Iron Heroes General Discussion: why do you like or dislike Iron Heroes?

Hello everyone! Just thought I'd chime in and get a discussion started about Iron Heroes and what people really like or dislike about it. I personally do own the book, but haven't had the time recently to extensively go through it all. Seems very neat though, with some interesting and very different concepts. A few examples are Armour as DR, Base Defense Bonus and different BAB progressions.

So, have at it! I'd love to hear some feedback from fellow owners, players and DM's of this interesting alternative of D&D as we know it.

You asked me in another thread to go to this one and commment, so I will do my best.

I have DM'ed a new Iron heroes game for a couple of months now and the positives that spring to mind are.

1. No more magic item dependency. In fact no magic items at all so far. Should I ever introduce them they will be of the kind that are needed for some purpose but have terrible drawbacks.

2. Feat masteries. Series of feats with a common theme (like Dodge) that you can build up by taking more feats within the mastery that makes the basic bonus better or allow for new related abilities. (for instance Dodge mastery 1 works almost just like Dodge. But if you spend feats on Dodge mastery 3 and 4 you can now use dodge vs. two opponents and occasionally make them hit each other when they miss you).

3. Tokens. A wonderfull way to get around x/times per day abilities and still be limited.

4. Skill groups and that skills in general (and in combat) are much more usefull (and needed due to the no magic item baseline).

5. Combat challenges and Stunts. A system that allows for cinematic combat ala Pirates of the Carribian, Three musketeers and Hong kong kung fu madness.

6. Classes that have distinctly different feel and mechanics but dosn't shoehorn you into specific roles. You are no longer "Bob the Fighter" or "Dalmont the Rogue". Instead you are "Mylon, the merchant turned freedom fighter" or "Cheebon, the tribesman who left his people out of shame". When all classes essentially are fighters it makes my players concentrate more on WHO they are instead of WHAT they are.


There are also things that IMO does not work so well from Iron heroes.

1. The magic system needs a lot of work. The author has himself admitted that they simply did not have the time to finish it.

2. A couple of the classes could use a bit of tinkering and testing. The armiger and weapon master springs to mind in this category.

3. Armor is not really worth it past the first levels. Unless you spend a lot of feats on improving your ability with armor. Only two of the many fighting classes can even use heavy armor and most of the other classes would be severly hindered by wearing it.

4. Its to easy to deny PC classes most of their AC (which comes from a bonus that increases with level) with skill checks. This opens up for massive attacks with Power attack and/or sneak attack against AC 10.


Hmm. That covers my initial thoughts. All in all its the "limited magic, limited healing, but crazy combat action" that makes it work for my group.

I was psyched when I first heard about it. I've always hated the mundanity of 3e magic and equipment, and I was impressed by the mechanics I saw in the previews. But the Sword & Sorcery Genre has never interested me role-playing wise, so I passed on it.

monboesen summarized exactly how I feel about it.

It's great. I like it a lot.

Iron Heroes lets you play D&D in Lhankmar. That's it. Plain and simple.

As a DM, I also like the concepts introduced into the rules of Villain Classes, zones and skill challenges. These are all excellent additions to the game.

Tokens really threw me at first as I was a playtester for the game. (I never managed to get a group together to try it oddly enough. It was just annoying.) However, I've come to appreciate them a lot. They are an excellent replacement for X/day mechanics and they put a lot more control into the hands of the players. (Some class abilities that depend on tokens could use a bit of work, but that's a different story.) I also was impressed with several of the monsters in the new book. Those are usable in any D&D game.

I like the general theme, I like that there is a dedicated archer class, and that there are a couple of classes you could use to make a bard like character that doesn't suck.

I don't like that I will probably never get a group together to play it.

The only problem I had was that they were giving the classes abiliies that made no sense to me until I found their descriptions in later chapters. The feat mastery in particular made no sense in the class chapter. While a certain amount of flipping around is expected, I think it would have been better if the rules on feat mastery and skill groups had been clearly explained at the beginning of the Classes section rather than after it.

It solves two of the big problems I have with 3.x.

First, it dumps magic item dependency overboard. Yes! It even fixes problems like the huge spread of saving throw bonuses - there's no conspicuous weak save to pick anymore.

Second, it makes fighters interesting past 12th level and makes combat more interesting as well. It also makes skills more useful, and that's always a good thing.

Speaking as a DM and a player the only real dislike I have for the system is the amount of rules-lawyering that seems to be going on around it.

Part of that is to be expected, I also playtested it and as a result I was in on a lot of the discussion (at least for the monster book). I've had to distance myself from the bulletin boards over at Monte's site because its nothing abut swamped with rules questions and alternatives people think are better than what got written. (I for one am perfectly happy with the way the armiger works, but Im in the minority.)

Anyway, I have to echo a lot of what's already been said for my likes. The skill system is the best overhaul I've seen yet. It solves the issue of classes having too few skill points (sometimes too well), and coupled with stunts and challenges, you really can now try those ultra-cool moves you always wanted.

Which I guess is a shame, really. I mean nothing precluded you from doing it before, its just that now we have actual codified rules for it.

It's great fun. I'd say if you're the type of player who really enjoys the epic battles that occur in D&D, then you're going to love IH. It's up front about individual heroism, without sacrificing any other elements.

Some have said the mechanics are restrictive to fantasy gaming; I disagree. In IH your character can kick bulette in a dozen ways; and it's all focused on his ability.

Tolen Mar said:

Part of that is to be expected, I also playtested it and as a result I was in on a lot of the discussion (at least for the monster book). I've had to distance myself from the bulletin boards over at Monte's site because its nothing abut swamped with rules questions and alternatives people think are better than what got written. (I for one am perfectly happy with the way the armiger works, but Im in the minority.)

Click to expand...

Do you use Crowroaddaw's armiger errata? And who is he, anyway?