long as you take a class with some similar-ish Mastery progressions they'll stack nicely and you can get the high level Feats.

If the class abilities (like the Archer's Sniper and Killing shots) dominate play however, then you'll see a situation similar to D&D spellcasters - little to no multiclassing all.  In this scenario it would "cost too much" for an Archer to take more than a level or so in some other class, because you'd always be a couple levels behind in the "stuff that counts."  For D&D spellcasters, it was spell access.  If for IH PC's it's the class abilities, you'll never see a Archer 5 - Weapon Master 5.

That being speculated, it's too early to say "Oh crap, everyone's pigeonholed.", but this is something I'm watching for.  It would be nice to know if any of the playtesters tried out multiclassing much, and what they thought of it.  Also, it's obvious that the Archer cannot take all of the Shots available to him, and I expect there will always be more tasty Feats than you're allowed to have.  There will definately be some variability within the classes, even if multiclassing is not attractive.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Looks awesome to me.

I gotta admit... Vorpal Hurricane makes me a little... turgid.

I predict that the Feat Mastery will be one of the most-yoinked aspects of the rules (just edging out Tokens because it is easier to implement: they're really just feat chains).


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Theoretically, though, I think that Feat Mastery will take up less space and be a lot easier to organize.

And I like Mike's rationale on using it in place of a lot of prerequisites.

Two feats at first level?

Well, there goes our well established feats at even levels conclusion.  I wonder why it never showed up in the archer and hunter sample builds.  

As a basic idea, however, I approve.  Means that the feat mastery levels will give a lot more flavor to your basic character concept.


----------



## Celebrim

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> If there's a lot of multiclassing or hardly any depends on what's more important - Mastery/ Feats/ Stunts, or Class Abilities.  If it's the former, you'll see a situation in D&D similar to how all of the melee classes could multi-class pretty freely, because the BAB, HP, and Feat progressions either stacked or were a fair trade-off.  In this scenario, where Feats are more important, as long as you take a class with some similar-ish Mastery progressions they'll stack nicely and you can get the high level Feats.
> 
> If the class abilities (like the Archer's Sniper and Killing shots) dominate play however, then you'll see a situation similar to D&D spellcasters - little to no multiclassing all.




As far as I can tell, the 'stuff that counts' - really counts - in the class abilities is the improved ability to fill that character's token pool.  The improved selection of things to spend the tokens on has been by comparison a rather small improvement.  Since token pool replenishment maxes out for the archer at level 15, and for the hunter at level 17, if tokens are really valuable at all then we aren't going to see alot of multi-classing in either class.  However, just from what we've seen, an Archer 15/Hunter 5 doesn't seem to me to be a bad package.  Also, looking over the archer's list of class abilities, I don't really see anything that I think is going to make it worth giving up a full attack action, and I think the most common things to spend tokens on would actually be the earliest available class abilities.  The 'sniper' and 'killing' shot abilities are really narrow and less generally useful than the 'deadeye shot' abilities.



> That being speculated, it's too early to say "Oh crap, everyone's pigeonholed.", but this is something I'm watching for.  It would be nice to know if any of the playtesters tried out multiclassing much, and what they thought of it.




Yes, it would.  It would be nice to know alot of things about playtesting, like in particular whether anyone tried any games outside of D&D's acknowledged 'sweet spot'.  So far both playtester groups seem to have focused on levels 3-7, which already work quite nicely in D&D as far as I'm concerned and so its not really that impressive that the game works at that level of play.  What would be impressive to me is if Iron Heroes allows characters to compete in typical published modules for say 12th level characters without resorting to anything more than a +1 sword.

As far as the Feat Mastery mechanic goes, I'm not nearly as disappointed with it as I've been disappointed by the 'mundane spellcraft' that seems to be a part of the token system.  The richochet shot, the arrow ladder (if this works, why do you need a feat for it?), and the 'hunter's (horrible name) ranged trip ability all just seem a little cheesy to me, and if the general answer to question 'how do you let PC's compete without magic?' is 'pretend it isn't magic' then it a little disappointing.  However, there are a few things that bug me about the feat mastery mechanic, at least given the partial details that we've been given.  

One thing that bugs me is that I would think that feat mastery would stack with your ability score bonus in the relevant ability.  For example, 'Dodge 1' as a feat might be available to characters with DEX 12+, or to charactes with Defensive Feat Mastery +1.  'Power 10' would be available to characters with Power Feat Mastery +10 and a 10 STR, or with Power Feat Mastery +5 and a 20 STR.  But if this is the case, it certainly isn't explained that way.  I can only assume that the new feats are written in such a way that they are only fully exploitable if you have the relevant base ability, otherwise the feat will likely be able to _replace_ the relevant base ability such that I would always be tempted to play (for instance) a Beserker with high DEX and relatively low STR knowing that the character's feat mastery of Power feats will more or less completely make up for it.  In other words, I see this as being a more general version of the problem of Power Attack being mostly advantageous to finesse fighters with low strengths.

Another thing I find worrisome - and admittedly this worry might go away on seeing the actual feats - is that I am hard pressed to imagine how a feat tree can be extended out to 10 feats without the upper end feats being utterly abusable.  Can someone here show me how power attacked can be improved 9 times without making 'improved superior greater power attack' utterly broken, or is 'power attack 2' is just a synonym for 'cleave' and 'power attack 3' is just a synonym for 'great cleave'?  

Lastly, if the feat trees do go out to 10 feats in at least some cases, then their will be a strong temptation to advance as far down the tree as possible.  That means that even if the new classes are getting 20 (or more) feats by 20th level, almost half (and in some cases more than half) of those feats will be spent making your character good at the one thing that that character does.  This means character abilities which are deep, but not broad, despite the increased number of abilities/feats.  It's going to be very difficult to balance the increasing marginal value of additional specialization with the marginal value of going broad, especially with feat trees this tall and (to me conceptually) unwieldy.  Looking over the feat trees of approved feats in my campaign, I see that feats like Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Expertise, Power Attack, and Toughness do open up the way to 10-14 different feats each.  BUT, on the other hand the feat tree for each is never more than about 3 feats deep _and I consider this a good thing_.  The fact that the vast majority of feats on the list are available by 6th level if you decide to narrow your focus is deliberate and I like it.  It makes low level characters more diverse in their abilities.  Granted, I have a few homebrew feats which require BAB of +9 to +12 which only high level characters have access to - something standard D&D doesn't have enough of - but I don't want to make too many things like that.  If you are going to do that, you might as well make all feats into class abilities.  Why wasn't limiting a few feats to higher BAB an acceptable solution?  What does feat mastery give you that this doesn't?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Yes, it would.  It would be nice to know alot of things about playtesting, like in particular whether anyone tried any games outside of D&D's acknowledged 'sweet spot'.  So far both playtester groups seem to have focused on levels 3-7, which already work quite nicely in D&D as far as I'm concerned and so its not really that impressive that the game works at that level of play.  What would be impressive to me is if Iron Heroes allows characters to compete in typical published modules for say 12th level characters without resorting to anything more than a +1 sword.




Iron Heroes vs. _Heart of Nightfang Spire_, anyone?


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Iron Heroes vs. _Heart of Nightfang Spire_, anyone?



Mmmm, or _City of the Spider Queen_? Or _Slavelords of Cydonia?_


----------



## Celebrim

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Iron Heroes vs. _Heart of Nightfang Spire_, anyone?




That was _exactly_ what I suggested I wanted to see after the first play test spotlight came out.

What we really need to know is not that the game runs well at 3rd or 7th level when characters generally aren't that dependent on magic anyway, but at 10th or 15th level when magic items tend to start becoming more important to fighters (and to a lesser extent the other classes) than thier own abilities.


----------



## Felon

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Looks awesome to me.
> 
> I gotta admit... Vorpal Hurricane makes me a little... turgid.




Kicks a bit of ass, it does.

Folks, I gotta say, I like "Iron Heroes" better than "Iron Lore". Be it the game of Xena or Conan or He-Man or what have you, this is not a book about ponderous tomes. It's about heroes.


----------



## Particle_Man

Felon said:
			
		

> LOL, these young whippersnappers these days, they think they know what Conan comics are about. IN my day, Conan comics were huge-ass 80-page black-and-white deals that Marvel published twice a month for twenty years and recycled the same three or four stories in a non-stop loop.
> 
> Now, that's what a Conan comic is! Speak not to me of this Buisek fellow lest I skew your gizzard!




I've read the old marvel black and whites and a few colours.  Kurt Busiek's are better, and are very closely following the entire Howard cannon.  Try it, and you will probably love it.  

If I can just convince them to do Solomon Kane, I will be a happy person.

Edit: Oh, and put me down as one who approves of "Iron Heroes" over "Iron Lore".  Pity they did not also legally influence them to rename the "Hunter" and "Archer", but I'll live.


----------



## Felon

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> I've read the old marvel black and whites and a few colours.  Kurt Busiek's are better, and are very closely following the entire Howard cannon.  Try it, and you will probably love it.




It was sarcasm, duder. Try it, you might like it.   



> If I can just convince them to do Solomon Kane, I will be a happy person.




Ask Solomon Kane how you kill an incorporeal foe without spells or magical weapons.

Answer: You get really pissed off at it!



> Edit: Oh, and put me down as one who approves of "Iron Heroes" over "Iron Lore".  Pity they did not also legally influence them to rename the "Hunter" and "Archer", but I'll live.



LOL! Jinx! Buy me a coke!


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Felon said:
			
		

> Ask Solomon Kane how you kill an incorporeal foe without spells or magical weapons.
> 
> Answer: You get really pissed off at it!




I'm thinking this may be a little prescient.  Perhaps represented by some sort of saving throw or stunt?

I don't know Heart of Nightfang Spire, but IL in City of the Spider Queen would be pretty intriguing.

G'Lord how many times did we have to hole up immediately after our first encounter to wait for the few spells we were utterly dependent on to come back online.  It was like World War I in that adventure.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Edit: Oh, and put me down as one who approves of "Iron Heroes" over "Iron Lore".  Pity they did not also legally influence them to rename the "Hunter" and "Archer", but I'll live.




See, something I don't like but _didn't_ harp on.

There are lots of more generic names for both of these guys ("Marksman" or "Sniper" works better than "Archer" for someone who's good with all ranged weapons...) but I think that with the names Mike is deliberately trying to evoke a specific genre. "Sniper" would place it firmly in the modern; Archer places it firmly in the medieval.

I don't know about the Hunter...


----------



## Celebrim

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> See, something I don't like but _didn't_ harp on.
> 
> There are lots of more generic names for both of these guys ("Marksman" or "Sniper" works better than "Archer" for someone who's good with all ranged weapons...) but I think that with the names Mike is deliberately trying to evoke a specific genre. "Sniper" would place it firmly in the modern; Archer places it firmly in the medieval.
> 
> I don't know about the Hunter...




I don't understand 'Hunter' either, because the class is more like a battle field commander than a slayer of wild beasts.

But, I do understand Archer and Thief.   It is I think a pretty conscious Conan the Barbarian reference.

Subotai was multi-classing.


----------



## Irda Ranger

Celebrim said:
			
		

> looking over the archer's list of class abilities, I don't really see anything that I think is going to make it worth giving up a full attack action, and I think the most common things to spend tokens on would actually be the earliest available class abilities.  The 'sniper' and 'killing' shot abilities are really narrow and less generally useful than the 'deadeye shot' abilities.



This last point seems right; I'd just like to know how it works out in play.  I hope this is right, because multiclassing makes a near infinite number of new doors open up in character creation.



> One thing that bugs me is that I would think that feat mastery would stack with your ability score bonus in the relevant ability.



Um, no.  

Mastery is a class ability.  If you allowed Stats to stack, consider an Archer with 18 Dex would 
- Get 17th level projectile feats at only 9th level.
- Get the Rank 10 Feats in Finesse and Defense at 13th and 11th levels, respectively, _even though that is not their area of expertise_.  The Archer would be able to do _everything_ a Harrier or Armiger can do.  Shouldn't something be reserved for those who specialize in it?  Shouldn't Archers be the only ones who can get Rank 10 in Projectile?  I think so.



> Another thing I find worrisome - and admittedly this worry might go away on seeing the actual feats - is that I am hard pressed to imagine how a feat tree can be extended out to 10 feats without the upper end feats being utterly abusable.



Show me any 17th level Class ability, and I bet the Rank 10 Feats would be similar.   That includes 9th level spells.


> Is 'power attack 2' is just a synonym for 'cleave' and 'power attack 3' is just a synonym for 'great cleave'?



I would suspect so.


> Lastly, if the feat trees do go out to 10 feats in at least some cases, then their will be a strong temptation to advance as far down the tree as possible.



There is no need to.  Once you have the base feat you can take any other feat in the tree.  You do not need to take them all, or in order.


> That means that even if the new classes are getting 20 (or more) feats by 20th level, almost half (and in some cases more than half) of those feats will be spent making your character good at the one thing that that character does.



No it doesn't.  Spend as few feats as you want.  See above.


> It's going to be very difficult to balance the increasing marginal value of additional specialization with the marginal value of going broad, especially with feat trees this tall and (to me conceptually) unwieldy.



Lots of things are difficult.  That doesn't mean they're impossible.  We have to wait until we see the whole system before deciding if it's balanced or not.  


> Looking over the feat trees of approved feats in my campaign, I see that feats like Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Expertise, Power Attack, and Toughness do open up the way to 10-14 different feats each.  BUT, on the other hand the feat tree for each is never more than about 3 feats deep _and I consider this a good thing_.



Then you should be pleased to realize that the Feat trees in IH are only 2 Feats deep - the Base Feat plus any other feat you like.  The Mastery Levels of 1 to 10 speak to the width of you choices, not the depth.


> Why wasn't limiting a few feats to higher BAB an acceptable solution?  What does feat mastery give you that this doesn't?



Mastery is a class ability.  Should Archers and Beserkers get access to Projectile feats at the same time?  Should Beserkers and Hunters get access to Tactics at the same time?  And for that matter, what does Lore Mastery or Tactics Mastery have to do with BAB?

For that matter, since Thieves and Arcanists are bound to have a lower BAB than Beserkers, does that mean that Beserkers should have first access to Lore and Finesse feats?


----------



## Irda Ranger

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I don't understand 'Hunter' either, because the class is more like a battle field commander than a slayer of wild beasts.



I started a thread to rename the Hunter over at Monte's boards.

The favorites were Tactician, Skirmisher, and Ranger (as in Faramir's rangers).

I don't think Mearls took any of our suggestions before sending the book off to the printers though  

One of the playtesters said that Mearls got a lot of feedback about the names he picked for things, and that he changed some stuff.  The Hunter though, despite many complaints similar to what you guys have mentioned, didn't get changed.

The playtester suggested the Thief be changed to "Trickster" and that Man-at-Arms be changed to "Jack of all Blades", which I think is clever.  His point about the Thief was that "thief" is a carreer choice, and "Trickster" spoke more to the class abilities.


----------



## Celebrim

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> This last point seems right; I'd just like to know how it works out in play.  I hope this is right, because multiclassing makes a near infinite number of new doors open up in character creation.




So far, multiclassing looks like its potentially going to be wierd.  And I can't see doing more than just splashing classes given what you've just told me.   I can definately see playing an archer 15/harrier 5 or an archer 15/hunter 5, but I can't really see wanting to play an archer 12/hunter 8 or an archer 10/harrier 10 unless things work alot differently than they seem as this point.   

So, let me ask you a question, does feat mastery 'stack' in any fashion?   If I have general master 4 from one class, and general mastery 3 from another, can I take general mastery 7 feats?  If not, then mastery is going to be alot like spell casting levels in that its often just not worth it to multi-class.  

Or what about if I can take tactical mastery 4 feats from my general mastery 4, and then I add a level of Hunter.   Does my tactical mastery 2 increase my access to tactical mastery feats or not?   Judging from the fact that the hunter showed the mastery stat as Tactical Mastery +2, I thought it might.   But then when the Archer was previewed the mastery stats were changed from being '+2' to being just '2', which seems to indicate that they don't stack.   If they don't stack, and high level feats are really important, then there isn't going to be alot of reason to multiclass.

On the other hand, if they do stack, then doing something like harrier 5/thief 5/hunter 5/archer 5 is reasonable and even profitable (look at me, I've got a +20 base defence bonus!).   

I'm guessing thought that they don't stack, or at least don't stack completely, because the above could in theory have 10's (or higher!) in several different feat mastery groups.



> Um, no.
> 
> Mastery is a class ability.  If you allowed Stats to stack, consider an Archer with 18 Dex would
> - Get 17th level projectile feats at only 9th level.
> - Get the Rank 10 Feats in Finesse and Defense at 13th and 11th levels, respectively, _even though that is not their area of expertise_.  The Archer would be able to do _everything_ a Harrier or Armiger can do.  Shouldn't something be reserved for those who specialize in it?  Shouldn't Archers be the only ones who can get Rank 10 in Projectile?  I think so.




Well, obviously if they were going to stack you'd alter the numbers on mastery levels accordingly.   My point was that if Mearls invented feat mastery in order to solve a problem with prequisites (expertise requiring 13+ INT regardless of how high a level of a fighter that you are), then Mearls has created a different problem with prerequisites in my opinion by essentially as you put it making feats nothing more than 'class abilities' .   This seems kind of 1st edition like to me, and it raises the spectre of making classes more narrow and sterotypical rather than less - especially if multi-classing is discouraged.  

Even if every class in theory has access to every feat, it doesn't mean that a harrier could ever be quite the archer that an archer is because the archer and harrier have different class abilities.   Harriers will never have aim pools.  Harrier will never have a +25 BAB with projectile weapons.   Harriers will never have 'dead eye shot'.   I tend to prefer to keep class abilities to a minimum.  It doesn't bother me that a perceptive and dextrous thief could take any feat that an archer could.   If you want to make a mechanic which gives the archer access to certain feats sooner than normal, then fine, but this mechanic goes well beyond that.   It's definately not going to be for everyone.   If you liked first edition classes in which every profession was a class ('thief', 'assassine', 'alchemist', 'mariner', 'cook'...) then you'll probably be ok with this.  If you preferred the flexibility of 3rd edition and the generic base classes, then this is going to seem like a step backwards.



> Show me any 17th level Class ability, and I bet the Rank 10 Feats would be similar.   That includes 9th level spells.




So far the 17th level Class abilities haven't been that impressive (the Hunter's 19th level one is pretty good though).   In fact, none of the high level class abilities we've seen so far look powerful enough to make up for the lack of spell casting and magic items at high level.   At lower levels, sure, the class abilities, plus higher point buys for abilities,  plus higher hit points, plus reserve pool, plus base defence bonus, MUCH MORE than make up for the missing magic items at these levels.   This is one of the reasons its bugged me that all the play testing has focused on low levels.  If Iron Heroes can face typical high level adventures on equal footing with thier more arcane brethern, its going to depend entirely on the powerful new feats and greater access to same.  



> There is no need to.  Once you have the base feat you can take any other feat in the tree.  You do not need to take them all, or in order.




Ok, cool.  That is good, but the problem with that is that generally high level feats completely obselete lower level ones.   Take the 'vorpal whirlwind'.   It more or less obseletes 'whirlwind attack'.   Whirlwind attack though is already at the end of a pretty tall feat tree as it is.   Then we are told that there is a further 'improved vorpal whirlwind' and 'superior vorpal whirlwind' implying that the final one is something like six levels up a feat tree.   Granted, its really powerful, but are you saying that 'superior vorpal whirlwind' probably doesn't have 'vorpal whirlwind' as a prerequisite?   That will be wierd.



> Then you should be pleased to realize that the Feat trees in IH are only 2 Feats deep - the Base Feat plus any other feat you like.  The Mastery Levels of 1 to 10 speak to the width of you choices, not the depth.




Hmmm... I'll have to see that.  Making it only 2 feats deep also has conceptual problems for me.



> Mastery is a class ability.  Should Archers and Beserkers get access to Projectile feats at the same time?




Under every suggestion I made, they wouldn't.  



> And for that matter, what does Lore Mastery or Tactics Mastery have to do with BAB?




Both are means for limiting the access to powerful feats.



> For that matter, since Thieves and Arcanists are bound to have a lower BAB than Beserkers, does that mean that Beserkers should have first access to Lore and Finesse feats?




Depends on the intelligence, dexterity, and skills of the Beserker.   I don't see why a Berserker with INT 15 and 12 ranks of knowledge (history) (or whatever) shouldn't.   Of course, that would be an unusual Berserker.


----------



## Staffan

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Can someone here show me how power attacked can be improved 9 times without making 'improved superior greater power attack' utterly broken,



I suspect it will be about as broken as Meteor Swarm.


> BUT, on the other hand the feat tree for each is never more than about 3 feats deep _and I consider this a good thing_.  The fact that the vast majority of feats on the list are available by 6th level if you decide to narrow your focus is deliberate and I like it.



In pretty much every "why do fighters suck" thread, the main thing brought up is that the new cool abilities they get at 16th level are the same new cool abilities they got at 6th, whereas the 16th level wizard is messing with _maze_ and _greater planar binding_ compared to the _stinking cloud_ and _fly_ they had at 6th. In order to stay interesting, fighters *need* high-level abilities that are actually high-level.


> Why wasn't limiting a few feats to higher BAB an acceptable solution?  What does feat mastery give you that this doesn't?



Differentiation between classes.

Come to think of it, I think this would be an awesome mechanic for use in a magic system as well. Maybe an fire mage would have excellent advancement in fire magic, decent advancement in divination and magic belonging to the other elements, and poor advancement in other types of magic. A cleric would have excellent healing magic, decent buffing magic, and poor in other areas. And a druid could have excellent nature magic, decent healing and elemental, and poor others. Let's say a 10th level druid would have nature +10, healing/elemental +7, and others +5. A 10th level fire mage would have fire +10, divination and other elemental +7, and others +5. A 5/5 might have fire +8, nature +7, healing +7, divination +7, other elemental +6, and +4 in other types of magic. This could solve the proplem of multiclassing spellcasters (you'd just have to figure out a way to maintain a common pool of magic points or spell slots or something).


----------



## Irda Ranger

Celebrim said:
			
		

> So, let me ask you a question, does feat mastery 'stack' in any fashion?   If I have general master 4 from one class, and general mastery 3 from another, can I take general mastery 7 feats?  If not, then mastery is going to be alot like spell casting levels in that its often just not worth it to multi-class.



I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't stack.


> Or what about if I can take tactical mastery 4 feats from my general mastery 4, and then I add a level of Hunter.   Does my tactical mastery 2 increase my access to tactical mastery feats or not?



I would think so.  That level in Hunter must be worth more than just the Token abilities.


> On the other hand, if they do stack, then doing something like harrier 5/thief 5/hunter 5/archer 5 is reasonable and even profitable (look at me, I've got a +20 base defence bonus!).



There are probably special rules to prevent abuse; like the fractional Saves rules from Unearthed Arcana.


> Even if every class in theory has access to every feat, it doesn't mean that a harrier could ever be quite the archer that an archer is because the archer and harrier have different class abilities.



But as you said, those class abilities aren't exactly the cat's pajamas.  If you think of Mastery as a class ability (which it is), you'll see that getting access to certain feats more quickly (or at all) are part of what makes an Archer an Archer.  If you didn't do that, the classes might be a bit too similar.


> Harriers will never have aim pools.  Harrier will never have a +25 BAB with projectile weapons.   Harriers will never have 'dead eye shot'.   I tend to prefer to keep class abilities to a minimum.



I prefer to keep classes distinct.  Being 10% more likely to hit, or doing 1 extra point of damage because you bypass DR is not enough (for me) to really seperate an Archer from a Armiger.


> It doesn't bother me that a perceptive and dextrous thief could take any feat that an archer could.



Mastery is a class ability, not a Feat.  Also, the Feats are what makes the classes distinct.  If you really want to be good at the bow, take some levels in Archer.


> If you liked first edition classes in which every profession was a class ('thief', 'assassine', 'alchemist', 'mariner', 'cook'...) then you'll probably be ok with this.  If you preferred the flexibility of 3rd edition and the generic base classes, then this is going to seem like a step backwards.



I think that we need to define what you think a class is.  I think it's just a nice package of skills that go together.  If you study archery, you're an Archer.  If you study negotiation, you're a Thief (I know, that doesn't make sense - blame Mearls for the class name, a playtester suggested Trickster was more on point).  If you've studied both you're an Archer-Thief.  Your class says nothing about your "story based" objectives, loyalties, personality traits, etc.  The classes are the basic building blocks of every kind of fighting which is possible (other than unarmed).  No matter what school of fighting you study, there's a class for you.  If you study more than one, you're multiclassed.

Classes are narrow; PC's don't have to be.


> So far the 17th level Class abilities haven't been that impressive



A good argument for the fact that 17th level Feats _must be_ impressive.


> Ok, cool.  That is good, but the problem with that is that generally high level feats completely obselete lower level ones.   Take the 'vorpal whirlwind'.  It more or less obseletes 'whirlwind attack'.   Whirlwind attack though is already at the end of a pretty tall feat tree as it is.   Then we are told that there is a further 'improved vorpal whirlwind' and 'superior vorpal whirlwind' implying that the final one is something like six levels up a feat tree.   Granted, its really powerful, but are you saying that 'superior vorpal whirlwind' probably doesn't have 'vorpal whirlwind' as a prerequisite?   That will be wierd.



This could be a problem, but I'm betting it won't be; mainly because it's really obvious and I expect Mearls will have a rule to handle it.  

As to "Why Mastery and not BAB", I thought it would be obvious by now.  Class Abilities and BAB are not linked.  You can be good at Lore and have a lousy BAB.  You could have an awesome BAB and never spent a minute of your time studying Lore or Defense.  

It has to do with the conception of what a class is.  In IH classes are what you do.  Arcanists "do" Lore.  Hunters "do" Tactics.  Beserkers "do" neither Lore nor Tactics.


----------



## Celebrim

Staffan said:
			
		

> I suspect it will be about as broken as Meteor Swarm.




While its undoubtable true that high level spell casters are more powerful than high level fighters when prepared and with a full roster of high level spells left to cast, its not true that high level spell casters aren't giving up anything in order to have access to that Meteor Swarm 'class ability'.  

Did you see anything in the archers class abilities that suggested it could ever produce the mundane equivalent of a meteor swarm?   More to the point, is it really Meteor Swarm that is important to high level characters?  If dealing damage was the only advantage of high level mages, then they'd probably not be all that much better than high level fighters.   Fighters don't really need alot of ways to deal more damage at high levels.  Merely bumping up damage output in various ways is not a particularly creative or interesting solution to the real problems. 



> In pretty much every "why do fighters suck" thread, the main thing brought up is that the new cool abilities they get at 16th level are the same new cool abilities they got at 6th, whereas the 16th level wizard is messing with _maze_ and _greater planar binding_ compared to the _stinking cloud_ and _fly_ they had at 6th. In order to stay interesting, fighters *need* high-level abilities that are actually high-level.




I don't disagree, I was only asking how you could improve a base feat 9 times.   Apparantly that is a misnomer, and you only improve it a couple of times.   Still, I'd feel better if we got to see an entire feat path or at least some sample mastery level 9-10 feats.



> Come to think of it, I think this would be an awesome mechanic for use in a magic system as well. Maybe an fire mage would have excellent advancement in fire magic, decent advancement in divination and magic belonging to the other elements, and poor advancement in other types of magic. A cleric would have excellent healing magic, decent buffing magic, and poor in other areas. And a druid could have excellent nature magic, decent healing and elemental, and poor others. Let's say a 10th level druid would have nature +10, healing/elemental +7, and others +5. A 10th level fire mage would have fire +10, divination and other elemental +7, and others +5. A 5/5 might have fire +8, nature +7, healing +7, divination +7, other elemental +6, and +4 in other types of magic. This could solve the proplem of multiclassing spellcasters (you'd just have to figure out a way to maintain a common pool of magic points or spell slots or something).




When I first got a look at the token system, I remarked that this is potentially one of the best magic systems that's ever been invented for a D20 game.  I remain convinced of that.   If I were going to write a new game system, the magic system would almost certainly be influenced by what Mearls is doing.

I'm less convinced that's its a neat general system for handling the mechanics of everything.  I wanted to see a system that allowed high level, low magic campaigns, so that I could run gritty campaigns beyond D&D's 'sweet spot' without greatly increasing the burdens of play.   Nothing I've seen convinces me that the system actually does that.


----------



## ThirdWizard

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I wanted to see a system that allowed high level, low magic campaigns, so that I could run gritty campaigns beyond D&D's 'sweet spot' without greatly increasing the burdens of play. Nothing I've seen convinces me that the system actually does that.




I think now we can say about _Iron Heros_, at the very least, that it has taught us that low magic doesn't imply gritty. How did people expect you were going to be able to fight a MM Balor in a gritty game anyway?

The thing about Iron Heros that I look forward to the most (though I doubt I'll play it for a long time - ongoing campaign won't end soon), and crossing my fingers on being good, is less preparation time in creating enemy NPCs.


----------



## Celebrim

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I think now we can say about _Iron Heros_, at the very least, that it has taught us that low magic doesn't imply gritty.




I didn't say it did.  Gritty usually implies low magic, but low magic doesn't have to imply gritty.  

However, what I want is gritty and low-moderate magic, and above about 9th level its increasingly hard to do that.  



> How did people expect you were going to be able to fight a MM Balor in a gritty game anyway?




Well, a 3.0 Balor possibly...but no, that wasn't part of my expectations.  Come to think of it, I've never fought a Balor in game and never used one against a party.  (I didn't apply the Skeleton and Fiendish Templates to a Balor once, but that results in something like a CR 10 challenge if you lose the vorpal sword) It always seemed a bit over the top to me to send in the biggest baddest monsters in the game, like giving a player a +5 items.  After you've given out the +5 items, where do you go from there?   

However, with my more limited expectations and a niave belief in Mearls, I thought his observations would be an incremental help to me.  Instead, its a more or less completely new game and his answer - and admittedly it may be the only good answer because I don't claim to have a better one - is in order for a high level character to compete without magic, you have to give him something like a system for making 'mundane magic'.


----------



## Nightfall

Wow...648 posts on this thread...*is counting his*

This must be a record.


----------



## ThirdWizard

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Well, a 3.0 Balor possibly...but no, that wasn't part of my expectations.




I might have been behind the _Iron Heros_ (then _Lore _of course) bandwagon, in fact I'm pretty sure I was late in hearing about it. The first thing I heard about it, though, was that PCs in _Iron Heros_ would compete on the same level as D&D PCs and that, technically with some thought, they could fight side by side without any problems with balance. Which means fighting Balors, Dragons, and all those other big meanies. How they pulled this off (and if they were successful) is still, of course, up in the air. I really really want to know the answer to this one.


----------



## Celebrim

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I really really want to know the answer to this one.




Me too.  In fact, I think everyone who has ever posted on this thread would like to know the answer to that question.

Which is why it is utterly baffling to me that in the play tester comments, we've seen them so far running a dungeon for 3rd level characters, and hyping how wonderful it is for running murder mysteries for a 7th level party.


----------



## Andor

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Me too.  In fact, I think everyone who has ever posted on this thread would like to know the answer to that question.
> 
> Which is why it is utterly baffling to me that in the play tester comments, we've seen them so far running a dungeon for 3rd level characters, and hyping how wonderful it is for running murder mysteries for a 7th level party.




Don't you think it likely they are saving the high level playtest comments to draw an attention spike right before release? Granted I don't work for Monte or anything, but I'm betting they had the ability to interest more that two playtest groups. Perhaps it's not that they didn't test it at high levels so much as that they understand the concept of a slow build-up, and that they maintain our interest with the questions they _haven't_ answered.


----------



## Particle_Man

*re: Conan*



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> It was sarcasm, duder. Try it, you might like it.




No fair!  You didn't use a smilie in your original post.  

Coke on its way....no, I drank it, sorry.


----------



## Particle_Man

I wonder if the "feat tree obsolescence" problem will be dealt with, and how.  

the problem, as I see it, is that a character might take Feat A (level 1) (base), then later Feat A (level 4), and then much later Feat A (level 7) which makes Feat A (level 4) obsolete.  (Assume the abilities of the level 7 feat totally overlap and make obsolete the abilities of hte level 4 feat in the same group).

Meanwhile, character 2 could take Feat A (level 1) (base), Feat B (level 1) (base), then feat A (level 7) and have all the abilities of the first character, plus one feat.  Also, the character that "Specialized" in the feat A chain seems to be behind the character that "Generalized' between the feat A and feat B chains.

One way to get over this is the "sorceror" method of one being able to "Swap out" the lower level 4 feat for a different feat, once one a) gains a higher level of the same feat, or b) gains a feat that makes the first feat obsolete.

Note, I have not playtested, so the problem may not even exist in the game, or it may be solved in some suitably clever way.  If it is not solved, I think that swapping out obsolete feats for useful ones makes for a good house rule.


----------



## Andor

Interesting point. I don't think we know enough to guess how big a problem this is. The Vorpal Hurricane tree does obsolete itself, but good. If a lot of the feat chains are like that, then perhaps your solution is needed. But if it's an exception, then maybe it's not as bad as all that.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I think now we can say about _Iron Heros_, at the very least, that it has taught us that low magic doesn't imply gritty.




Well, I guess in my case, it's simply taught me that a lot of folks think "low magic" means "magic not present in an item that can be taken away, bought or sold."



> How did people expect you were going to be able to fight a MM Balor in a gritty game anyway?




Why, with _grit_, of course.


----------



## Irda Ranger

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Why, with _grit_, of course.



And brevity.


----------



## Celebrim

Andor said:
			
		

> Don't you think it likely they are saving the high level playtest comments to draw an attention spike right before release? Granted I don't work for Monte or anything, but I'm betting they had the ability to interest more that two playtest groups. Perhaps it's not that they didn't test it at high levels so much as that they understand the concept of a slow build-up, and that they maintain our interest with the questions they _haven't_ answered.




What I think is likely is irrelevent.  I'm a cynic, and so prefer to take the dimmest view of things possible.  That way, I'm usually right, and when I'm wrong I'm pleasantly surprised.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> And brevity.




Brevity is the soul of grit.

(Thanks for the assist.)


----------



## Irda Ranger

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> (Thanks for the assist.)



Just doing my part to restore the (apparently) damaged reputation of pithy replies.

(Plus, I lost a year's post-count to the Mac Callum fiasco, so I need to make up for that)


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Brevity is the soul of grit.




I always thought of it as more along the lines of the spleen.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Andor said:
			
		

> Don't you think it likely they are saving the high level playtest comments to draw an attention spike right before release? Granted I don't work for Monte or anything, but I'm betting they had the ability to interest more that two playtest groups. Perhaps it's not that they didn't test it at high levels so much as that they understand the concept of a slow build-up, and that they maintain our interest with the questions they _haven't_ answered.




I think it more likely that talking about the low levels is safer in terms of what they want to reveal at this point.

We know the high level play is a feature, and we know all the features we've seen are based around character creation.  We know from earlier in the thread that they have a preview plan and that they are sticking to it.  And we know from initial comments on the playtester spotlights by the playtesters that though there goal was to sneak in as many details as they could they weren't working with full creative control over their feedback.

So I think that what they are really trying to prevent is everyone talking all over the place and that discussion of high level play has been sort of a casualty of that dynamic.


----------



## Felon

Here's an IL update that may not have been posted yet.



> Goodman Games' adventure module, titled Song of the Blade, takes beginning characters on a daring quest through spider-haunted forests, using unique encounters to highlight the martial variant rules of Iron Heroes. Written by veteran d20 author Matt Sprengeler, Song of the Blade is scheduled for September release. Advance copies will be available at the Gen Con Game Fair this August in Indianapolis.


----------



## Irda Ranger

Felon said:
			
		

> Here's an IL update that may not have been posted yet.



Eh, I guess we'll see.  I'm not familiar with Goodman Games, though I've heard good things.  Personally, I have a back-log of adventures I want to (re)play.  I'm waiting to see if the "fast NPC's" bit is true, because I'm curious to see how long it takes to whip up a conversion for an oldy-but-goody like Sunless Citadel or Keep on the Borderlands.  That might have to wait until Mastering Iron Heroes and the Bestiary book comes out to really do right though.

This is a test.


----------



## JEL

Finally got the English language release of Berserk vol. 7 (manga) today and reading it hit me that Iron Heroes may be a perfect fit for it.  It features a lot of grit, a lot of grimness, and yet has heroic characters that can take on a hundred mercenaries at a time or Lovecraftian horrors from beyond.  Now I'm seriously inspired.  Anyone got any good blackmail on Cooke so we get this thing out faster?


----------



## Irda Ranger

JEL said:
			
		

> Anyone got any good blackmail on Cooke so we get this thing out faster?



Patience young Padawan.  Remember the Disaster of Conan's First Printing.  The lotus blooms according to the seasons, not our desires.


----------



## Irda Ranger

*Wulf is going to be churlish, and I won't blame him*

Some excerpts from an Arcana Evolved chat that went off-topic.  I have assigned the various quotes topic headings.  In your discussions please be clear which topic you are replying to, just to keep the coversation clear & organized.

CR Equivalence



> *Stalker0* (May 26, 2005 8:27:27 PM)
> Question: Iron Heroes are apparantely able to go toe to toe with an equivalent CR encounter. How do high level Iron Hero characters deal with creatures that can make you fly, turn you to stone, or send you to another plane without the great deal of magic items that typical Pcs enjoy?
> 
> *Mike Mearls* (May 26, 2005 8:28:41 PM)
> There's a variety of ways you can deal with this. In many cases, the question applies equally to D&D. If the party wizard can't do planar travel, and you don't have a cleric, you might be stuck in either game. So, on some level the DM has to work around such things.
> 
> *Mike Mearls* (May 26, 2005 8:29:58 PM)
> The key from a mechanical perspective lies in a few minor, but important, changes to th system. For example, who says that level drain has to work the same in all d20 games? Stuff like that. There is also some advice on working with such abilities in, I believe, the monster book. For instance, if a PC is turned to stone by a medusa, the PCs might have to go on a quest to find the elixir to cure him.




Token Use by Class



> *cupchurch* (May 26, 2005 8:33:22 PM)
> Do all of the IH classes use the token mechanic?
> 
> *Mike Mearls* (May 26, 2005 8:34:28 PM)
> Nope, just most of them. IIRC, men-at-arms, the harrier, and the arcanist do not use tokens. The harrier just didn't fit with tokens, while the man-at-arms was consciously developed for players (likely casual gamers) who wanted to keep their character as close to a D&D one as possible. It's a sort of bridge class, though it still has plenty of fun options.




Wealth vs. Experience Awards



> *wizofice* (May 26, 2005 8:51:42 PM)
> Mike, there's a thread in the Iron Heroes forum where people are making guesses as to (since there's not much in the way of magic items), where does all the gold go? Care to comment?
> 
> *Monte Cook* (May 26, 2005 8:52:17 PM)
> That's a topic well-handled in the Mastering Iron Heroes book.
> 
> *Mike Mearls* (May 26, 2005 8:53:29 PM)
> That's covered in the DM's book. I give a few options and ideas, particularly with the alternate XP systems. For instance, let's say you want to run a game where the PCs are criminals, and maybe they don't trust each other. In that sort of game, you might award XP for the gold they recover. If a PC steals something without the rest of the party knowing about it, he might get bonus XP for that. When you pull money away from its current place in D&D (it's basically your point total for the point-buy/magic item part of character creation) you can do some really interesting stuff.




Spell Recipes



> *Mike Mearls* (May 26, 2005 8:58:50 PM)
> The arcanist gains access to spell methods and a set of arcane class abilities. For example, you can create an arcanist who can blast his enemies with bolts of energy at will. The spell system takes a little getting used to. In essence, you gain access to a few spell recipes that you use to build spell effects. So, for an attack spell you choose the damage, area of effect, and energy type, then cast the spell. The more options a spell has, and the more abilities it features, the harder it is to cast and the more mana it costs.




The Implied Setting



> *Mike Mearls* (May 26, 2005 9:00:48 PM)
> There really isn't an implied setting, per se. There's a sample setting called the Swordlands that touches on a lot of classic, pre-Terry Brooks/Tolkien clone sword & sorcery. Gamers are familiar enough with the style of play in Iron Heroes that I think an implied setting would just get in the way.




I have my opinions of course (see the post title), but for now I will let the words speak for themselves.


----------



## Andor

Nifty stuff there. Now we know who doesn't have tokens and why. More about the Arcanist. Although the mana reference puzzles me. I thought the Arcanist was a purely skill based spell caster but that implies that he has spell points too. Hmm.... We can also now figure that a necromancer is just an Arcanist who took the 'animate stuff' spell recipe.


----------



## Irda Ranger

Andor said:
			
		

> More about the Arcanist. Although the mana reference puzzles me. I thought the Arcanist was a purely skill based spell caster but that implies that he has spell points too.



With regards to the Mana, I think we can look to how an Archer accumulates Tokens: per action.


----------



## BryonD

Those tidbits sound good to me.

I know Conan and such have been the model most thrown around.  But I'm seeing more that makes me think specifically of Sinbad and Jason & the Argonauts type stuff.  Sinbad never had magic gear, but he fought against magic and monsters all the time.  And quests for the magic elixir (or whatever) were pretty standard plot elements.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Wulf's going to be churlish, and I don't blame him.




Are you being churlish by not directly saying what's on your mind? What new information does that chat reveal to you? 

Until I can see the guts of this baby, though, I think Iron Lore hasn't changed much with regards to "low magic," mechanically, that you can't address with Action Points by controlling the size of the die and the frequency of AP pool refresh.

That does not, of course, take into account new rules systems mearls has developed which are unique and interesting in their own right-- Tokens, Skill Groups, Feat Mastery, etc. And of course Stunts, Stunts, Stunts.

As I said before, it still sounds very much like Iron Lore will be a fun game to play, it's just that I would be playing it for its own sake and not because I want to be able to run Conan, Fafhrd, and the Grey Mouser through _Heart of Nightfang Spire_

I expect Iron Lore will provide "rollicking high action melee" and that is compliment enough in its own right.


Wulf


----------



## Celebrim

*Token usage*



			
				Mike Mearls said:
			
		

> Nope, just most of them. IIRC, men-at-arms, the harrier, and _the arcanist_ do not use tokens.




Now that really suprises me.  The arcanist seemed like a perfect fit for the token mechanic.  I had envisioned it working very much like the Hunter (itself something of a buffing 'magic' expert), except that it could spend tokens to buy spell effects off the list of spells it knew.  In fact, the more I see of the Iron Lore system, the more convinced I am that it would make a fantastic spell casting system.  So that the arcanist is somehow not a part of the system but operating out somewhere on its own seems really bizarre to me.



> The harrier just didn't fit with tokens...




And again, I find that surprising.  The ability to make extra attacks is so powerful (think _haste_) that I thought for sure that the Harrier was a perfect fit for 'velocity tokens' or some such.


----------



## Celebrim

*CR Equivalence*



> The key from a mechanical perspective lies in a few minor, but important, changes to th system. For example, who says that level drain has to work the same in all d20 games? Stuff like that. There is also some advice on working with such abilities in, I believe, the monster book. For instance, if a PC is turned to stone by a medusa, the PCs might have to go on a quest to find the elixir to cure him.




Oh brother.  Apparantly 'capable of going toe to toe with an equivalent CR encounter' means capable of going toe to toe with anything that is itself not magical.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Oh brother.  Apparantly 'capable of going toe to toe with an equivalent CR encounter' means capable of going toe to toe with anything that is itself not magical.




That's not entirely fair.

If Iron Lore heroes are better equipped to defeat the gorgon in the first place (and in my case I'd revert to something like higher saves/Action Points/Fate Points) then there's no need to worry about being turned to stone.

'Turned to stone' is, essentially, 'dead.' Given that characters can die in other ways through perfectly mundane avenues of 'failure' (the loss of hit points being the most obvious) then this makes a certain kind of sense.

Note that the gorgon, despite it's "save or die" ability, is still just CR8. This means that it's balanced as a moderate encounter against PCs who do not yet have access to _Raise Dead_, let alone _Stone to Flesh_.

What this essentially says is that the "difficulty" of overcoming the combat aftermath (ie, whether or not somebody got turned to stone) is not really factored into the gorgon's CR. It's assumed that the PCs, through whatever resources they have, are not going to fall to the gorgon in the first place.

This is important: CR does not concern itself with the aftermath. It is used ONLY as a guide to the likelihood that the PCs can overcome a single encounter.

Can four 8th level D&D fighters tackle a gorgon? Well, the rules say yes (and I tend to agree).

So four Iron Heroes (whose magic weapons and cloaks of resistance are built into their basic advancement profiles) should have about the same difficulty.

Though it is easy to leap to Mike's defense here, I am still concerned about a few other critters (and their relative Iron Heroes CR).


Wulf


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Yep, the only truly unique quality about being turned to stone is that there is a strong implication that there is a narrative solution to that particular delimma.

There is a lot less implication for dead, but its essentially still there.

Basicly, there is a lot of magic in DnD RAW that seems unnecessary to me.  Planar travel, raise dead, undo curse, and such as that all seem to be basicly cheats for getting around conditions that would otherwise result in seperate stories.

There are reasons that approach works, but I don't think you actually loose that much in terms of balance by taking those cheats out of the game.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Celebrim said:
			
		

> And again, I find that surprising.  The ability to make extra attacks is so powerful (think _haste_) that I thought for sure that the Harrier was a perfect fit for 'velocity tokens' or some such.




Someone pointed out that all of the token gathering methods we have seen thus far involved sacraficing actions in order to get tokens.

Given that I can certainly see why it doesn't fit for a character who's schtick is extra actions.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> Someone pointed out that all of the token gathering methods we have seen thus far involved sacraficing actions in order to get tokens.




Which, actually, has been rubbing me the wrong way for a while now.

Mearls has essentially built a mechanic that rewards characters for doing nothing, which seems the antithesis of the high-action game premise.

I admit I am way, way, outside the line commenting on that without having played the Token system yet, but it's been bugging me for a while now.

Rage tokens seem much more up my alley, personally. I would probably never play a Hunter (or maybe even the Archer), though I have seen _plennnnnnnnnnnty_ of players who (frustratingly) stand around doing jack when they could be helping.

Rewarding that kind of behavior would drive me up the wall.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> Basicly, there is a lot of magic in DnD RAW that seems unnecessary to me.  Planar travel, raise dead, undo curse, and such as that all seem to be basicly cheats for getting around conditions that would otherwise result in seperate stories.




Very well put.

And in 50 words or less!


----------



## Particle_Man

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Rage tokens seem much more up my alley, personally. I would probably never play a Hunter (or maybe even the Archer), though I have seen _plennnnnnnnnnnty_ of players who (frustratingly) stand around doing jack when they could be helping.




Mearls said something about different people not only having different favorite classes, but classes that they would never play.

But think of it this way.  In regular games, the guy that does nothing doesn't help the party at all.  In IH, at least the guy that does nothing will be able to help the party a *lot* 5 rounds from now.


----------



## Felon

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Oh brother.  Apparantly 'capable of going toe to toe with an equivalent CR encounter' means capable of going toe to toe with anything that is itself not magical.




I don't get this mentality. Never have. When Conan battles the mirror monster in _Conan the Destroyer_, does he need a magic weapon, special powers, or some other readily-identifiable bypass mechanic to overcome its seeming invulnerability (I suppose it equates to high DR)? No, he just had to figure out he needed to smash the mirrors. 

When Perseus fought Medusa, did he he get to make sure that he had a backup spellcaster with _flesh to stone_ or _break enchantment_ handy? No, he just had to employ some tactics.  

Defeating seemingly invincible foes through personal resourcefulness s one of the major staples of fantasy fiction. It just doesn't happen to be a staple of D&D. So I ask you, is that a good thing, or a bad thing? 

Why does there have to be a clearly-delineated and categorized rock-beats-scissors mechanic for everything? Is it unreasonable for heroes to sometimes crap their pants trying to find the damn rock so they can prevail? IMO, that's a hell of a lot more heroic than just bitching at the game or at the DM because nothing in your golfbag-o'-weapons  penetrated the monster's DR.

_"I tried the silver weapon, the cold iron weapon, and the adamantine weapon! I've used lawful, chaotic, good, and evil versions of each! That's it! I've tried everything!"_


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Felon said:
			
		

> I don't get this mentality. Never have. When Conan battles the mirror monster in _Conan the Destroyer_...




Ugh.



> Defeating seemingly invincible foes through personal resourcefulness s one of the major staples of fantasy fiction. It just doesn't happen to be a staple of D&D. So I ask you, is that really the way things should be?




There's absolutely nothing wrong with that approach.

But that approach has nothing to do with CR. CR is a numbers game: all mechanics, zero story. CR is supposed to be an absolute that does not care where the encounter takes place and without regard to the party makeup.

So if the promise is that Iron Heroes can go toe-to-toe with equivalent CR, there's an expectation that their ability to do that will be built, mechanically, into the equation.

This is why, early on, I speculated that Mike had addressed the problem by assigning CR-equivalent mechanics to things that have typically been "story" solutions. Again, his success in that regard can be measured by the number and kinds of "story" elements that he has managed to subsume under the "mechanics" umbrella.

Again, his success in this regard has nothing to do with the success or quality of Iron Heroes in its own right, it is merely something of great personal, professional interest to me as a designer.


Wulf


----------



## Capellan

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Which is why it is utterly baffling to me that in the play tester comments, we've seen them so far running a dungeon for 3rd level characters, and hyping how wonderful it is for running murder mysteries for a 7th level party.




Well, playtest group #2 _does_ also mention fighting a dragon and a babau. 

Edit: in case there is still anyone who doesn't know, playtest group #2 is mine


----------



## Felon

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> There's absolutely nothing wrong with that approach. But that approach has nothing to do with CR. CR is a numbers game: all mechanics, zero story. CR is supposed to be an absolute that does not care where the encounter takes place and without regard to the party makeup.




Wow, I'm surprised you say this. Even in D&D proper CR is a shot at a moving target that seldom scores a direct hit. I don't think even the designers themselves would treat CR as an exact science. They in fact do speak of this in the DMG.

Why expect more of IH?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Felon said:
			
		

> Wow, I'm surprised you say this. Even in D&D proper CR is shooting a moving target that is seldom scores a direct hit. I don't think even the designers themselves would treat CR as an exact science. They in fact do speak of this in the DMG.




I should have italicized _supposed_.

The point is that when CR works "perfectly" it _is_ an exact science.

CR is an estimate of "the law of averages" when creatures (PCs and their foes) are boiled down to their d20 essentials. That the Gorgon is CR8 tells me that, on average, the worst case scenario is that one in four 8th level characters is going to die, but that despite this the party will ultimately prevail.



> Why expect more of IH?




Because Iron Heroes is _asking_ to be held to a higher standard.

If we're just going to "eyeball" CR, then there's no much point in touting a system that works with all existing CR.

EDIT: To put it another way, Mike is holding _himself_ to that higher standard as one of his design goals. He's trying very hard to figure out what makes CR "tick" so that you don't have to worry about it.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> But that approach has nothing to do with CR. CR is a numbers game: all mechanics, zero story. CR is supposed to be an absolute that does not care where the encounter takes place and without regard to the party makeup.




Well, but even in pure CR mode there is some slight variance according to circumstance.  I mean a totally aquatic creature should have at least some boost in CR given that it will probably operate without regard to the limitations imposed on land dwellers for the conditions in which they will encounter it and amphibious creatures deserve at least some small boost to CR given that they will enjoy an advantage in environments where they can switch between water and land easilly versus creatures who take more time doing it or have no such options.

But overall I would certainly agree with the idea of pure CR.  CR should be a grammar, it might affect the structure of the content but it does not rely on the content for structure.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Very well put.
> 
> And in 50 words or less!




Bah!  Brevity is overrated, note for instance who actually says the line, when all is said and done nothing clocks in at under fifty words.  Doesn't mean that your part of the conversation has to be lengthy, but a parts a part.  They're all going to be different.

Thank-you for the compliment none-the-less.  Please note that I've paid you one on the other thread.


----------



## A'koss

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I should have italicized _supposed_.
> 
> The point is that when CR works "perfectly" it _is_ an exact science.
> 
> CR is an estimate of "the law of averages" when creatures (PCs and their foes) are boiled down to their d20 essentials. That the Gorgon is CR8 tells me that, on average, the worst case scenario is that one in four 8th level characters is going to die, but that despite this the party will ultimately prevail.



C'mon Wulf, you're talking about CR being an exact science while saying things like _"when it works perfectly"_, _"estimate of the 'law of averages'"_ & _"on average, the worst case scenerio"..._ Who are you trying to kid here?

The gorgon has the ability to wipe out the entire party in a single round or go down in a single round. There are way too many variables on both sides (especially as get into the higher levels) for many monsters to have anything but a _very_ broad target CR. Calling it an exact science is comical.



> Because Iron Heroes is _asking_ to be held to a higher standard.
> 
> If we're just going to "eyeball" CR, then there's no much point in touting a system that works with all existing CR.
> 
> EDIT: To put it another way, Mike is holding _himself_ to that higher standard as one of his design goals. He's trying very hard to figure out what makes CR "tick" so that you don't have to worry about it.



What I got out it was "A 12th level IH party should be about the equivalent of a standard 12th level D&D party in combat effectiveness". I have no idea what tangent you're going on here Wulf, I really don't. 

I also think that if you were to create new monsters and use IH characters to measure them against, you'd have an easier time assigning them a CR than you would with far-less-predictable-in-capability D&D characters.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Which, actually, has been rubbing me the wrong way for a while now.
> 
> Mearls has essentially built a mechanic that rewards characters for doing nothing, which seems the antithesis of the high-action game premise.
> 
> Rewarding that kind of behavior would drive me up the wall.




I hadn't thought of it that way before.  I'd sort of thought of it as a mechanic for recognizing effort or doing something with lost time.  Hmmm, I can certainly see the case for it being a nascent complaint.

Though I certainly agree that it enforces different rhythms of furious action.  With the Hunter pausing to reorient from time to time and the Archer staying silent for a round or so and then going all out.  The archer dynamic is similar to that enjoyed by the Assassin in the vanilla game and I've found that in the hands of an intelligent and fun player its something the whole party enjoys.  Still, if it weren't for her I could easilly picture abuse.

If all of the projectile feats feature extra actions that should make up for a lot of it.

I don't think doing nothing will be too much of a problem for the Hunter since they get their big boost at the begining and they only get little boosts for little action sacrifices thereafter.

But watching the field from time to time is a tactic my players have gotten in the habit of doing anyway so that probably defuses my sense of annoyance at having incorporated into the rules.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

A'koss said:
			
		

> The gorgon has the ability to wipe out the entire party in a single round or go down in a single round. There are way too many variables on both sides (especially as get into the higher levels) for many monsters to have anything but a _very_ broad target CR. Calling it an exact science is comical.




I think it would be pretty hard for a Gorgon to wipe out anything other than a low level or under-manned party in a single round.  There are plenty of ways to mitigate gaze attacks, particularly at 8th level.


----------



## A'koss

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> I think it would be pretty hard for a Gorgon to wipe out anything other than a low level or under-manned party in a single round. There are plenty of ways to mitigate gaze attacks, particularly at 8th level.



I agree there are ways... provided you know about the threat beforehand. Open door, see medusa, make your saves. In enough encounters, you'll eventually find those where everyone rolls poorly.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

A'koss said:
			
		

> C'mon Wulf, you're talking about CR being an exact science while saying things like _"when it works perfectly"_, _"estimate of the 'law of averages'"_ & _"on average, the worst case scenerio"..._ Who are you trying to kid here?




I'm not trying to kid anyone, and rather than get involved in an adversarial discussion with you (especially since my guess is you have no intention of actually trying to understand), I'll just appeal to authority and state that I know what I'm talking about, and you don't.



> I have no idea what tangent you're going on here Wulf, I really don't.




Obviously.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> I think it would be pretty hard for a Gorgon to wipe out anything other than a low level or under-manned party in a single round.  There are plenty of ways to mitigate gaze attacks, particularly at 8th level.




We're not talking the Gorgon of classical mythology (ie, medusa).

We're talking the gorgon of D&D-- the big stone (iron?) bull that breathes petrifying gas in a 60' cone, once every 1d4 rounds (DC19).

An 8th level fighter has, I think, +6 to his save, meaning he survives 65% of the time, nothwithstanding magical resistance bonuses, feats, Con bonus, or action points.

If you assume as little as a +2 save bonus with all factors combined, you're up to 75%, which means that (worst case) 1 in 4 fighters is dead on the first round, leaving the others to kill the gorgon in 2.5 rounds or less before, on average, he breathes again.

An 8th level fighter with a +3 Str bonus and a +2 weapon (we'll assume the ubiquitous longsword, though any 1d8 weapon is fair game) vs. AC 20 deals an average of 10.925 damage per round, for a total damage output from all three fighters in 2.5 rounds of 81.9375 damage.

A gorgon has 85 hit points.

Now when you go back and factor in whether or not the fighters actually beat the gorgon's initiative on the first round, you can see just how close the fight is... ON AVERAGE.


----------



## Celebrim

A'koss said:
			
		

> I agree there are ways... provided you know about the threat beforehand. Open door, see medusa, make your saves. In enough encounters, you'll eventually find those where everyone rolls poorly.




But this is certainly true even in a default D&D game, and in fact its the save or die effects which are one of the reasons high level play gets problimatic.

I for one think that at high levels, PC's could benefit from more 'rerolls'.  Seeing as Mearls has given IH PC's advanced armor class, and the benifits of DR, you'd think that this would be a far more satisfying solution to the problem of 'save or die' situations.  And for that matter, Green Ronin's shaman class has the beginning of a potentially interesting take on removing negative states from PC's which could be (with care) integrated into a low magic setting without the need for instantaneous clerical healing.


----------



## A'koss

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to kid anyone, and rather than get involved in an adversarial discussion with you (especially since my guess is you have no intention of actually trying to understand), I'll just appeal to authority and state that I know what I'm talking about, and you don't.



Okay, let's back up a for a minute. I'll take it down a notch, I promise.  

Some of your comments in this thread came across as... "sour grape-ish" if you will, and this just seemed particularly "out there", at least on the surface. I was part of the initial playtest for 3e - it was stated at the outset that CR determination was more an art than a science. At low levels the CR system works pretty well, but slowly goes awry at higher levels until you can have various PC groups taking on critters 10 or more CRs greater than they should, or falling to particular lower CR monsters who are more dangerous than they may first appear. However, since you say you have some further insight on this topic, you've piqued my interest. If you wish to share, please do.


----------



## A'koss

Celebrim said:
			
		

> But this is certainly true even in a default D&D game, and in fact its the save or die effects which are one of the reasons high level play gets problimatic.
> 
> I for one think that at high levels, PC's could benefit from more 'rerolls'. Seeing as Mearls has given IH PC's advanced armor class, and the benifits of DR, you'd think that this would be a far more satisfying solution to the problem of 'save or die' situations. And for that matter, Green Ronin's shaman class has the beginning of a potentially interesting take on removing negative states from PC's which could be (with care) integrated into a low magic setting without the need for instantaneous clerical healing.



How does the Shaman handle it?

Another way might simply to have more gradated effects - many Save or Die effects can just be boiled down to damage. In my low magic game I had used something called Resolve Points to deal with many of the other showstopping powers. Resolve was like Mental Hit Points+, including resisting Will Save Spells, Intimidation, Diplomacy, Energy Drain, Transmutation, Fear, Torture, Madness, powering metamagic, creating magic items and more by turning all of it into "Resolve Damage". If your Resolve hit 0, whatever effect brought you there then took hold.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

A'koss said:
			
		

> Okay, let's back up a for a minute. I'll take it down a notch, I promise.




Fair enough.



> Some of your comments in this thread came across as... "sour grape-ish" if you will,




A point I have acknowledged and am obviously still trying to overcome...



> and this just seemed particularly "out there", at least on the surface.




It's not "out there" at all. I refer you back to my edit: It is a major part of Mike's own design process to address CR. Clearly he is intent on addressing the mechanics of CR. 

His point is that CR should NOT be guesswork, and that he has some value to offer the gaming community in bringing the focus of his mind, and a scientific approach, to it.



> I was part of the initial playtest for 3e - it was stated at the outset that CR determination was more an art than a science.




Determining CR is not an art. Determining whether a particular CR applies in all circumstances (particularly the circumstances of your own campaign), I will agree, IS an art. But CR is an absolute, it is a baseline; and it has to be, in order to be of any value to a DM at all. 

CR cannot be determined due to the specifics of party makeup, tactical position, or the vagaries of countless campaigns. 



> At low levels the CR system works pretty well, but slowly goes awry at higher levels until you can have various PC groups taking on critters 10 or more CRs greater than they should, or falling to particular lower CR monsters who are more dangerous than they may first appear.




That's the fault of the EL system, not the CR system. The EL does not scale properly as character level and CR advance. It fails to address the exponential advance of power with respect to increasing CR. A CR2 creature is twice as powerful as a CR1 creature, but a CR20 creature is not twice as powerful as a CR19 creature. Yet, according to the EL system in the RAW, the relative power difference is equivalent. That's absurdly false on its face and obvious to anyone who has played high level D&D, as you seem to have noticed.

I disagree with your second point (low-CRs suddenly becoming a threat to high level PCs).



> However, since you say you have some further insight on this topic, you've piqued my interest. If you wish to share, please do.




I'll refer you to a greater authority: Upper_Krust. Seek out his threads in the House Rules forum, and find a link for his Challenge Ratings document. Otherwise you can email me and I will send you what you need.


Wulf


----------



## A'koss

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> A point I have acknowledged and am obviously still trying to overcome...



I'm willing to extend a little slack here.  But as a publisher... with a product competing in the same airspace... I'd be careful how I was perceived in a thread like this.



> It's not "out there" at all. I refer you back to my edit: It is a major part of Mike's own design process to address CR. Clearly he is intent on addressing the mechanics of CR.
> 
> His point is that CR should NOT be guesswork, and that he has some value to offer the gaming community in bringing the focus of his mind, and a scientific approach, to it.



Mike's going to address the mechanics of CR in IH? Okay, I see where we may have had our wires crossed - could you point out where he says this? And here I thought I caught all the IH gossip...



> Determining CR is not an art. Determining whether a particular CR applies in all circumstances (particularly the circumstances of your own campaign), I will agree, IS an art. But CR is an absolute, it is a baseline; and it has to be, in order to be of any value to a DM at all.



I can tell you right now there is little, if any, scientific method in WotC's CR determinations. They come with a baseline, then use playtesting with their iconics to get a rough placement. 

Now, whether you *could* sit down and say flying is worth X, 5th level clerical casting ability is worth Y, a Rod of Lordy Might is worth Z and apply it to both characters and monsters you *could* come up with something. This is how Upper Krust is handling it, right? However, in practice...



> That's the fault of the EL system, not the CR system. The EL does not scale properly as character level and CR advance. It fails to address the exponential advance of power with respect to increasing CR. A CR2 creature is twice as powerful as a CR1 creature, but a CR20 creature is not twice as powerful as a CR19 creature. Yet, according to the EL system in the RAW, the relative power difference is equivalent. That's absurdly false on its face and obvious to anyone who has played high level D&D, as you seem to have noticed.



The EL wonkiness is another matter yet...



> I disagree with your second point (low-CRs suddenly becoming a threat to high level PCs).



Wait for the next HL adventuring thread to come up.



> I'll refer you to a greater authority: Upper_Krust. Seek out his threads in the House Rules forum, and find a link for his Challenge Ratings document. Otherwise you can email me and I will send you what you need.



I know of it, and I've heard good things about it, but have any of the major publishers adopted it?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

A'koss said:
			
		

> I'm willing to extend a little slack here.  But as a publisher... with a product competing in the same airspace... I'd be careful how I was perceived in a thread like this.




I'm sensitive on a personal level with respect to Mike, who is at the very least "a friend of a friend" that I would not want to offend.

I'm not going to comment further on another "competitor" comparison with respect to the marketplace.

I see Mike as a competitor as a game designer in that he is tackling a problem I have also struggled with, and I am waiting to see how he does it. So, yes, I'm feeling "competitive" in that respect-- but I still wouldn't say I'm any kind of competition for him. 



> Mike's going to address the mechanics of CR in IH? Okay, I see where we may have had our wires crossed - could you point out where he says this? And here I thought I caught all the IH gossip...




That Mike has made CR-compatibility a central feature of Iron Heroes is not news.

So although I think you're being deliberately obtuse, here you go:

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=2097339&postcount=22
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=2100444&postcount=88
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=2104440&postcount=128
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=2105513&postcount=138
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=2119514&postcount=269


I would like to have checked out the design diary to give you a few more links, but unfortunately Malhavoc must be some kind of a threat to the government here: Blocked!

Wulf


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> We're not talking the Gorgon of classical mythology (ie, medusa).
> 
> We're talking the gorgon of D&D-- the big stone (iron?) bull that breathes petrifying gas in a 60' cone, once every 1d4 rounds (DC19).




Thank-you for the correction, I had it right in my head and by the time I got to my second sentence it was all out of whack.


----------



## Capellan

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> We're talking the gorgon of D&D-- the big stone (iron?) bull that breathes petrifying gas in a 60' cone, once every 1d4 rounds (DC19).
> 
> An 8th level fighter has, I think, +6 to his save, meaning he survives 65% of the time, nothwithstanding magical resistance bonuses, feats, Con bonus, or action points.
> 
> If you assume as little as a +2 save bonus with all factors combined, you're up to 75%, which means that (worst case) 1 in 4 fighters is dead on the first round




Your maths is off 

+6 base save vs DC 19 = 13 or better to survive = 40% survival, increasing to 50% with a +2 bonus.

And poor-FORT characters are in real trouble (+2 base save = 20% survival rate, increasing to 30% if they have a +2 bonus).

That makes your analysis look a little flawed


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Capellan said:
			
		

> Your maths is off




It is indeed, feel free to rework it.


----------



## A'koss

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> That Mike has made CR-compatibility a central feature of Iron Heroes is not news.



No, it's not news. But it's one thing to repeated say "IH characters have the same power curve as their D&D counterparts" and "It is a major part of Mike's own design process to address CR. Clearly he is intent on addressing the mechanics of CR." It's like chastising a bridge construction crew for not building a skyscraper.



> So although I think you're being deliberately obtuse, here you go:
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=2097339&postcount=22
> http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=2100444&postcount=88
> http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=2104440&postcount=128
> http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=2105513&postcount=138
> http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=2119514&postcount=269
> 
> 
> I would like to have checked out the design diary to give you a few more links, but unfortunately Malhavoc must be some kind of a threat to the government here: Blocked!



I wasn't trying to be obtuse - I wanted to know where Mike specifically said he's going to _address the mechanics of CR._ That would have been an interesting addition to say the least. However, nothing in these quotes suggests (to me anyway, if anyone else feels I've missed the boat on this - let me know) he's going to do what you're saying here. If there is something I should be looking at on his site that specifically says differently, let me know...


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Nevermind.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Curioser and curioser.

Do we have a point where Mike says IH characters will have the same power curve as DnD characters?

Not even AE did that, as long as your idea of power curve means similar power progression.

I thought the claim was simply that you could drop DnD material onto IH characters and they would do all right and that you could drop IH material into a DnD game and that it would be interesting and workable?

On a sidenote I'm playing for the first time in a long time, and for the first time in longer I was making a vanilla DnD bard, well not totally vanilla I was playing FR so I got to play a Gold Dwarf with the Thunder Twins feat and free armor, but the overall point is that I never realized until tonight precisely how boring it can be to create a first level vanilla DnD character, and I don't know why.  At the least this makes me eager to see how it looks in IH.  Guess I'd been making high level characters so long that it skewed my view towards those problems.  I hadn't really realized how many of them show up early in the process.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> Do we have a point where Mike says IH characters will have the same power curve as DnD characters?




From the [second] link above:



			
				mearls said:
			
		

> There is an enormous difference between those games and Iron Lore - Iron Lore replaces magic with expanded/new abilities and a different model of play, all while keeping the power curve at D&D's level. You can use your Monster Manual, or Tome of Horrors, or Fiend Folio, or whatever, with Iron Lore without a single smidge of conversion, and the monsters work in just the way you'd expect WRT CR and party level.




That's pretty much the money quote.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> From the [second] link above:
> 
> 
> 
> That's pretty much the money quote.




Yeah, there's another good one in the first post.  In either case, though, there are some complications in that the emphasis is on the droppability and we know that the classes of IH or DnD would have to be adapted before they could be dropped into the other system.  Explicitly the lethality and resources will be the same, but they would have to be if you are going to have the CR system work for your characters at all.

There are other ways in which the powercurve/powerprogression of IH seems to be wonky.  The archer certainly parallels the fighter in BAB development, including the bonuses of magic weapons, but at the same time starts with better skills, hit points, and class abilities than its fighter counterpart.  Not too mention implied greater flexibility through the stunt and maneuver system.  In that sense I think we may be looking at a flatter and more even power-curve for the characters, especially at the lower levels, which in some ways makes more sense for the system as a whole since you won't have access to the high level abilities, cleric spells most importantly, that PCs in DnD can 'pay' for from their society.

On the other hand there are a lot of things that we don't know about these characters even from the class write ups that we have seen.  I really thought the feats at every even level were a given, for instance, until Mearls came in to say that IH characters get two at first level and we've had hints that something interesting is being done with saving throws yet all we see in the class write ups seems fairly conventional.


----------



## A'koss

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> There are other ways in which the powercurve/powerprogression of IH seems to be wonky. The archer certainly parallels the fighter in BAB development, including the bonuses of magic weapons, but at the same time starts with better skills, hit points, and class abilities than its fighter counterpart. Not too mention implied greater flexibility through the stunt and maneuver system. In that sense I think we may be looking at a flatter and more even power-curve for the characters, especially at the lower levels, which in some ways makes more sense for the system as a whole since you won't have access to the high level abilities, cleric spells most importantly, that PCs in DnD can 'pay' for from their society.



Note how this all seems to be geared towards making characters who are both more self-sufficient and more _predictable,_ power-wise, level to level. This will be a huge boon in designing adventures, particularly at those higher levels, as you'll have a nice, narrow range in power to build against. This, of course, assumes that Mike hasn't mucked it up somewhere down the line that we haven't seen yet...  



> On the other hand there are a lot of things that we don't know about these characters even from the class write ups that we have seen. I really thought the feats at every even level were a given, for instance, until Mearls came in to say that IH characters get two at first level and we've had hints that something interesting is being done with saving throws yet all we see in the class write ups seems fairly conventional.



I thought the feat every even level was *still* a given. If you look at how the class abilities seem to be built, they seem to be geared towards leaving open spaces for feats. And what have we heard about saving throws? All I've read was that it'll be easy to keep your saves high without a lot of effort (and I assume feats) on your part.

A'koss.


----------



## ThirdWizard

A'koss said:
			
		

> Note how this all seems to be geared towards making characters who are both more self-sufficient and more _predictable,_ power-wise, level to level. This will be a huge boon in designing adventures, particularly at those higher levels, as you'll have a nice, narrow range in power to build against. This, of course, assumes that Mike hasn't mucked it up somewhere down the line that we haven't seen yet...




I origionally thought the token system was made to aid this, with the tokens being used per encounter so that the DM could more accurately guage them from battle to battle instead of taking into account as much pacing them through the dungeon. With the knowlege that the arcanist doesn't use tokens, though, I'm having to reevaluate this origional assumption. You know what they say about assumptions, oops!

Not a big worry right now, but feeling a little "huh, I thought that's where it fit best" kinda deal.

I hate waiting and seeing.


----------



## A'koss

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I origionally thought the token system was made to aid this, with the tokens being used per encounter so that the DM could more accurately guage them from battle to battle instead of taking into account as much pacing them through the dungeon. With the knowlege that the arcanist doesn't use tokens, though, I'm having to reevaluate this origional assumption. You know what they say about assumptions, oops!
> 
> Not a big worry right now, but feeling a little "huh, I thought that's where it fit best" kinda deal.
> 
> I hate waiting and seeing.



Yeah, that was definitely an unexpected revelation but at the same time we do know that the Arcanist (or at least one kind of Arcanist) can fire energy blasts _at will. _I get the feeling that the "Mana" the Arcanist uses will replenish themselves very rapidly. If they do, you're back to balance per encounter again.


----------



## Andor

It is possible that the Mana the arcanists use is equivilent to tokens, but labled differently because it is actually semi-tangible in game. FREX: You cannot look at a Hunter and see how in tune to the fight he is. (IE: How many tactical tokens are in his pool.) But if an arcanist is taking full round actions to pull mana from the aether then presumably there is an in game way to percive this. There is certainly an in game way to percieve it's effects even if the Arcanists spell backfires and he gives himself a vorpal wedgie.

To me that is enough of a distinction to possibly warrent a different label for the same mechanic. (Although if that is the case I'd have just called them mana tokens.)

Kind of like how spell casting worked in Castle Falkenstein.

However given that they probably would just have called them mana tokens too, it does seem unlikely to me. 

Ooh. Another possibility that just occured to me. Perhaps 'mana' is a way of tracking the power of a spell in terms of potential side effects. IE: A High damage, specially shaped, long ranged energy blast might stack up all those modifers to generate a 'mana cost' of, say, 5. When you botch your spell casting roll, you check the results on the 5 mana table. Or perhaps that mana cost sticks with you as fatigue modifying your future rolls untill you can rest.


----------



## Celebrim

Andor said:
			
		

> It is possible that the Mana the arcanists use is equivilent to tokens, but labled differently because it is actually semi-tangible in game.




Actually, the only reason I can think of at this point to not label 'mana' tokens is because the Hunter can spend tactical tokens to give allies the token of thier choice.  If the arcanist had mana tokens, it could imply that the arcanist could be buffed by the Hunter (or by similar mechanism we haven't seen yet).  

Of course, I would just have called them mana tokens anyway and included the caveat on thier acquisition in the arcanist write up.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

A'koss said:
			
		

> I thought the feat every even level was *still* a given. If you look at how the class abilities seem to be built, they seem to be geared towards leaving open spaces for feats. And what have we heard about saving throws? All I've read was that it'll be easy to keep your saves high without a lot of effort (and I assume feats) on your part.
> 
> A'koss.




There's references to dealing with the save or die problem of high levels, but I'll have to look them up.

If the feats are 2 at first then one at every even level then the berzerker in the Transcendance advertisement is short feat.  Then again this is true of all the sample class builds as well.


----------



## A'koss

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> There's references to dealing with the save or die problem of high levels, but I'll have to look them up.



Hmmm, I must have missed that...



> If the feats are 2 at first then one at every even level then the berzerker in the Transcendance advertisement is short feat. Then again this is true of all the sample class builds as well.



I'm thinking they probably should've gotten Cooper to check over their stat blocks first...


----------



## glass

A'koss said:
			
		

> I can tell you right now there is little, if any, scientific method in WotC's CR determinations. They come with a baseline, then use playtesting with their iconics to get a rough placement.




Hypothesis followed by empyrical testing is about as scientific a method as you can get.


glass.


----------



## Particle_Man

*"core story" of IH?*

Does the fact that magic items are rare, and not part of the "buffing up" part of the core story, change the core story significantly for IH?  (Mearls was talking about the importance of core stories, check other threads around here and his livejournal but I am too lazy to find the relevant links).


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

A'koss said:
			
		

> Hmmm, I must have missed that...




Well, it's chances of my being right or crazy are just about equal.  That combined with a week of internet laziness probably reduce the chance of truly knowing a great deal.

At the very least we should be seeing saves that equate out to the save boosts of a cloak of resistance for most characters.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Not much new in the update this week.  Mostly just information from the chat session.

The big thing for me was the assurance that IH would be well supported past the announced products and that the conversion rules would be in the core book.

Mastering IH looks like it will be pretty neat, and sparse as its promised to be I'm really looking forward to the default setting.  Something about the name Swordlands seems very Tannith Lee to me even though I'm certain that won't be it.


----------



## A'koss

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> Not much new in the update this week. Mostly just information from the chat session.



Yeah, I was hoping to have a little more to nibble on this week, but, oh well... 



> The big thing for me was the assurance that IH would be well supported past the announced products and that the conversion rules would be in the core book.



Definitely good news, I hope it sells like AU so we can see support for a long, long time. But I still haven't heard anything about a GM screen, which to me seems damn near essential for a game like IH!



> Mastering IH looks like it will be pretty neat, and sparse as its promised to be I'm really looking forward to the default setting. Something about the name Swordlands seems very Tannith Lee to me even though I'm certain that won't be it.



I'm already beginning to wish it was bigger...  However, I'm not really interested in a default setting with a strong homebrew already in the works. Setting independent _adventures,_ yes.

A'koss.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

A'koss said:
			
		

> I'm already beginning to wish it was bigger...  However, I'm not really interested in a default setting with a strong homebrew already in the works. Setting independent _adventures,_ yes.
> 
> A'koss.




The setting appeals to me, even in a bare bones version, because I think the vocabulary of world building is going to be so different for IH than it was for something like AU.

With AU it was really easy.  You just went through and figured out where all the classes fit in the magical traditions.  Now magical traditions make a great vocabulary because it's pretty easy to figure that magic has a pretty huge cultural component.

It's harder to see that with fighting traditions since you figure most cultures are going to need a good mix.  Mearls has given us some clues with the 'archetypes' section in the class write-ups.  Hunters being frontiersmen or elite agencies sort of a thing.  So that's a help, but it's still not as formative as thinking well if you've got totem warriors then you're dealing a lot with spirits or Barbarians probably aren't as emphasized in armor happy cultures.

I suspect from the Berzerker preview that the basic vocubulary for adventuring in cultures will actually be traits+classes and I'm looking forward to seeing how that works on a macro level since we probably won't see all of the traits until the book comes out.


----------



## A'koss

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> The setting appeals to me, even in a bare bones version, because I think the vocabulary of world building is going to be so different for IH than it was for something like AU.



Oh, absolutely. But I think Mike has already given us a pretty good breakdown of the general style of game he's aiming for. As I like to call it, "cinematic sword & sorcery". Really, AU and the Diamond Throne setting go hand in hand, IH is obviously a lot more open-ended. I think you can pretty much instinctively grasp the feel of it. 



> With AU it was really easy. You just went through and figured out where all the classes fit in the magical traditions. Now magical traditions make a great vocabulary because it's pretty easy to figure that magic has a pretty huge cultural component.
> 
> It's harder to see that with fighting traditions since you figure most cultures are going to need a good mix. Mearls has given us some clues with the 'archetypes' section in the class write-ups. Hunters being frontiersmen or elite agencies sort of a thing. So that's a help, but it's still not as formative as thinking well if you've got totem warriors then you're dealing a lot with spirits or Barbarians probably aren't as emphasized in armor happy cultures.



What I think you're having trouble with is the sheer breadth of the IH archetypes. As you point out, AU is a lot narrower in focus with it's classes (like the Totem Warrior), in IH... you have the archer, the hunter, the man-at-arms, the weapon master... It's probably easier to just ask yourself, _"Okay, with these skills, where *would* he be put to use?__" _

I just glossed over the hunter archetypes myself because as soon as I saw his skills I _knew_ where he belonged. I think, develop the culture first, then the classes should slot into place pretty easily.  It may be a little more tricky in filling the more specialized roles - dealing with culture-specific threats for example. Hmm, who do you put together to sabotage a Frost Giant's Army's supply line?



> I suspect from the Berzerker preview that the basic vocubulary for adventuring in cultures will actually be traits+classes and I'm looking forward to seeing how that works on a macro level since we probably won't see all of the traits until the book comes out.



Traits will definitely play the key role in lending mechanical advantages to different cultures. I'm guessing that the cultural inspirations will all be fairly predicatable/identifiable with RW ones. And on that note, Mike said IH PCs are supposed to have 2 feats *&* 2 traits (which are at least as good as feats), in addition to your class ability(s) - all at 1st level? That's... actually a fair bit of capability I never even realized until now, not to mention distinguishing yourself early from the rest of the crowd.


----------



## Irda Ranger

*My thoughts on the chat transcript*



			
				Wulf said:
			
		

> Are you being churlish by not directly saying what's on your mind?



Probably.  I apologize for that.  I wanted to present the the quotes as a tabula rasa, but couldn't quite help myself.


			
				Wulf said:
			
		

> What new information does that chat reveal to you?



As for CR Equivalence, Celebrim pretty much summed it up.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Oh brother. Apparantly 'capable of going toe to toe with an equivalent CR encounter' means capable of going toe to toe with anything that is itself not magical.



At first Wulf's comments eased my apprehension, but then I saw the updated _Iron Heroes Bestiary_ page.


			
				Iron Heroes Bestiary page said:
			
		

> The book also includes some basic advice on using monsters in Iron Heroes, _such as mathematical methods you can use to judge whether a creature offers the proper threat to the party_ and new feats designed to work with monster abilities.



I was really hoping Mearls was serious when he said that you could "plug and play" IH classes with D&D adventures.  I didn't know how he was going to do it, but I had faith.  Apparently, his version of "plug and play" looks a little too much like "DIY modding" for my comfort.  If there was anything I didn't like about Grim Tales (and there wasn't much), it was the whole figurin' out CR and EL thingy.  It wasn't that it didn't work (it worked like clockwork), it just that I don't have enough free time/ inclination to do that sort of thing.  I want the rules to "just work", and work simply, without a lot of tinkering or calculations.  I'm lazy like that.  

By the way, I also notice this on the same page:



			
				Iron Heroes Bestiary page said:
			
		

> The _Iron Heroes Bestiary_ contains two dozen new monsters designed for use in Iron Heroes.



A whole two dozen?  They better be darned interesting monsters.  Maybe the villain classes will make it worth it.  I always liked a good villain.

Oh well, enough griping.  At this point I still plan on getting the book (which is high praise from me, since I buy so few RPG books).  On to positive things.



			
				Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> Basicly, there is a lot of magic in DnD RAW that seems unnecessary to me. Planar travel, raise dead, undo curse, and such as that all seem to be basicly cheats for getting around conditions that would otherwise result in seperate stories.



Spot. On.

As many people have pointed out, _Teleport_ would have made short work of _The Lord of the Rings_.  _Raise Dead_ makes sacrifice impossible and heroic death meaningless.  I am so looking forward to having these gone from my game (yes, it's easy to ban specific spells; but it's very hard to ban so many that the game's fundamental assumptions are out of whack).



			
				Wulf said:
			
		

> Mearls has essentially built a mechanic that rewards characters for doing nothing, which seems the antithesis of the high-action game premise.



But you're not "doing nothing", you're doing something useful and beneficial.  Calling collecting Token "doing nothing" is the same as calling Readied Actions "doing nothing" or using a Spellcraft check to observe an enemy spellcaster "doing nothing."  You're just not swinging a sword/ firing a missile.  I like that.  I like that PC's can "think" their way to being more effective.

I don't have much to say about the classes that don't have Tokens.  I'm sure they're fine the way they are.  If Mana works the way I think it does though, I don't know why they aren't just called "Mana Tokens."  Perhaps you'd have to except them from so many other Token-based rules that it just wasn't worth it.

As for the wealth awards ...



> *wizofice* (May 26, 2005 8:51:42 PM)
> Mike, there's a thread in the Iron Heroes forum where people are making guesses as to (since there's not much in the way of magic items), where does all the gold go? Care to comment?
> 
> *Mike Mearls* (May 26, 2005 8:53:29 PM)
> I give a few options and ideas, particularly with the alternate XP systems. For instance, let's say you want to run a game where the PCs are criminals, and maybe they don't trust each other. In that sort of game, you might award XP for the gold they recover. If a PC steals something without the rest of the party knowing about it, he might get bonus XP for that. When you pull money away from its current place in D&D (it's basically your point total for the point-buy/magic item part of character creation) you can do some really interesting stuff.



Mike kind of avoided/ misunderstood the question here.  Wiz-Of-Ice was really asking "What can be done with money once you get it?" and Mike answered the question "How can money and experience be given out?"  Not the same.

Nonetheless, it's an interesting insight.  I remember the good 'ol days, when Thieves earned 2 XP per GP recovered.  Man, you sure could advance quickly then.  Anyway, I'm not sure I would use this rule, but it's an interesting take on the "story based" XP awards.  It also flies directly in the face of "9 times out of 10, roll initiative" comments.  Never, never, never hire Mike Mearls to do marketing.  

The comment also reinforces the concept that wealth and level are independent concepts, which I think is only sensible.

It does leave the question begging: What _do_ you do with all the gold?  I'm not sure how much vicarious enjoyment my players would get from Ale & Whores.



			
				Mike Mearls said:
			
		

> The arcanist gains access to spell methods and a set of arcane class abilities. For example, you *can* create an arcanist who can blast his enemies with bolts of energy at will. The spell system takes a little getting used to. In essence, you gain access to a few spell recipes that you use to build spell effects. So, for an attack spell you choose the damage, area of effect, and energy type, then cast the spell. The more options a spell has, and the more abilities it features, the harder it is to cast and the more mana it costs.



Hmmm.  I suppose once you get used to it it's Ok, but I never liked the "calculate on the fly" spell systems.  Keeping track of initiative, HP, and what everyone else is doing is often enough to occupy my attention.  Calculating a spell effect is just one more thing.  I'll definately give it a shot, especially if the number of variables you have to figure for are low enough.

The one thing I don't like about _a la carte_ spell systems is that they're either way to restrictive (by allowing you to only purchase effects from a list) or way to open ended (like Mage: The Ascension, where anything is possible, but must be adjudicated every single time).  I've never seen one that allows for a happy medium of interesting spells (such as can be found in the Player's Handbook or Arcana Unearthed) while not requiring constant adjudication.  We'll see.

I would also draw your attention to the bolded "can" in the quote.  Not every Arcanist will be able to disperse energy at will it seems.  I would assume that this power must be purchased, at the opportunity costs of other powers.

I also wonder if Traits will determine what an Arcanist is capable of.  If so, you might be quite restricted in switching what kind of caster you want to be part-way through your adventuring career.


----------



## Andor

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> The one thing I don't like about _a la carte_ spell systems is that they're either way to restrictive (by allowing you to only purchase effects from a list) or way to open ended (like Mage: The Ascension, where anything is possible, but must be adjudicated every single time).  I've never seen one that allows for a happy medium of interesting spells (such as can be found in the Player's Handbook or Arcana Unearthed) while not requiring constant adjudication.  We'll see.




In a brief dive off-topic: Have you ever seen Ars Magica, or the slightly expanded (and thoroughly explored) version of it in World Tree?


----------



## Particle_Man

I wonder how much the spell system will resemble The Elements of Magic.

I also wonder if illusions are changed at all.  I would love to see Mearls' take on them.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Andor said:
			
		

> In a brief dive off-topic: Have you ever seen Ars Magica, or the slightly expanded (and thoroughly explored) version of it in World Tree?




Or even the BCCS for that matter.

On the note of the Bestiary, I don't know that you should see it as evidence against plug and play.  Based on the playtest notes plug and play seems to be exactly what people have been doing, on the one hand, and on the  other there are a lot of encounter scenarios that don't fit into the CR system properly.

Note the hint about encounter zones in the second playtester interview and I think you might see what I'm anticipating there.


----------



## Irda Ranger

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> The setting appeals to me, even in a bare bones version, because I think the vocabulary of world building is going to be so different for IH than it was for something like AU.



Yeah, in the sense that there hardly is any.  As you said, the AU classes pretty much define how any setting with them worked - especially the more flavorful ones, like Akashic, Witch, Runethane, Ritual Warrior and Runechild.  IH is going to be much more "real world" with fantasy flavor, rather than wholly fantasy.


> It's harder to see that with fighting traditions since you figure most cultures are going to need a good mix.



You're right about most societies needing a good mix (of several at least, though not all).  This doesn't make it harder though, just more open-ended.  You can model pretty much any society from the real world, ancient legends, or pre-Terry Brooks fantasy and then add the Arcanist and monsters.  The classes just fall into place and, ideally, disappear entirely.


> Mearls has given us some clues with the 'archetypes' section in the class write-ups.  Hunters being frontiersmen or elite agencies sort of a thing.  So that's a help, but it's still not as formative as thinking well if you've got totem warriors then you're dealing a lot with spirits or Barbarians probably aren't as emphasized in armor happy cultures.



You're absolutely right that it's not formative, and that's a feature, not a bug.  I think the archetypes section was meant to help people break out of the mind-set that a class is the end-all and be-all of what defines a character's role in society.  What's true for a Cleric or Akashic should not be true for an Armiger or Archer.


> I suspect from the Berzerker preview that the basic vocubulary for adventuring in cultures will actually be traits+classes and I'm looking forward to seeing how that works on a macro level since we probably won't see all of the traits until the book comes out.



Traits + Classes, yes, but also feats, and I think the feats + traits will be much more important than the classes.  Every culture will have some kind of "ranged attack guy", but not every culture will have the "Winter Born" trait or access to the same feats.  From a magical perspective, I suspect some methods and recipes will be common among some peoples and unknown to others.  Maybe one society's Arcanists are the only ones who know the spells to make purple dye, and they're also good sailors.


----------



## Irda Ranger

Andor said:
			
		

> In a brief dive off-topic: Have you ever seen Ars Magica, or the slightly expanded (and thoroughly explored) version of it in World Tree?



No, I haven't.

What's BCCS?


----------



## Particle_Man

Do multi-class characters exist?


----------



## Andor

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> No, I haven't.
> 
> What's BCCS?




I don't know what BCCS is, but both Ars Magic and World Tree use a skill based Verb and Noun magic system with both set spells and easy improv. Each Verb and each Noun is a seperate skill.

Say for example you want to cast a fireball. That would be Create + Fire. If your total skill equals (say) 15 you can learn the book version of the spell and just cast it by paying mana. If your skills aren't good enough or you just haven't learned the spell you can roll your skill checks and try to get a 15 (with modifiers for improvising). If you fail, you fail, or back fire if you fail badly enough. If your create isn't good enough you could try to improve a Move + Fire to send fire from your touch at the bad guy.


----------



## Andor

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Do multi-class characters exist?




In Iron Heros? Yes, with no multiclassing penalties.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

We have no indication that multi-class characters do not exist.

BCCS is the Black Company Campaign Setting.  The setting is one thick book remarkable for four reasons:

- it's a really good compendium of information on the series in question

- it had very cool rules for grit in DnD that were minimally invasive, including nice stuff for ambushes and a more n decent system of action points

- a nice mass combat system which I like very well with one major flaw, IMO

- a talent based magic system, the magic of the books in question was remarkable for four reasons: very flexible at low levels, very slow and massively deadly at high levels, being rampable that is that a low level guy could produce a high level effect given time, and a wizard was the equal of an army and vice versa.  Wizards could easilly turn battles but they could also be taken out by one good company.  The RPG managed to achieve all of these effects very well and missed only one or two other things from the books.

I primarilly mentioned it because of the spells as feats system.  It seemed to work very well, characters weren't all that limited at low levels because having a spell feat like 'shield' gave you a lot of flexibility.  Spellcasters were interesting because in battle they were very much a strategic rather than tactical resource, relying a great deal on their power over environment and minds to turn things in the favor of their fellow combatants.  Even at the high levels they were more like bombers than artillery, sometimes very literally.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Yeah, in the sense that there hardly is any.  As you said, the AU classes pretty much define how any setting with them worked - especially the more flavorful ones, like Akashic, Witch, Runethane, Ritual Warrior and Runechild.  IH is going to be much more "real world" with fantasy flavor, rather than wholly fantasy.




Well in terms of this, the way I think about it with something like AU is that every class has one or two equivalent cultural role of niche, so:

Runethane=sage/craftsmen
Akashic=sage/diplomat or explorer
Magister=priest/wizard
Witch=mystic/outlaw
Warmain=noble soldier
Totem Warrior=hunter

and so forth.  Now that's helpful because if I have a society of agriculturalists living on a relatively uncontrollable river and menaced by wandering barbarians well that comes out to:

floods need predicting=needs sage priests=magisters
cities need defending=needs heavilly armed soldiers=warmains
they're agriculturalists and they live in a very elementally aligned area=would develop something from that lifestyle=witches

My point with IH is that it's a little bit more difficult to figure out.  I can certainly conclude from the above formula that the culture will probably need arimigers.  I might also go with arcanists and hunters, but I really worry that that's what I'm going to get for way too many of those formula.  It's good to have so many flavors of warrior, but until I see the traits I'm worried that there's not as much variety in terms of other basic roles.  In the example above, for instance, the slot I filled with magisters could as easilly have been greenbonds, akashics, or runethanes and each one of those would have given you an idea of a very different society.  And that's a neat world building tool.

On the other hand, the Berzerker write up in the back of transcendance gave you a much better idea of the culture that character is from than almost any write up I've seen in other DnD terms.  And I take a lot of hope from that, so my only real complaint is that I want to start doing cultural write ups in those terms as soon as possible, particularly since my more common method is a wee bit stymied.




> Traits + Classes, yes, but also feats, and I think the feats + traits will be much more important than the classes.  Every culture will have some kind of "ranged attack guy", but not every culture will have the "Winter Born" trait or access to the same feats.  From a magical perspective, I suspect some methods and recipes will be common among some peoples and unknown to others.




Some DnD stuff does this already, Forgotten Realms for instance, but admittedly I hadn't thought about it too much in IH terms.  You could certainly do it with something like a talent mechanic and the extra feat characters get at first level.  More importantly it would be interesting to see how it worked in terms of traits which seem to do the job feats do in FR several times better.



> Maybe one society's Arcanists are the only ones who know the spells to make purple dye, and they're also good sailors.




I s'pose they'd also be the one's best at writing.


----------



## Particle_Man

So now that Mike Mearls is working for Wotc, who takes over Iron Heroes?  And what part of it is the last part that Mike worked on before he left?  An adventure?  Just the "alt core" books? (phb, dmg, mm)


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

From what I understand of the timing and the nature of things I think he got through at least the core books, but I'd also be careful about making the leap that just because he isn't working for Malhavoc he isn't working on IH.  

There are several places in the last chat transcript where he mentions scheduling issues, and I'm certain those come up less frequently when he was working for Malhavoc.

But he was still there for the chat, it's still his book, and I imagine he still sees some back end from it.


----------



## Monte At Home

Mike finished his work on Iron Heroes (it's already at the printer!), Mastering Iron Heroes and Monsters of Iron Heroes (those last two are in development/editing). I know it seems weird, but we work way ahead of schedule. Mike worked with us for a full year, which was the term of his contract. We're happy to have worked with him, and now we're happy for him to be working for Wizards. (Just to be clear, our "parting" was entirely friendly, and in fact was going to happen Wizards job or not. I was a reference for him for the new job--we think it's great for him, and better for Wizards.)


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

hurray for printer news!

and here's hoping the printer is good to you and to us all.

One of the games I am most loving in preview has been hurt by printer troubles on three seperate occasions now.


----------



## Felon

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> I was really hoping Mearls was serious when he said that you could "plug and play" IH classes with D&D adventures.  I didn't know how he was going to do it, but I had faith.  Apparently, his version of "plug and play" looks a little too much like "DIY modding" for my comfort.  If there was anything I didn't like about Grim Tales (and there wasn't much), it was the whole figurin' out CR and EL thingy.  It wasn't that it didn't work (it worked like clockwork), it just that I don't have enough free time/ inclination to do that sort of thing.  I want the rules to "just work", and work simply, without a lot of tinkering or calculations.  I'm lazy like that.




If you're playing a game that's a radical departure from D&D, which IH is, it's pretty impractical to expect a D&D adventure to play without a hitch straight out of the box. D&D has expectations that character will have certain resources, such as access to divination spellls, abjuration spells, transportation magic, and of course magic weapons and curative magic, that IH characters won't have in equal portions. That's the point of IH, after all. But sometimes in a D&D adventure there is simply no way around needing a _dispel magic_.


----------



## A'koss

Felon said:
			
		

> If you're playing a game that's a radical departure from D&D, which IH is, it's pretty impractical to expect a D&D adventure to play without a hitch straight out of the box. D&D has expectations that character will have certain resources, such as access to divination spellls, abjuration spells, transportation magic, and of course magic weapons and curative magic, that IH characters won't have in equal portions. That's the point of IH, after all. But sometimes in a D&D adventure there is simply no way around needing a _dispel magic_.



Indeed, but Mike has been upfront about IH being compatable with the MMs, _but not necessarily every adventure - a_nd it would be for reasons like these_. _What are you going to do if the adventure takes place on the Elemental Planes of Fire or Water? Suddenly you don't have a 6 second solution to the problem and things get a little more interesting.

Also, great to hear that IH is at the printers - woot! I am kinda sad that Mike won't be there to nuture this baby along but at least the groundwork is all there for others to build on.

Cheers!


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Next update is out. Link: http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mpress_IL_excerpt4

It's all about feat mastery, displaying the Weapon Finesse and Power Attack feat mastery chains.

I have to say that in many ways these are much much cooler than the classes themselves.

Indeed, Weapon Finesse could easilly be the feature of a class rather than a feat tree, which is good since to get all ten feats you'd pretty much be considering it that.

They certainly make high level play look insanely deadly.  High levels of power attack force massive damage saves on every hit, and WF, applied to a Rogue anyways, would double your sneak attack damage and, seemingly, force sneak attacks on at least one blow a round regardless of circumstances.

Power Attack has the interesting side feature of making what had been a sort of simple feat really very strategic and deep.  If this is what IH means by making fighters as interesting tactically as wizards then I have all the faith in the world that they will succeed on that point.


----------



## JohnSnow

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> Indeed, Weapon Finesse could easilly be the feature of a class rather than a feat tree, which is good since to get all ten feats you'd pretty much be considering it that.
> 
> They certainly make high level play look insanely deadly. High levels of power attack force massive damage saves on every hit, and WF, applied to a Rogue anyways, would double your sneak attack damage and, seemingly, force sneak attacks on at least one blow a round regardless of circumstances.




While I completely and utterly agree with you on this, I think we're missing something somewhat significant. Addressing your first point, I think it's absolutely critical to point out this quote:



> Characters may choose to advance by taking most or all of one feat's abilities or take a larger number of base feats with fewer advanced mastery abilities.




Which means that you don't have to take all the feats in a chain. That changes things somewhat significantly. It's worth mentioning that taking all those feats would eat up all of any character's feats.

I would also surmise that the highest version of Finesse Mastery is going to go to the Harrier, rather than the Thief or Executioner classes. I could, of course, be wrong. I agree with you about high level combat looking quite deadly.

So it looks like characters get 2 feats at first level plus 1 every even level. And with these chains...excellent!!

Guess this puts the rest to the "Is Power Attack Mastery 2" just "Cleave" renamed?

Obviously, it's not.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

I was well aware that you don't have to take all of the feats, but it's true that I hadn't properly wrapped my head around the fact that you don't even have to take them in a chain.

Harrier as finesse ten monkey?  interesting...

But at least one of the big backstab classes, thief or executioner, is going to have finesse at 9 and that means loads of extra back stab.

Man, I was rooting for the executioner for next class preview, but with finesse and the lack of tokens I'm switching my vote to harrier.


----------



## JohnSnow

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> But at least one of the big backstab classes, thief or executioner, is going to have finesse at 9 and that means loads of extra back stab.




Probably true. After all, the archer gets Finesse Mastery 8. And my immediate reaction was the same as I imagine yours was. In other words: "WTF?!!? An extra 4d6 of damage that is uable ALL the time and stacks with sneak attack?!?"

But then I realized. This is a 17th level character with no flaming weapon, no frost weapon, no shocking burst weapon. Hell, he probably doesn't even have a KEEN short sword!! So he's not really doing much more damage than a D&D 3e rogue with a holy (+2d6) shock (+1d6) flaming (+1d6) rapier. He just doesn't NEED the sword to do it! Moreover, as it's sneak attack damage, it probably won't affect things immune to critical hits, unlike the sword. So, even though it's usable against things that are immune to fire or electricity, and aren't evil, it's not really that big a deal.

To some degree, I think we've become so conditioned to thinking of the character's "power" as not including his items that the IH paradigm (Heroic _without_ items) is going to take some getting used to. But I think I LIKE it!


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Oh I totally agree that there is no problem with it as yet.

It's just interesting to see how the power is ramping up and how the options that have been opened up really seem to skew towards deeper tactical thinking.

As it is a guy with sneak attack is going to love it a lot and work for it, but the fact that he also some massive death dealing weaponry means that it's never going to be as critical for him as it is for his IH comrade.

It also means that IH villains are going to have to be much better about watching their back.  Flanking is going to become a pretty dang fluid dynamic.


----------



## Celebrim

So, from the way I'm looking at it, a Beserker with all 10 of the power attack feats can force every target he hits in that round to make up to 5 saving throws plus the almost certainty of a save vs. massive damage?  Granted, he'll be getting a -15 penalty to hit, but he'll also probably be getting a +37 bonus to damage.

So even if just one attack hits from a raging Beserker we are probably looking at...

Fortitude Save DC 29 or -1 penalty to hit
Reflex Save DC 29 or be knocked prone 
Will Save DC 29 or be dazed
Fortitude Save DC 29 or be stunned
Fortitude Save DC 15 or die
Fortitude Save DC 29 or die

Anything with low AC is toast.  That reflex save or avoid being knocked prone is just broken in my opinion, because it does not take into account the size of the creature or the number of legs.  Big creatures don't necessarily have good Reflex saves because thier dex is low.  Beserker with Expanded mastery 3 taking a -5 penalty on the attack can force a Reflex save on an colossol Sauropod.  It's like Captaaaaiiiin Caaaaaveemaannn or something.


----------



## Andor

Celebrim said:
			
		

> So, from the way I'm looking at it, a Beserker with all 10 of the power attack feats can force every target he hits in that round to make up to 5 saving throws plus the almost certainty of a save vs. massive damage?




Not quite. Unless I misread it badly he gets to force one save per hit. You can't use multiple save generating feats on a single attack. (Although you CAN use them in the same round.)


----------



## Celebrim

Andor said:
			
		

> Not quite. Unless I misread it badly he gets to force one save per hit. You can't use multiple save generating feats on a single attack. (Although you CAN use them in the same round.)




All the abilities tend to say something like this...

"A specific target need make only one _Fortitude_ saving throw per round to ignore _this effect_, even if you hit him more than once."

"A specific target need make only one _Reflex_ saving throw per round to ignore _this effect_, even if you hit him more than once."

"A specific target need make only one _Will_ saving throw per round to ignore _this effect_, even if you hit him more than once."

The way I read it, each saving throw protects from each expanded mastery level's separate effect, its just that you never need to save more than once each each effect no matter how many times you hit in that round.


----------



## Andor

Here's what I was looking at: 



			
				Sneak Peak said:
			
		

> Note: When using the Power Attack expanded mastery abilities, you can only gain the benefits of one ability derived from taking a high Power Attack penalty at a time. You cannot use the expanded mastery 2, 3, 5, 6, or 9 abilities at the same time. You can use only one of them on a given strike.




So only one per hit.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Andor is correct.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't quadrapeds get a generic bonus to resist falling prone?

I don't know that that's true of creatures of tremendous size, but it makes sense in principal given the bonuses to grapple and trip attacks.  Though I don't have a lot of faith in the staying up power of large bipeds.  T-Rex _might_ be the exception but I gotta give balance props to anything with a tail.


----------



## Savage Wombat

I think people are jumping the gun saying the Finesse fighter's +4d6 sneak attack is "usable all the time".  I agree it's not clear, but the flavor text says "opponent that's not ready for you."  So I think he's implying that it's only usable in the usual sneak attack conditions.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Savage Wombat said:
			
		

> I think people are jumping the gun saying the Finesse fighter's +4d6 sneak attack is "usable all the time".  I agree it's not clear, but the flavor text says "opponent that's not ready for you."  So I think he's implying that it's only usable in the usual sneak attack conditions.




The level ten mastery feat specifies once per round, so it's certainly true that even at the highest level it's not going to be all the time unless you make it all the time through clever tactics and maneuvering.

There's some debate over on Monte's boards over whether or not PA is overpowered, but I think the tactical nature of WF makes it so satisfying as to avoid controversy all together.


----------



## Stone Dog

Savage Wombat said:
			
		

> I think people are jumping the gun saying the Finesse fighter's +4d6 sneak attack is "usable all the time".  I agree it's not clear, but the flavor text says "opponent that's not ready for you."  So I think he's implying that it's only usable in the usual sneak attack conditions.



 I agree.  Calling them "Sneak Attack damage" Pretty much implies clearly that they work like Sneak Attack does.  Call it a leap of logic.  Most likely in the final book the full sneak attack rules will be laid out just like everywhere else and this feat will merely refer back to them.  If sneak attack works at all differently in Iron Heroes than it does for rogues then I am sure that Mike is smart enough to make sure those differences are clear.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

My call on sneak attack damage is that it will work anytime you loose active defense.

Given how every thing else works out making certain your flanks and positional tactics in general are going to become a much bigger part of everyone's game.

As someone else pointed out, a horde of mooks is a lot more intimidating when you realize how much that loss of active defense from flanking is going to hurt.


----------



## Felon

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Probably true. After all, the archer gets Finesse Mastery 8. And my immediate reaction was the same as I imagine yours was. In other words: "WTF?!!? An extra 4d6 of damage that is uable ALL the time and stacks with sneak attack?!?" But then I realized. This is a 17th level character with no flaming weapon, no frost weapon, no shocking burst weapon. Hell, he probably doesn't even have a KEEN short sword!! So he's not really doing much more damage than a D&D 3e rogue with a holy (+2d6) shock (+1d6) flaming (+1d6) rapier. He just doesn't NEED the sword to do it!




Also note that we have received no indication that Executioners and Thieves will receive 1d6 of sneak attack damage every other level as rogues do. I think folks have come to realize that's a bit grossly excessive, magic weapons or no.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Felon said:
			
		

> Also note that we have received no indication that Executioners and Thieves will receive 1d6 of sneak attack damage every other level as rogues do. I think folks have come to realize that's a bit grossly excessive, magic weapons or no.




Oh, I don't know.  10d6 damage from a single attack isn't that horrific at higher levels.  If anything it's sort of weak, a wizard's dishing that out at 10th level and while he may have a limited number of dishes per day his attack also isn't situationally dependent.

A character who has a 15d6 sneak attack option at 20th level seems fairly reasonable by that standard.

I'm not saying there aren't any number of ways you could still argue that its ridiculous, even the rarified opinion of the most objective critic must still admit many paths to many ends, but a system that uses as much of the DnD system as IH does is going to rely on people in the party having attacks that are close to that powerful or better at the higher levels.

Doesn't in any way mean that you are wrong though, we have almost no idea how those two classes will be set up at all.


----------



## JohnSnow

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> My call on sneak attack damage is that it will work anytime you loose active defense.
> 
> Given how every thing else works out making certain your flanks and positional tactics in general are going to become a much bigger part of everyone's game.
> 
> As someone else pointed out, a horde of mooks is a lot more intimidating when you realize how much that loss of active defense from flanking is going to hurt.




As the "someone else" who pointed this out, I had another thought. Do we have any reason to believe that Iron Heroes will have anything resembling Uncanny Dodge? We sure haven't seen it yet. And with all the emphasis on tactical positioning...I just don't know if it makes any sense.

Anyone have any idea whether Mike's using the standard 50 hit point Massive Damage Threshold rule, or whether he's using one of the many variants (like the ones in _Unearthed Arcana_ for example)? It's not like it'd be that difficult to institute a default "MDT = Con +2 hp/level" or something. And that really does make that low level mook VERY dangerous.

On the other hand, maybe it will just have a passage on "rules variants for adjusting the level of grittiness in your _Iron Heroes_ game."

Just a thought.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

I had no intention of slighting you there JohnSnow, I was just breezing through the post and didn't know how many pages back the information was hiding.

From the description in PA my guess is that Massive Damage exists 'as is' in IH, but even from the feats themselves we can see that there are means by which individual characters can modify those checks even in the default game.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if variant massive damage rules recieve a good bit of discussion in Mastering Iron Lore.


----------



## JohnSnow

No slight taken Dr. Strangemonkey. I was just stating it for the new readers in the interests of "full disclosure," so to speak.

I also wouldn't be a bit surprised if variant massive damage systems got some discussion in _Mastering Iron Heroes_. As a matter of fact, I was thinking about this a fair bit and realized that if you combine a reasonable massive damage system with class defense bonuses, and armor as DR rules, you've essentially accomplished the wound/vitality point thing in a much less complicated way. Which is of course what the _d20 Modern_ rules do.

See, in theory, if Defense escalated at the same rate as BAB, you wouldn't really need hit points to go up. Except of course, that battling "monsters" would get awfully tough. That means you need hit points.

Personally, I can see plenty of people adopting the skill system, challenge, stunt, feat mastery, defense bonus, and variable DR rules whether or not they actually choose to play an _Iron Heroes_ game.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Anyone have any idea whether Mike's using the standard 50 hit point Massive Damage Threshold rule, or whether he's using one of the many variants (like the ones in _Unearthed Arcana_ for example)? It's not like it'd be that difficult to institute a default "MDT = Con +2 hp/level" or something. And that really does make that low level mook VERY dangerous.




I see no evidence that Iron Heroes will want to lower the MDT or have any kind of "mooks are dangerous" design philosophy. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary; it's been repeated several times that the design goal was to make IH scale up parallel with D&D.



> On the other hand, maybe it will just have a passage on "rules variants for adjusting the level of grittiness in your _Iron Heroes_ game."




Much more likely-- 'core' IH isn't gritty; it's just low magic. I think we've been over this...


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I see no evidence that Iron Heroes will want to lower the MDT or have any kind of "mooks are dangerous" design philosophy. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary; it's been repeated several times that the design goal was to make IH scale up parallel with D&D.




Well, but core design philosophy for IH is that it will simplify some basic DnD rules.  So that we've been explicitly told that AoO are going to be activated much more simply, and I suspect that division of defense into active and passive categories is going to get rid of flat-footed and touch attack ACs.  

Doing either of those should grant some more advantage to mooks who can use the new rules well.  I don't think IH is going to do anything like give mooks a straight up bonus for numbers, but I do think that the increased value in flanking is going to give mooks an incidental leg up.

My suspicion is that while straight CRs are going to come into IH with very little adjustment, situational CRs and complicated CRs are going to get worked over with a lot more finesse.  Thus the new formulas in the IH bestiary.

I agree with you, though, that MDS is probably not going to have a default lower threshold or its mechanics reworked as with BCCS, but I do think that even from the few details we've seen the MDS is going to have a larger role in the default IH campaign then we see in regular DnD.  Though, admittedly, all you have to do is state that MDS will no longer be optional to accomplish that goal.

My thinking, even or particularly after the prior long conversation, is that gritty elements will continue to show up in IH even if only as a result of other design philosophies rather than as a goal of the system itself.  IH: Incidentally Grittier doesn't sound like so awful a tertiary tagline.

Of course I'm perfectly cognizant of the fact that crow may be eaten all the way around, but that I may be picking up some of the very choicest helpings.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

The summer quarterly for White Wolf is up and features a very extensive treatment of IH.  I'm still trying to sift through it all.

Choices, man, choices.  

The stuff on skills fascinates me to no end.  Looks like the Bard dynamic of concrete results for ramping skill checks is going to be generally available to everyone.  Are skill ranks the new magic items?

Also I suddenly realized how much less killer the new AoO rules are if you aren't reliant on healing potions.  Also how much more killer actual combat may be.

Regardless of how compatible this may be with DnD I am certainly gaining the impression that it will be a very different experience.

Looks like a pretty full write up of the Harrier is in there, our very first non-token using IH class, and a skill monkey to boot which I would not necessarilly have predicted but am nonetheless grateful for.  Hard to say whether or not it's more of one than the hunter though as it lacks the hunter's obscene number of skill groups.

The lack of tokens appears to be made up for by an increased emphasis on mobility and skill use.  So the class certainly doesn't reward a character who insists on doing nothing, and appears to be keeping a lot of that tactical flexibility.

From what we're seeing you certainly could do a cavalier with a harrier, though I'm still feeling challenged to try it when I do theoretical world building the harrier is going anywhere there are horesmen.  Though perhaps with the tumble checks replaced by ride checks where appropriate....  Hmm, yeah, I'm begining to see how there's certainly still room for a cavalier in a world with a harrier albeit with similar mechanics.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

How the Harrier gets fewer hitpoints than the archer is beyond me.  They'd better have some frekkin amazing defenses or it's gonna be the glass ninja all over again only with a lot more glass.


----------



## Particle_Man

Maybe they can do something like a spring attack containing a full attack within it?


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

From the White Wolf Quarterly:



> Running Assault: You can combine
> movement and an attack into
> a single action. As a full-round action,
> you can move your normal
> allotment. At any point during this
> movement, you can use a standard
> action to attack. You can move both
> before and after this attack. You gain
> the benefits of abilities such as mobile
> assault based on the squares
> you moved before your attack.
> You cannot attempt a running
> assault if you wear anything
> heavier than light armor or if you
> carry enough equipment to reduce
> your speed.




They also gain a bonus to attacks where they used tumble to avoid an attack of opportunity.


----------



## A'koss

Details Strangemonkey, detaaaaails!!!


----------



## Particle_Man

Ok, so the harrier is not the "multiple attacks guy" he is the "hit and run guy/scout "skirmish" guy/spring attack guy".  So the reason his hp are low is that he is not meant to end up near the "stand here while I bash you repeatedly" meelee guys.


----------



## A'koss

You can now find this information on Monte's site in the S&S Insider PDF.

http://www.montecook.com/images/SSI_Q305.pdf


More on this later...


----------



## Andor

Huh.. some interesting stuff here.

The executioner gets his tokens by observing from hiding, like an assasin. 

Any standard or full round action that is not an attack generates an AOO.

Every class gets d4 plus kicker hit points.


----------



## DrSpunj

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> How the Harrier gets fewer hitpoints than the archer is beyond me.  They'd better have some frekkin amazing defenses or it's gonna be the glass ninja all over again only with a lot more glass.




First off, a big *thank you* to Dr. Strangemonkey for the heads up about White Wolf's Summer Catalog PDF and the Iron Heroes info inside it. I've never checked that thing and would never have thought to look for any additional information.

Second, I'd agree the Harrier will need "some frekkin amazing defenses", but I'm betting he has them. I'd bet he has the best Active Defense score of all the classes, and just might have an ability or two to help him hold on to Active Defense when others lose it. That's pure speculation, mind you, and may not be anything as good as Uncanny Dodge from Core, but I can imagine a class ability that makes it very difficult to catch a _moving_ Harrier without his Active Defense.

Also Running Assault refers to "gain[ing] the benefits of abilities such as mobile assault based on the squares you moved before your attack". I could see such benefits as being put towards both better attack bonuses and damage (though that seems to step on the toes of Whirling Attack quite a bit) or being able to better his defenses. It's obviously tied to how much you move before you attack, so maybe you could get a +1 to AC against that foe for every 5' or 10' you moved before your attack? I envision that as a running back with the football approaching a blocker in front of the end zone. The more room he has to maneuver, twist & turn before he reaches the blocker, the harder it is for the blocker to catch him.

One thing about the whole three page write-up in general: I'm kind of surprised by how a few things pop out as being Core abilities with a twist. By that I mean, well, here's a couple examples: the Harrier's Running Assault ability is pretty much Spring Attack; and apparently anyone with enough ranks can use Perform like a Core Bard to inspire his allies (though I'm not clear on whether the Performer gets the bonus or not, it says "granting them" so I'd guess not).

That doesn't really bother me in anyway, though it makes me wonder how many things from Core have been similarly treated, and by extension, how much truly new stuff is in there. I'm also curious to see if Dodge, Mobility & Spring Attack are still feats available to all characters, or if because of the Harrier's class abilities whether they're now off the list (cuz if the Harrier doesn't get Mobility as a class feature, he damn well better pick it if it's available, seems like a no-brainer from the little I've got to work with). Executioner is another class that seems like it would do well with something like Running Assault and/or Spring Attack.

Anyway, just some random thoughts.

Thanks,
DrSpunj


----------



## A'koss

Even though we already kinda knew this, the preview really hit home the idea that characters will have myriad combat options available to them. There seems to be an absolutely huge amount of flexibility with this system. Choosing your own skill/stunt check penalty to gain better results, stringing multiple stunts together, using the combat zones to best effect. A lot of different ways to mix and match stunts, skills, maneuvers and class abilities.

Ooog.


----------



## Andor

I like the 'bump up your DC to get better effects' mechanic. It's hardly a new concept (L5R is built around it) but I don't think I've seen it in D20 before.


----------



## PeRfEcT^InZaNiTy

Just tried to post this on the Iron Heroes forum (Seems something gone wrong but I don't want to repost it to fast because I don't want to double post by accident).



> Title: *Black Company Masterwork Rules+Iron Heroes=Good?*
> 
> The masterwork rules of the Black Company RPG (I'll explain them in brief at the bottom of the post) would fit perfectly, because the most powerful item you can build with them is equal to about +2.5 weapons (more powerful then than +2 but weaker than +3).
> 
> Also, because of the skill demanded to make one of those, it would be a quest in itself to track down a guy that could make it and then another quest proving you are worth his time.
> 
> Also you can build ineffective builds. A king's sword could grant +1 to hit and +1 to damage and +6 six to diplomacy for being so finely decorated (the plus to diplomacy might seem powerful until you realize that _all_ the king's items has it and they don't stack).
> And yes, this would make the king look like a xmas tree.
> 
> Well sure, if the players themselves got to decide exactly how the old weapon's smith in the mountains would make their swords, then it could be too mighty. But if the smith is famous for making light and easy to handle swords, that is what they will get. Accurate (x2), Balanced (x3) and Light. This weapons gives +2 to hit, +3 to initiative and 10% less weight.
> 
> 
> 
> Now to explain the rules. The game has 6 levels of masterwork:
> 1. Fine (Anything given above average effort)
> 2. Excellent (Something an average craftsman has put much work into, most often done on commission)
> 3. Exceptional (The pinnacle of an average craftsman's career, something he has spent several years to complete)
> 4. Superior (This is a level only very good craftsmen can even accomplish, and then it takes a lot of work)
> 5. Masterwork (This is what master artisans can make with a lot of work)
> 6. Masterpiece (Legendary artisans can do this kind of thing, or a master artisan if he took several decades)
> 
> Each lvl lets you buy one point of Masterwork Benefits. This can be anything from extra damage, to looking so good it impresses people, to just being better at what it does (for non-martial items). Also, if it is of a high enough lvl, you can choose a benefit twice or even three times.




What do you think of the idea?


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Well, given the expanded rules for skills it may be a little early to tell how that would interact with IH.

Also I'm very excited about IH's magical items in their own right, but I'm thinking this may be something of a complementary set.


----------



## Particle_Man

Well, I would be a tiny bit worried about "power creep".  I know that mixing IH characters with standard D&D magic items would be too much.  I worry that mixing IH characters with MW items that are like magic items except that they don't detect as magical might also be too much.  But for all I know IH might have rules for MW items itself, so I will wait and see.


----------



## Andor

Actually Mike has already said there isn't an expanded MW weapons section, since that would detract from the core message of the book, which is "It's not the sword, it's the arm that weilds it."

That having been said, what you do at your own table is up to you.


----------



## Nifelhein

Not to say that both systems are made to supply an absence of magic items, using both might end up making it all too powerful, mroe than you would ordinarily see as a GM, but whatever floats your boat!


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Andor said:
			
		

> Actually Mike has already said there isn't an expanded MW weapons section, since that would detract from the core message of the book, which is "It's not the sword, it's the arm that weilds it."
> 
> That having been said, what you do at your own table is up to you.




I had remembered that he had said there wouldn't be a system like the BCCS masterwork system, but I think the idea that there might be some sort of craft stunt you can pull isn't a bad fit for IH.


----------



## JohnSnow

The info from the most recent Insider helps out a lot. Going back over some of what we learned earlier (but didn't understand), and combining it with some of what we've learned more recently is pretty instructive.

Mike made an offhand comment (in his rambling about the WAR picture) about the berzerker maybe having ranks in perform that he used to taunt his enemies into engaging him in melee. Combine that with this quote:



> Iron Heroes adds challenges to the mix to make skills more flexible. In exchange for a penalty to your skill check or an increase in the check’s Difficulty Class, you gain more benefits from success. For example, you can use the Perform skill to inspire your allies in battle, granting them a bonus to attacks. If you accept a penalty to your Perform check in a skill challenge,the total bonus you grant as a result increases. As you gain more ranks in Perform, you can accept higher penalties to grant even greater bonuses.




It would seem one of the "challenges" available to characters with the perform skill is using it to taunt characters into combat. Overall, I have to say that I don't object at all to giving characters things to do with skills. And I think you'll get more "bard-types" in _Iron Heroes_ than there are in standard D&D. It's just rather than being straight bards, they'll be a Hunter (or multiclass hunter) with ranks in Perform...kinda like, oh, Aragorn.

By the by, I think Mike let slip that there WILL be multiclassing in _Iron Heroes_ when he said that picture looked like "a single-classed berzerker..." It seems to me that if it weren't possible to multiclass, he wouldn't have felt the need to clarify.

Still digesting the rest of this, but I don't think this thread should slip past page 3, so I wanted to post something.

Back later with more...


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

The skill challenge system interests me a great deal, particularly in combination with the harrier teasers.

It'll be interesting to see how much of a refinement this is from the rather sparse stunt system that ran with Iron Might.  

Well not so much sparse as, hmmm.

In Iron Might there was a pretty neat maneuver system where you could take combat penalties in exchange for gaining certain specific effects, much of which seems to have been redone through the Power Attack feat chain.  There was a also a fairly brief section detailing additional maneuvers for skills along the lines of feint for Bluff.

From the clues that have been dropped so far the skill system in IH seems to be a massive expansion of that last chapter, at the least, and very likely a pretty extensive restructuring considering the vaunted flexibility of the challenge system.  I mean a flexible bard like set of abilities built off of performance is already a huge leap up from the system detailed in that book.  I'm not really certain, yet, how it compares to the mechanics of the bard itself but the amount of effort Mike put into trying to figure out the skills for the character he built on the picture and how much he thought those skills worked into the strategy lead me to think...  Well, they lead me to think too much.

Skills have always struck me as the least appreciated part of D20 and I see a lot of brilliance in what is being hinted at for IH in terms of what I've seen in the history of d20 thus far.  I just hope it's portable.


----------



## A'koss

Iron Lore Design Diary #5 is up, this time discussing Tokens.

http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?designdiary_mmearls_15

Some points of note:

_" In essence, a token is an abstract measure of the time, effort, and energy invested in your preparation for an attack. After you build up tokens, you can spend them to activate your special abilities."_

With the exception of the Hunter, I gather this means that all token-based abilities require that you spend some time building them up. We're also beginning to see the real value in the Hunter's ability to lend tokens to other characters.

I'm now very interested in how the Weapon Master accumulates tokens.

_"This approach had a lot of appeal to me, because it emphasized action and removed any constraints on using your abilities that could force the PCs to camp or rest after a tough fight. The number of tokens you burn through in a given fight has absolutely no effect on the number you can earn and use in the next encounter."_

This is the philosophy (balance against the encounter, instead of per day) of IL that really sold it for me. 

_"Next week, we'll preview some *feats* and character classes that use tokens to show you how they work in practice."_

So... now we know for certain that some feats use tokens too. Not sure yet how I feel about trying to keep track of multiple token pools, but will wait until we see some examples.

A'koss.


----------



## mearls

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> How the Harrier gets fewer hitpoints than the archer is beyond me.  They'd better have some frekkin amazing defenses or it's gonna be the glass ninja all over again only with a lot more glass.




The harrier's HD was upped to 1d4+4 after playtest. If that change isn't in the final book (it should be - IIRC the preview is from a loooong while back) it'll be errata'd 0.43 seconds after the book comes out.


----------



## A'koss

mearls said:
			
		

> The harrier's HD was upped to 1d4+4 after playtest. If that change isn't in the final book (it should be - IIRC the preview is from a loooong while back) it'll be errata'd 0.43 seconds after the book comes out.



Cool. Is there a list of errata already being compiled?

Also, have you seen the final book yet? Monte said it had already gone to the printers...


Cheers!


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

mearls said:
			
		

> The harrier's HD was upped to 1d4+4 after playtest. If that change isn't in the final book (it should be - IIRC the preview is from a loooong while back) it'll be errata'd 0.43 seconds after the book comes out.




Oh, that's very good to hear.  As a side note, I'd very much like to tender my complements on the harrier as I saw it in the preview.  I had my share of worries about a non-token using class filling that slot, but the more I think on what I've seen the more admiration I gain not only for the decision not to use tokens but for the manner in which that decision was implemented.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

A'koss said:
			
		

> Also, have you seen the final book yet? Monte said it had already gone to the printers...




The printer version isn't always the final version.  Printers can make horrible, awful, perfectly grincy mistakes.


----------



## A'koss

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> The printer version isn't always the final version. Printers can make horrible, awful, perfectly grincy mistakes.



What usually happens is that a printer will pull press proofs first for the client (Malhavok) to approve. However, as it is mostly a B&W book (which will be a lot easier on the press), they'll probably just pull proofs of the few 4c pages that are in there and maybe one of the B&W ones. It is possible that they may pull a PP of the entire book though. After the colour is approved and the client has signed off on it, away it goes. As far as mistakes go, file prep screw-ups are far, far more likely than printer ones.

A'koss.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

True, but I've seen too many game books horrificly hurt by printer errors and screw ups to not be cautious.  RPGs probably aren't the simplest projects or the most stable sorts of publishing houses to work with, so I imagine the problem shoots both ways.

Anyone have any opinions on the Designer Diary that just went up?

I'm wondering if, given the existence of token fueled feats, there aren't ways to gain tokens outside of class abilities.  There are some ways in which I sort of feel sorry for the poor Harrier not getting tokens, though I certainly understand the reasoning for not doing so.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

DriveThruRPG is saying it'll be 14 bucks and up on Monday July 25.

http://www.drivethrurpg.com/catalog/coming_product_info.php?products_id=2371


----------



## A'koss

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> DriveThruRPG is saying it'll be 14 bucks and up on Monday July 25.
> 
> http://www.drivethrurpg.com/catalog/coming_product_info.php?products_id=2371



Interesting... so it looks like you'll be able to get the electronic version a little bit early after all. For myself though, there's no way I can justify spending nearly $20 CDN (after taxes) on a PDF. Especially if the harbound will be out a couple of weeks after that.



> True, but I've seen too many game books horrificly hurt by printer errors and screw ups to not be cautious.



That is true, but... sometimes those so-called printer problems are actually file problems you can track back to the author or just being cheap in general. Files can contain pages in the wrong order, missing pages, poorly colour corrected images, cheap paper, bargain-basement binding...

Cheers!


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

A'koss said:
			
		

> That is true, but... sometimes those so-called printer problems are actually file problems you can track back to the author or just being cheap in general. Files can contain pages in the wrong order, missing pages, poorly colour corrected images, cheap paper, bargain-basement binding...
> 
> Cheers!




No doubt, no doubt.  Many a masters thesis has come undone for such reasons among many others.  The road to publishing is frought with peril.

I probably will get the pdf.

For me, I purchase them under two circumstances:

-the book is short, but interesting, and unlikely to show up at my local game store.

-the book is the major component of a game I expect to spend a lot of time on.  If that is the case then I view the .pdf as a means to save the book wear and tear and as a means to get to know the work better.  I'm one of those people who really learns things by both writing and typing them, viewing the content in two different mediums tends to cement it in my mind.

Naturally the above condition implies that such a substantial investment will pay off over a long period of time.  Also, the .pdf tends to make things easier to explain to players as there are pieces I can print out such as feat and spell lists.

I think IH will fit into the second category.  Also the timing of the .pdf release is particularly good for me, I will need something like a really great rule book to read on that particular date.

Plus by DTRPG standards IH is cheap.  AE was a bigger book, but it cost a great deal more and there are far smaller books that have cost only slightly less.  IH looks like it will be a good deal.


----------



## DrSpunj

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> Plus by DTRPG standards IH is cheap.  AE was a bigger book, but it cost a great deal more and there are far smaller books that have cost only slightly less.  IH looks like it will be a good deal.




Right, but I'm not sure why. If you take a look at the Malhavoc products at DTRPG they are all pretty much currently listed at 50% off, including Arcana Evolved (currently listed at $24).

I have to admit I've never purchased from DTRPG because of the protection scheme they started with. I'm on a Mac at home where I do most all of my gaming & prep work so I couldn't use them even if I wanted to.

So all of that leads me to a couple questions:
1) Are Malhavoc's PDF products always 50% off at DTRPG? Or is this a sale? Cuz the only sale I'm aware of was Malhavoc's Birthday sale a month ago and that was only 30% off.
2) I can't tell if DTRPG is only selling the protected copy of Iron Heroes or whether the standard PDF is also for sale. Anyone know one way or the other?

Thanks,
DrSpunj


----------



## Nifelhein

As far as I know most publishers are selling watermarked pdfs on Drivethrough, Malhavoc usually goes with watermarked pdfs, so i doubt they will change the policy for this one, they ahev supported pdfs from the beggining and are always interested in the products benefits while taking the security in consideration.

As for the prices, DrT has the following on their FAQ:



> *Does DriveThruRPG set the prices on these eBooks? *
> No, all publishers choose their own pricing structure. We recommend 30% off normal cover price for new books and 50% off cover price on anything over 6 months old. As you can see most of our books fall into the 50% off category. Different publishers have different reasons for listing their titles on DriveThruRPG.com and therefore different reasons for setting their prices to different levels.


----------



## DrSpunj

Thanks, *Nifelhein*! I'll have to do some reading on the Watermarked PDFs I guess. Is that the protection scheme that limits installations (which isn't a big deal right now) and the amount of copying & pasting (which may be, because I do quite a bit of prep work for each session basically typing up my own stat blocks, rules text relevant to the encounter, etc.). Or is that the DRM protection scheme and Watermarking is different?

I'm assuming that's what may require a version of Adobe Reader higher than what I currently have (though I'm not sure if they have an appropriate Macintosh version I could download now or not).

Also, good to know that 50% off doesn't seem to be a preorder price or special right now. That's cool! 

Thanks,
DrSpunj


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

I've never seen Malhavoc sell anything for over 50% but this is substantially lower than that.

All watermarking means is that you have your name and information on the bottom of your .pdf copies so that you can't go spreading them around the internet with impunity.  I don't think there are any other limitations beyond the normal .pdf stuff and a limited number of downloads from the original site.


----------



## JohnSnow

DrSpunj,

If you have installed Mac OS 10.2.4 or higher (Jaguar is 10.2, Panther is 10.3, Tiger is 10.4), there is a full version of Adobe Acrobat Reader that handles ebooks perfectly fine.

I have Adobe Reader 7.0 on my computer which is running 10.3. It handles ebooks just fine. Just FYI. Hope that helps.


----------



## DrSpunj

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> All watermarking means is that you have your name and information on the bottom of your .pdf copies so that you can't go spreading them around the internet with impunity.  I don't think there are any other limitations beyond the normal .pdf stuff and a limited number of downloads from the original site.




Sweet!    

Very good to know, thanks.



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> If you have installed Mac OS 10.2.4 or higher (Jaguar is 10.2, Panther is 10.3, Tiger is 10.4), there is a full version of Adobe Acrobat Reader that handles ebooks perfectly fine.
> 
> I have Adobe Reader 7.0 on my computer which is running 10.3. It handles ebooks just fine. Just FYI. Hope that helps.




It does indeed! I'm running 10.3.9 so I'll go get Adobe Reader 7 now. Honestly Preview has been managing all my PDF needs just fine so I haven't kept up with the Reader versions at all. I _think_ I'm still using version 5 or so.

Thanks to everyone for the help!

DrSpunj


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

I'm very much looking forward to this week's preview, I hope it drops before I head out for my game.

On more relavent news I've discovered at least one white wolf player who's looking forward to this.  I would not have thought this game would have much cross-over potential, but now I find myself wondering...


----------



## JohnSnow

I suspect this game will appeal to people for several different reasons:

1. People fed up with the "Christmas Tree Effect" of default D&D. This is clearly the target market for _Iron Heroes_ and the people Mike is shooting for.
2. Those who really want rules for Sword & Sorcery with an emphasis on the _sword_ aspect. I suspect most of the game's early adherents are in this camp.
3. Anyone interested in a new and very different magic system.
4. People who want to make use of some of the new mechanics in their games, like zones, challenges, stunts, traits, feat mastery, skill groups, tokens or whatever. 
5. People interested in reducing the amount of time it takes to stat up characters. Similarly, any simplications to the combat system that make it possible to support less "board-gamey" fights. I suspect this will attract many of the "rules light" folks who prefer storytelling to wargaming.

My guess is that your White Wolf player falls either into category 3 or category 5. Similarly, many of the folks who ditched D&D for _Castles & Crusades_ probably fall into the latter category as well. I know that my old DM may snag the IH magic system for his C&C game, as he hates the D&D magic system.

Of course, he hates feats, so I doubt he'll totally take to IH.


----------



## Driddle

Just realized they could have rewritten the "Take 10" and "Take 20" skill rules using the token mechanic.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

My guy is probably closer to number 4.  He really loves fighting games and the old Street Fighter game for White Wolf.  This will fit nicely with him.

The previews today are simply fantastic.

We got a good critique of an early build of the game from some playtesters here:

http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mpress_IL_playtest3

And a new feat chain that comes with it's own token pool, very nice token pool for either Harriers or Weapon Masters, with a potentially fantastic mechanic for archers as well:

http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mpress_IL_excerpt5

The level 9 mastery feat seems to imply that anything you can spend tokens on is called a special effect, which is an intriguing bit of new vocabulary.

Seeing two huge feat chains for the same mastery type is pretty interesting.  I guess I'd sort of been assuming that there would pretty much be one big one and then a host of smaller ones so that most characters would concentrate on one chain and depart from it just now and again.  This new one makes me think that while that's a valid style there are probably a number of other viable builds where you just cherry pick from the tall trees as you mosey on up in level.

In other news, the Man-At-Arms is looking better and better as we get more of the feats.

I like that the parry pool isn't tied to a class, and that you can sort of 'build' the level of functionality you want the pool to have based on what feats you take.  The chance for interesting synnergies is pretty neat considering that it's just based on the single factor of people missing you.  I wonder how much access an arcanist will have to this?


----------



## JohnSnow

Too...much to digest. Brain...hurts... 

Okay...wow. 

Still mostly looks like Defense is Passive and Active, with the little glitch of a mention of a "dodge bonus" under the default situation for Combat Expertise. My personal guess is that's a carryover bit of language from an earlier edition/D&D. Unless Dodge bonuses are different from active ones somehow? But then shouldn't a Dex bonus be a dodge bonus? I'm so confused...

Parry Tokens look very cool. Let's see...Aim Tokens, Tactical Tokens, Fury Tokens, Parry Tokens...I'm sensing a pattern.

So what other token types might there be? Any guesses? Dodge tokens maybe?

Still digesting all of this. VERRRY interesting.


----------



## bolen

So I wonder if this will model conan or super duper martial arts movies?  (two very different gendre.)


----------



## A'koss

bolen said:
			
		

> So I wonder if this will model conan or super duper martial arts movies? (two very different gendre.)



So far it seems to be shaping up to be like a cinematic sword & sorcery summer flick directed by John Woo and starring Jackie Chan, Bruce Willis, Sigourney Weaver and the Rock.  

Cheers!

A'koss.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

bolen said:
			
		

> So I wonder if this will model conan or super duper martial arts movies?  (two very different gendre.)




Wuxia, no.  Heroic Immortals, no.  And kung fu, no.  Though it might be able to if you put through a good unarmed combat system.

Conan, yes.

But there are three Conan genres depending on which set of blood red glasses you're looking through.

Heroic Fantasy Conan, yes.  Sword and Sorcerory Conan, yes.  A pure grim n gritty Conan, however, seems to suffer at the hands of the other two Conans so for that you might be happier elsewhere.

But I think that it will represent a marked improvement over the OGL Conan system wise, though I would absolutely recommend the Pocket Conan OGL for the setting information.  So if that's your idea of the right track than IH is running a good race.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I can't give any details, but we've been playtesting this - and it's a blast. Despite being a "low magic" kind of guy, I'm full of good things to say about the game. It's not low magic like Grim Tales is (grim and gritty), it's low magic like the Conan books are (heroic asskicking where the person is far more important than the gear.)




And here's the Pope o Cat town himself speaking on it.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

From the new DD on skills that was put up today:



> Iron Heroes addressed this issue in two ways. The minor issue was collapsing all the Knowledge skills into one skill. As you buy ranks in Knowledge, you gain new areas of study all at the same total Knowledge check bonus. That alone dropped the skill count by 10 or so




Sweet merciful methusalah!  Can I get an Amen?!?!

Admittedly a minor point out of what I'd argue is maybe the best composed and argued of his DDs, but still it's a minor point that makes me extraordinarilly happy.

Like the pie fight in Blazing Saddles.  The movie is already excellent without it, and we've all seen pie fights before, but to see such a well done pie fight in such an already excellent movie when the overall emphasis really is, 'sure we've made you laugh but you're also gonna get a pie fight so go ahead and laugh some more,' is a true joy.

Linkage:

http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?designdiary_mmearls_16


----------



## JEL

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> Sweet merciful methusalah!  Can I get an Amen?!?!




No.  Definitely one change I don't like.  A few, broad areas of knowledge as separate skills makes a lot more sense to me.


----------



## A'koss

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> Sweet merciful methusalah! Can I get an Amen?!?!



I'm kinda torn on this too. On the one hand, it's simple, it makes taking ranks in Knowledge attractive to players and undoubtedly Iron Heroes will use Knowledge skills in all kinds of fun ways. But the other hand, anyone with 10 ranks in Knowledge now has broad knowledge on *every* topic! You won't have any "specialists" in knowledge fields anymore with this new rule and I'm not so sure I like that.

A'koss.


----------



## BryonD

JEL said:
			
		

> No.  Definitely one change I don't like.  A few, broad areas of knowledge as separate skills makes a lot more sense to me.




I agree with you.  But its also a VERY simple thing to fix.

The skill challenge thing sounds like it may be a very good system, however.
And it also sounds like the first element that may be directly portable to standard D&D.

So all in all this seems a net plus.  At least to the degree that the partial hints can be


----------



## A'koss

BryonD said:
			
		

> I agree with you. But its also a VERY simple thing to fix.



I was just toying with a house rule to this on Monte's site... 

I would change it so that characters continue to get a new knowledge skill with every point spent, but every new field starts out with just *one* rank, not the current total. So a character with 10 ranks in knowledge will have 10 ranks in 1 field, 9 in the second field, 8 in the third... all the way down to 1 in the 10th.



> The skill challenge thing sounds like it may be a very good system, however.
> And it also sounds like the first element that may be directly portable to standard D&D.
> 
> So all in all this seems a net plus. At least to the degree that the partial hints can be



I quite liked this DD, it was well presented and his solutions all sound very enticing. We've got skill challenges, skill groups, expanded skill uses, stunts that use skills and just... more skills for everyone in IH. I also get the impression that his magic system won't pollute the skill system the same way D&D does. Me likey.

Cheers!

A'koss.


----------



## coyote6

The skill system sounds intriguing; I'll give it a try.

But I still want some way for characters to get more skill points. It may be that I've just played too much GURPS, but characters just don't get enough skill points. An otherwise fit wizard or cleric that spends all that time tramping around dungeons, wandering the wilderness, and spelunking, ought to be able to pick up a little bit of athletic ability, without crippling their capability at their specialties.

Hopefully, skill groups will work.


----------



## Andor

Well he didn't say it was one Knowledge field per rank. One per two or even three would enable braniac loremasters, without letting everybody know every dc 20 fact in the universe by 7th level. 

And as someone who like 3.0 perform better than 3.5 I'm kinda cool with that.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

JEL said:
			
		

> No.  Definitely one change I don't like.  A few, broad areas of knowledge as separate skills makes a lot more sense to me.




Why?  What's the difference between one broad knowledge skill and three?

The one skill system lets you customize your character's knowledge base so that there's real difference between the one scholar and the other and does a good job representing a guy who puts a lot of value on his academic education without crippling his other capabilities.

A broad based three skill system would seem to penalize the character who really wants to have a liberal education while eliminating any real difference between scholars.

Though looked at another way:

Craft, Knowledge, Perform, and Profession with specialities do make a good amount of sense in terms of character representation and all of those are basicly some form of a broad based knowledge skill.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

coyote6 said:
			
		

> The skill system sounds intriguing; I'll give it a try.
> 
> But I still want some way for characters to get more skill points. It may be that I've just played too much GURPS, but characters just don't get enough skill points. An otherwise fit wizard or cleric that spends all that time tramping around dungeons, wandering the wilderness, and spelunking, ought to be able to pick up a little bit of athletic ability, without crippling their capability at their specialties.
> 
> Hopefully, skill groups will work.




Classes seem to be getting more skill points, attributes are probably going to be slightly higher (if more well rounded), and knowledge effeciency will help too.  

I'm not yet a huge fan of having hide and MS as seperate skills, but I'm thinking that the idiosyncracies of this system and the way it strikes me as really flavoring character creation may convince me.

I'm a little concerned about teaching it, but I have high hopes and certainly look forward to using it.


----------



## JEL

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> Why?  What's the difference between one broad knowledge skill and three?
> 
> The one skill system lets you customize your character's knowledge base so that there's real difference between the one scholar and the other and does a good job representing a guy who puts a lot of value on his academic education without crippling his other capabilities.
> 
> A broad based three skill system would seem to penalize the character who really wants to have a liberal education while eliminating any real difference between scholars.
> 
> Though looked at another way:
> 
> Craft, Knowledge, Perform, and Profession with specialities do make a good amount of sense in terms of character representation and all of those are basicly some form of a broad based knowledge skill.




Because it makes it impossible to make a character who knows a lot about one specific thing.  Honestly, I think the current knowledge areas are just about right, and as the gentleman above pointed out, it'll be easily house ruled.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

JEL said:
			
		

> Because it makes it impossible to make a character who knows a lot about one specific thing.  Honestly, I think the current knowledge areas are just about right, and as the gentleman above pointed out, it'll be easily house ruled.




So you want a character who knows a lot about one specific thing and nothing about anything related to that and you aren't willing to simply not choose the additional specialities?

I find the current knowledge areas to be conceptually ok, but unless you're using something like AE Akashic and very low DCs I think it's just too expensive to be anything other than the guy who knows a lot about one thing and is otherwise entirely ignorant.

More importantly, I'm still not understanding how that relates to three knowledge areas over one with a lot of granulation.

Sigh, altogether a minor point, I suppose I should just get used to the fact that if you're a nerd posting to the internet about nerd things an Amen is the very last thing you're ever gonna get.


----------



## JEL

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> So you want a character who knows a lot about one specific thing and nothing about anything related to that and you aren't willing to simply not choose the additional specialities?
> 
> I find the current knowledge areas to be conceptually ok, but unless you're using something like AE Akashic and very low DCs I think it's just too expensive to be anything other than the guy who knows a lot about one thing and is otherwise entirely ignorant.
> 
> More importantly, I'm still not understanding how that relates to three knowledge areas over one with a lot of granulation.
> 
> Sigh, altogether a minor point, I suppose I should just get used to the fact that if you're a nerd posting to the internet about nerd things an Amen is the very last thing you're ever gonna get.




I don't like it for the same reason I didn't like how Perform used to be handled.  It just doesn't make sense and it completely waters down character concepts (unless your concept was some sort of super genius who knows everything).  And I have no clue where you're pulling "three knowledge areas" out of.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

JEL said:
			
		

> I don't like it for the same reason I didn't like how Perform used to be handled.  It just doesn't make sense and it completely waters down character concepts (unless your concept was some sort of super genius who knows everything).




Well, then perhaps you aren't giving it a chance because of perform.  There are big differences between performance and knowledge in terms of education.  A performer picks up new skills laterally.  That is, if I'm an actor as I act it's also probably going to be pretty easy for me to pick up skill in fashion, cosmetics, and various aspects of stage design or direction, not to mention dancing, acrobatics, stage combat, singing, and so forth.  Certainly that's true if I'm a talented one.  But most of these things I'm going to pick up because it's convenient or helpful.  

Education, on the other hand, begets education.  A historian is going to be close to as expert in politics, philosophy, and popular culture and is only going to get more so.  Probably going to pick up a fair amount of science, environmentalism, religion, economics, and military science as well.  As he gets better at history he's going to pick up more from other fields and because he's so good at the one knowledge he's never going to be a neophyte in the others and the time it takes him to catch up is going to be very truncated.  

Now I'm not saying that someone who publishes in history is necessarilly going to publish in physics, though it does happen more frequently than you might think history of science is pretty interesting field and there are certainly physicists who do historical work as well, but I'd argue that publication fits under profession: historian or physicist.  The actual knowledge and the ability to access it, understand it, or explain it is always going to be broader than the field of scholars who can work in it.

It seems to me that a one knowledge skill model with a high level of granularity simulates that very well.  You've got this one skill and that represents your education.  You determine what you've been educated in and what you're going to pick up.  It seems to me that this works better than DnD because it doesn't make getting an education a cost prohibitive or structurally limited exercise.  It seems to me that it also works better in terms of character concept because you get to determine what your specialties are.

A smaller list of broad specialities is an intriguing notion, but I'm not yet certain I understand how it competes.  Particularly since in the one skill system I don't think you have to pick up more specialties if you don't want to and at least this way the guy who wants more granularity isn't crippled otherwise.

Could you explain more about the watering down of character concept? 



> And I have no clue where you're pulling "three knowledge areas" out of.




The 'a few broad based areas' from your original post.  Three seemed like a decent number to assign to it, but if you have a more specific one in mind then please go with that.  I was simply assuming far fewer than the current DnD system.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

JEL said:
			
		

> I don't like it for the same reason I didn't like how Perform used to be handled.  It just doesn't make sense and it completely waters down character concepts (unless your concept was some sort of super genius who knows everything).



Prior to the modern university system, that's how scholars worked.  They knew a bit of everything.  a) they were supposed to; b) the only way to find out what you wanted was to go looking for it.  They didn't have textbooks and other roadmaps.

If I can get on my soapbox for a moment... It was a purer education.  Specialization has increased the rate of advancement at the expense of wisdom.

At any rate, D&D's knowledge skills are better at modeling specialists, something that didn't really exist in the time frame D&D is supposed to be using as a model.  Never liked it much, myself, conceptually.  Roll that up with the skill point problem, and I'm sold on IH's skill system already.


----------



## Celebrim

So if the classes get more skill points, and 1 skill point can be used to buy ranks in all of your most relevant skills, and all the classes are combat monkeys...

Isn't Intelligence going to be even more of a dump stat than ever?


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Celebrim said:
			
		

> So if the classes get more skill points, and 1 skill point can be used to buy ranks in all of your most relevant skills, and all the classes are combat monkeys...
> 
> Isn't Intelligence going to be even more of a dump stat than ever?




You're missing two things in this equation.

First of all skills are far more valuable than they have been in the past.  Mearl's last designer diary made it very clear that the two innovations of easilly available skills and more powerful skills are highly dependant on each other.  They're also more resource intensive since there is no magic to replace or supplement them and DCs are almost universally variable and scaling rather than fixed.

Second, there's an _Incredibles_ style issue going on here, if everyone is a combat monkey than noone is.  

Now the analogy isn't perfect, but when you look at the classes and builds revealed thus far  there hasn't been anyone who wasn't at least as much of a skill monkey as a combat monkey.  The Berzerker build has six maxed out skills, a similar archer build is going to pick up close to nine or ten, and even the Harrier has at least 8 skill points before you factor in intelligence and skill groups.  

Skill groups and optional skills were one of the first considerations Mike described when meeting the picture challenge earlier in this thread.  The skills a character posesses and can bring to a party are obviously a pretty important dynamic in tactics and team building.

Now none of that may provide the incentive that the desperate pressure to increase spell save DC does for wizards, but when you look at the promised lack of skill replacing spells even should an archer not decide to invest any points into intelligence he's still not going to use at as a dump stat since even a minor penalty on skill points is going to make it harder for him to enjoy the skill groups that are one of the chief benefits of his class at the lower levels.

It's also very possible that IH simply isn't going to have a dump stat dynamic.  Attributes are point build and apparently generously so, but, AFAIK, we've yet to see a starting character with two eighteens or a twenty which seems to indicate that the rules explicitly encourage 'liberally educated' characters over DnD's specialists.  We just don't know enough about how attributes are handled to say.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Isn't Intelligence going to be even more of a dump stat than ever?



Intelligence is a dump stat in your game?

Maybe it's the science geeks I've managed to play 3e with (everybody wants to be smart _and_ a skill-monkey), but everybody has high intelligence.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Canis said:
			
		

> Intelligence is a dump stat in your game?
> 
> Maybe it's the science geeks I've managed to play 3e with (everybody wants to be smart _and_ a skill-monkey), but everybody has high intelligence.




I am somewhat familiar with that "problem". I always try to give my characters (and NPC) a high Intelligence, though sometimes a high Wisdom or Charisma would probably make a better (rounded) character (or NPC).


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I am somewhat familiar with that "problem". I always try to give my characters (and NPC) a high Intelligence, though sometimes a high Wisdom or Charisma would probably make a better (rounded) character (or NPC).



I had one character that went completely the other way, a sorceror that was dumb as a box of rocks, but I didn't find him interesting to RP for very long, and the mechanics problem of my skill points became an issue for me.  For one thing, despite my high charisma, I couldn't capitalize on Bluff, Diplomacy, etc.  That was maddening.  And attempting to RP flirting with a contact to get information went badly (if amusingly for the rest of the group) when I realized I had no idea how people without the brains for wit interact with women.   

In retrospect, it was sort of a fun experience, but I started to hate that character by the end.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

I have to say that I rarely interpret intelligence so broadly.  I mostly consider it a memory thing.

So my stupid but charismatic types are intelligent, there's just big wholes in their intelligence.  Brilliant at cleaning up well, fantastic at responding to people, perfectly expressive, and with a fine force of will they nonetheless constantly forget names, have a tragically short attention span, and remain, for lack of a better word, dense despite their charm.

Given the high stats in IH I'm thinking I may, at least in my own head, come up with a hard attribute and a soft attribute for each ability score and then let each character I play have one determined by the score and the other determined by some set of inferior stats or just my idea of the character.

Though I wouldn't deny that there's a strong challenge to playing a superior being like Conan as well.


----------



## A'koss

Latest Iron Heroes updates...

Art Preview: http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mpress_IL_art

Skill Groups: http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mpress_IL_excerpt6


The art is okay, essentially what we've come to expect from a Malhavoc book. Curiously, they seemed to have used just one artist for the whole book. And as far as the skill groups go, it's interesting to see that the Man-at-Arms actually gets to _choose_ any 3 skill groups to have access in. It might be that the MaA is a more flexible class than we had first thought. The Thief gets access to a whole pile of SGs but strangely not the Perception group. Hmmm... 

Cheers!

A'koss.


----------



## Andor

I find the Arcanists skill groups very interesting. He should be a very valuable party member even without spells.


----------



## A'koss

Andor said:
			
		

> I find the Arcanists skill groups very interesting. He should be a very valuable party member even without spells.



We've heard a few tidbits already suggesting that the arcanist will have use outside of spellcasting... 

"Even without his spells, his keen mind and extensive lore allow him to outthink his foes."

"That’s not to say that arcanists are useless characters. They draw on other talents to even the gap with other classes. They master a variety of useful lore and knowledge, and having a reputation for consulting with spirits or unleashing the fires of hell can prove useful in social situations. Much of the time, an arcanist can use the threat of a spell more effectively than an actual incantation."

Cheers!


----------



## Kage Tenjin

Anyone else thinking that the first time we see the Arcanist is going to be on the inside of the book?  It seems like that's the one class we really know the least about.  The rest of the class we have had some clues or inferences, but we really don't know what the Arcanist is going to be like.

Can't wait to have this book in my hands.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

I'm wondering if the lack of a perception group might indicate that search is less necessary as a predicate to trap disarming, but it's hard to say as it was certainly mentioned in conjunction with disarm in the last skill preview.  I'd expect that my houserule would simply be that the Robbery group includes search.

Or it may just be that a thief just has to accept that he's got some limitations on skills.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> I have to say that I rarely interpret intelligence so broadly.  I mostly consider it a memory thing.



Even so, that accounts for most of rational thought.  A classically intelligent person has high wisdom for perception and intuition (which is sometimes a proxy for association), and high intelligence (which is needed to bring to bear all the variables to associate).

D&D's separation makes more sense than some divisions I've seen, but it's still artificial.


----------



## TwinBahamut

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> I'm wondering if the lack of a perception group might indicate that search is less necessary as a predicate to trap disarming, but it's hard to say as it was certainly mentioned in conjunction with disarm in the last skill preview. I'd expect that my houserule would simply be that the Robbery group includes search.
> 
> Or it may just be that a thief just has to accept that he's got some limitations on skills.



Remember, thieves and everyone else for that matter can buy search ranks just as easily as a rogue can in D&D. What is more, Mr. Mearls has already stated that anyone, not just thieves can find and disarm traps, because he wanted to avoid the D&D condition of "requiring" specific classes.

So I wouldn't describe this as a "limitation" on skills exactly...

Overall, I think I am pretty pleased with this system.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Canis said:
			
		

> Even so, that accounts for most of rational thought.  A classically intelligent person has high wisdom for perception and intuition (which is sometimes a proxy for association), and high intelligence (which is needed to bring to bear all the variables to associate).
> 
> D&D's separation makes more sense than some divisions I've seen, but it's still artificial.




Well, but by that same token why assume that someone with a low 'intelligence' and high charisma has no ability make witty conversation?

I agree that the classical idea of intelligence isn't represented by the actual rating in DnD intelligence so much as by the sum of all three ratings, but I might disagree with you that the actual high intelligence score represents the variable that brings them all together, I'd argue it's simply one variable among three.


----------



## Talath

I haven't posted in a while (here or anywhere else on these boards), but after seeing the rules for Skill Groups, I had to say something.

Genius. Freaking genius.

I wish this could be the way they did it in 3rd Edition. Diverse, yet rewarding for specializing in your area of expertise. I love it, and will be implementing it in all of my future games. Mike Mearls, you are a freaking genius.

After seeing everything so far, I'm just going to pre-order this book asap, and I never pre-order books (the last time I did was when the 3rd edition core books came out in 2000).


----------



## Capellan

A'koss said:
			
		

> it's interesting to see that the Man-at-Arms actually gets to _choose_ any 3 skill groups to have access in. It might be that the MaA is a more flexible class than we had first thought.




It's the most flexible class in the game.

As far as the knowledge skills go -- the wording in the last version I saw was slightly different to what was suggested by Mike's post on the matter.  It was still easier than D&D to get multiple knowledge types, but it wasn't a free bonus from getting more ranks.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Capellan said:
			
		

> As far as the knowledge skills go -- the wording in the last version I saw was slightly different to what was suggested by Mike's post on the matter.  It was still easier than D&D to get multiple knowledge types, but it wasn't a free bonus from getting more ranks.




There've been issues with that before.  I think a lot of the preview stuff was written well in advance of its post date and sometimes well in advance of the completion of the book.  It's annoying but it testifies to the level at which they are dedicated to refining these concepts.


----------



## bolen

does this have a release date


----------



## Nifelhein

Iron heroes is said to be 1st of August for print book and 25th of July for the pdf, or so the webpages of monte cook, white wolf and drivethru rpg say. As for mastering iron heroes, monte's page says pdf next month, print in october...


----------



## A'koss

Capellan said:
			
		

> It's the most flexible class in the game.



I kinda got that impression early on, but I assumed the MaA was little more than the generic fighter you used when you didn't want to have to deal with Tokens. I think I've read somewhere that he has some kind of special abilities with a shield. But more and more I get the sense that you can build the MaA to fill many different roles - stealth, tactics, front-line work, etc. but just not to the extent of the other specialist classes.



			
				bolen said:
			
		

> does this have a release date



They have conflicting release dates on their website but it will be either on July 28th or August 1st. The ebook _might_ be release earlier - July 25th if you're looking for that.

Cheers!


----------



## wizofice

A'koss said:
			
		

> They have conflicting release dates on their website but it will be either on July 28th or August 1st. The ebook _might_ be release earlier - July 25th if you're looking for that.
> 
> Cheers!



I have it on pretty good authority that it is August 1st for both the PDF and Print versions.  Expect to see the July dates changed soon.

~Saucy Liege


----------



## A'koss

wizofice said:
			
		

> I have it on pretty good authority that it is August 1st for both the PDF and Print versions. Expect to see the July dates changed soon.



Thanks for the heads-up Wisofice. Do you know if the follow-up releases are still geared to release the ebook versions _a couple of months_ before seeing print?


----------



## wizofice

A'koss said:
			
		

> Thanks for the heads-up Wisofice. Do you know if the follow-up releases are still geared to release the ebook versions _a couple of months_ before seeing print?



Not yet, but I'll look into it.

EDIT:

Mastering Iron Heroes hits in PDF in early August (October print release). November 2005 for the Bestiary PDF (January print release).


----------



## Staffan

A'koss said:
			
		

> Thanks for the heads-up Wisofice. Do you know if the follow-up releases are still geared to release the ebook versions _a couple of months_ before seeing print?



That's SOP for Malhavoc. They write/edit/layout/whatever the stuff, create PDF, send stuff to printer, sell PDF while the printer is doing its stuff, and when the stuff is printed they start selling the printed books as well. The main exceptions have been early stuff (before Monte had any plans of going to print with his stuff - I think that's pretty much just the original Book of Eldritch Might), Arcana Unearthed (where Monte released incomplete excerpts books at first, and didn't release the full thing as a PDF until about a year later - I think it was around the time of the DRM debacle), Arcana Evolved (simultaneous release), and now Iron Heroes (simultaneous).


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

wizofice said:
			
		

> I have it on pretty good authority that it is August 1st for both the PDF and Print versions.  Expect to see the July dates changed soon.
> 
> ~Saucy Liege




There are now two July Dates on the product page, the 25th and the 28th, and one August date.

The second July date is in red letters and at the top, in case that reduces the confusion, and it claims to be for both the print and e-book release.

The July 25th date is beneath the picture and for the .pdf release date.

The August 1st date is beneath the picture and for the print release date.

I'm really only interested in .pdf at this point, but that doesn't make me any less confused, but still hopeful that something's out next week when I will desperately need the distraction.

From previously looking at the page, the August 1st date is oldest, the July 25th second newest, and the July 28th date most recent.


----------



## wizofice

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> There are now two July Dates on the product page, the 25th and the 28th, and one August date.
> 
> The second July date is in red letters and at the top, in case that reduces the confusion, and it claims to be for both the print and e-book release.
> 
> The July 25th date is beneath the picture and for the .pdf release date.
> 
> The August 1st date is beneath the picture and for the print release date.
> 
> I'm really only interested in .pdf at this point, but that doesn't make me any less confused, but still hopeful that something's out next week when I will desperately need the distraction.
> 
> From previously looking at the page, the August 1st date is oldest, the July 25th second newest, and the July 28th date most recent.



And the FAQ just says August.  Sue Cook emailed us (the Lieges of the Iron-League) and told us that "the new official date is August 1."  Whether or not any vendor can or will offer either product version earlier is not known to me, but I doubt it.  And, as I said above, expect the old dates in old pages to change soon.


----------



## Talath

wizofice said:
			
		

> And the FAQ just says August.  Sue Cook emailed us (the Lieges of the Iron-League) and told us that "the new official date is August 1."  Whether or not any vendor can or will offer either product version earlier is not known to me, but I doubt it.  And, as I said above, expect the old dates in old pages to change soon.




An extra week? Argh, truly the gods are cruel creatures!


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

As I recall for AU some of the vendors did offer stuff ahead of the official release date, so check around.


----------



## GentleGiant

Just to follow up on the art preview...
If you visit Kev Crossley's homepage - http://www.kevcrossley.com/ - you can find more pictures in his "Published" section.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

New previews are out.

There's a flash trailer, a Playtester Spotlight, an announcement about an introductory adventure (though it looks like it won't actually be out in time to be that introductory), and Designer Diary on combat stunts.

I don't know what to think of the combat stunts yet.  My initial reaction is 'meh' except for where they relate to skills, but then again it does strike me that it might be the most nuanced stunt system I've yet seen.

Feng Shui basicly expands your effects but at a penalty and Exalted gives you some bonuses for actually pulling it off and for longer term combat, but both of those don't actually try to differentiate between stunts.  The effects are distinct based on what you're trying to do but the stunt system uses the same penalties and advantages regardless of what you're doing.  In FS the penalty is always to the action itself just as the bonus is in Exalted.  IH appears to be promising something that offers appropriate drawbacks to appropriate advantages as well as a more gameable system.  That is in Exalted you can't really say (as far as I can remember) that you'd like to trade off.  You describe the stunt, you get the rating, and that's it.  It's pure slot-machine style gambling.  In that light IH's 'you get a +1 if you pull it off if you want more you've got to pull off more.  Also if you fail you take penalty' makes it a far more interesting style of gambling.

The Book of Iron Might's stunt system struck me as very 'not there just yet' which is probably why I'm leery of this, but I take hope in the idea that between the BoIM and IH we hit that point and went beyond it.


----------



## tetsujin28

Now that it's out, I can say this: it rocks on toast. $14 is very reasonable for the pdf, and the ideas were implemented splendidly. There's also some of the best player and GM advice I've ever seen.

This is the D&D I've always waited for.


----------



## ThoughtfulOwl

tetsujin28 said:
			
		

> This is the D&D I've always waited for.




(waves hand) «This isn't the D&D you've always waited for...»
(But I have a feeling that it won't work   )

I've got the pdf too; IH rocks!


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

I picked up the book to complement the .pdf.

I think the thing that really testifies to this product is how amazingly excited my players are.  These are guys who have a hard time with enthusiasm for rules.  Sometimes they mention AD&D just out of only mildly suppressed habit or contempt for keeping up.  But all week long they've been reading it, calling me about setting suggesstions, and working out character plans.

In the first 30 minutes of our cold character creation session they were arguing about and working on creating effective multi-level builds.

Very cool.


----------



## tetsujin28

I think we might get a chance to try out a two-player game, tonight, which is one area where I think IH really excels. You can get that Fafhrd and the Mouser type game going at first level, instead of having to load the PCs up with magic items in order to survive.


----------

