Iron Heroes General Discussion: why do you like or dislike Iron Heroes?
Nightfall
Sage of the Scarred Lands
Really? Care to help me find it?
Also check out my new wiki!
http://scarred-lands-revised.wikispaces.com/
Also check out my new wiki!
http://scarred-lands-revised.wikispaces.com/silvereyes
First Post
I like IH for pretty much all the reasons that have already been named.
Just one little issue, that learning curve. IH has a lot of small and some large changes to the D20 engine, and so it can be difficult to get all of it into your head. But I think it runs smoother once it's there. 'Course I did kinda expect that though.
Just one little issue, that learning curve. IH has a lot of small and some large changes to the D20 engine, and so it can be difficult to get all of it into your head. But I think it runs smoother once it's there. 'Course I did kinda expect that though.
ruleslawyer
Registered User
I'll divide my post into three sections:
1) PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED ISSUES
a) Class Names: This to me seems like the easiest possible fix. To be honest, class names are actually pretty irrelevant, especially in IH, which actually bothers to state what I think the core books should have as well: Class doesn't define you; rather, it defines what you can do. In a way, it's almost good that the class names aren't necessarily great, because it leaves all the really appropriate terms for PC roles up to them: A "thief" is just as likely a bard, tinker, minstrel, rogue, vagabond, or landless noble, as a hunter is just as likely a warcaptain, ranger, Officer of the Watch, etc. My PCs never define themselves using their IH class names.
b) Base saves: I guess you could adopt an easy "fix" if you don't like the uniform saves: Just use the Poor/Average/Excellent BDB values listed in the IH book for base saves. However, certain character types are going to end up with differentiated saves due to their choice of ability modifier: An armiger, for example, is almost always going to have a much better Fort save than Reflex save, and vice versa for the Thief.
c) Skills and denying active defense bonus: Really, there is a single major issue here, which just needs a house rule fix or two (but these are much more moderate house rule fixes than some of the things I've had to do in D&D!). The trick is to allow the two skill uses that deny active defense bonus (Jump and Tumble) to only deny such bonus for the attack following the skill use, rather than the whole round. That way, it's only a single "gimme," which IMX is pretty balanced. The second optional fix is to split class defense bonus into half active and half passive, which IMHO will make it much less deadly to be in a situation in which you're denied your active defense bonus.
d) Magic. Oy vey. The funny thing is that the IH system actually playtested pretty well with our group (we ran a 1st and a 7th-level pregen PC short adventure to see how the system worked), but it's certainly slightly wonky and less exciting than might be desired. The nice thing is that it's also purely optional. You can easily throw the arcanist and IH magic system out the window and use pretty much anything else you feel like, as long as it doesn't have reliable AC, attack, hp, save, or skill buffs for other PCs.
2) POTENTIAL DOWNSIDES
a) Tactical nature of play. If you don't like your players to have umpteen options, IH is not the way for you. Actually, the complexity of the game compared to D&D is entirely optional; players don't HAVE to use the challenges and stunts, but they get a benefit from them if they do. In any case, I've found that a session or two is enough to get players comfortable with the IH ruleset.
b) Power level. IH is emphatically NOT for DMs who want a low-powered setting, and it's difficult to dial down the power level if you want to. I'd suggest Grim Tales if you're looking for a grittier option.
c) The Armiger and Weapon Master. Both of these classes need some work. However, I've found some excellent fixes that have worked pretty much perfectly:
-Harry Pratt (aka Soulmage)'s revised armiger
-The Weapon Master house rules posted by "Braro" on this thread
d) Potentially too many skill points. I like the IH skill groups a LOT, and I think it's actually a really good thing that every character in the party has a skill contribution to make; however, I'm wondering if they didn't go a bit overboard. Anyone with a vaguely decent Intelligence can have ranks in practically every skill except Craft, Profession, and Knowledge, making one wonder why to have skill points in the first place.
3) ASSETS. In addition to all the others mentioned above, I find that IH has the following benefits:
a) Modeling subtle-magic universes. While IH does offer the advantage of theoretically supporting a completely no-magic campaign, I find that it also works to mdel what I see as the default fantasy/mythic universe: One in which there's a very blurred line between exceptional skill, rare talent, raw force of personality, or god-given prowess and actual "magic." Is Saruman's irresistible voice just a charm effect or a product of his extraordinary eloquence? Do men flee from terror at Achilles's rage because Athena's enspelling them or simply because of Achilles's force of personality? Feats like Devious Manipulator and abilities like Primal Howl, as well as the default power level, allow you to keep that line blurry.
b) Feat masteries. Not only are these an elegant alternative to feat chains, but they can be used quite effectively to customize a character to fit a particular archetype. I'm already working on a Highborn feat chain (for the Thief, primarily, since it'll be Social) to offer some of the benefits of the Noble class from Conan, as well as a music mastery feat to confer some of the abilities of the Bard and Virtuoso that aren't captured under the Perform skill.
c) More feats! IMX, more feats mean more fun for the players. Players LOVE getting to choose more neat attributes!
d) The trait system. Lots of d20 material has these already, though, but I certainly wouldn't play without traits ever again.
e) More uses for skills. My biggest disappointment with 3e was that, while it introduced an excellent skill system allowing for substantial PC customization, several skills simply weren't hugely useful. IH's skill uses allow much more utility for skills prior to achieving those insane three-figure DCs from the Epic-Level Handbook.
f) Less hoop-jumping. Optimizing PCs in D&D usually requires a reasonably defined set of PrC, magic item, and buff strategies. IH effectively allows you to build an optimized character just using a class, feats, and skills, which has seemed more straightforward than D&D Character Optimization, at least to the players in my current game.
g) VILLAIN CLASSES! These have to be the. best. DM labor-saving tool. ever. Fast NPC builds that represent well-defined, challenging archetypes. Nice.
h) Zones. Yes, these add some complexity to the game, but on the other hand, they provide well-defined mechanics for those sorts of fun situations that DMs love to spring on their players. Narrow stone bridges over lava flows? Rockfalls? Warehouses full of tumbling barrels and made-for-acrobatics stacks of crates? Good stuff.
1) PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED ISSUES
a) Class Names: This to me seems like the easiest possible fix. To be honest, class names are actually pretty irrelevant, especially in IH, which actually bothers to state what I think the core books should have as well: Class doesn't define you; rather, it defines what you can do. In a way, it's almost good that the class names aren't necessarily great, because it leaves all the really appropriate terms for PC roles up to them: A "thief" is just as likely a bard, tinker, minstrel, rogue, vagabond, or landless noble, as a hunter is just as likely a warcaptain, ranger, Officer of the Watch, etc. My PCs never define themselves using their IH class names.
b) Base saves: I guess you could adopt an easy "fix" if you don't like the uniform saves: Just use the Poor/Average/Excellent BDB values listed in the IH book for base saves. However, certain character types are going to end up with differentiated saves due to their choice of ability modifier: An armiger, for example, is almost always going to have a much better Fort save than Reflex save, and vice versa for the Thief.
c) Skills and denying active defense bonus: Really, there is a single major issue here, which just needs a house rule fix or two (but these are much more moderate house rule fixes than some of the things I've had to do in D&D!). The trick is to allow the two skill uses that deny active defense bonus (Jump and Tumble) to only deny such bonus for the attack following the skill use, rather than the whole round. That way, it's only a single "gimme," which IMX is pretty balanced. The second optional fix is to split class defense bonus into half active and half passive, which IMHO will make it much less deadly to be in a situation in which you're denied your active defense bonus.
d) Magic. Oy vey. The funny thing is that the IH system actually playtested pretty well with our group (we ran a 1st and a 7th-level pregen PC short adventure to see how the system worked), but it's certainly slightly wonky and less exciting than might be desired. The nice thing is that it's also purely optional. You can easily throw the arcanist and IH magic system out the window and use pretty much anything else you feel like, as long as it doesn't have reliable AC, attack, hp, save, or skill buffs for other PCs.
2) POTENTIAL DOWNSIDES
a) Tactical nature of play. If you don't like your players to have umpteen options, IH is not the way for you. Actually, the complexity of the game compared to D&D is entirely optional; players don't HAVE to use the challenges and stunts, but they get a benefit from them if they do. In any case, I've found that a session or two is enough to get players comfortable with the IH ruleset.
b) Power level. IH is emphatically NOT for DMs who want a low-powered setting, and it's difficult to dial down the power level if you want to. I'd suggest Grim Tales if you're looking for a grittier option.
c) The Armiger and Weapon Master. Both of these classes need some work. However, I've found some excellent fixes that have worked pretty much perfectly:
-Harry Pratt (aka Soulmage)'s revised armiger
-The Weapon Master house rules posted by "Braro" on this thread
d) Potentially too many skill points. I like the IH skill groups a LOT, and I think it's actually a really good thing that every character in the party has a skill contribution to make; however, I'm wondering if they didn't go a bit overboard. Anyone with a vaguely decent Intelligence can have ranks in practically every skill except Craft, Profession, and Knowledge, making one wonder why to have skill points in the first place.
3) ASSETS. In addition to all the others mentioned above, I find that IH has the following benefits:
a) Modeling subtle-magic universes. While IH does offer the advantage of theoretically supporting a completely no-magic campaign, I find that it also works to mdel what I see as the default fantasy/mythic universe: One in which there's a very blurred line between exceptional skill, rare talent, raw force of personality, or god-given prowess and actual "magic." Is Saruman's irresistible voice just a charm effect or a product of his extraordinary eloquence? Do men flee from terror at Achilles's rage because Athena's enspelling them or simply because of Achilles's force of personality? Feats like Devious Manipulator and abilities like Primal Howl, as well as the default power level, allow you to keep that line blurry.
b) Feat masteries. Not only are these an elegant alternative to feat chains, but they can be used quite effectively to customize a character to fit a particular archetype. I'm already working on a Highborn feat chain (for the Thief, primarily, since it'll be Social) to offer some of the benefits of the Noble class from Conan, as well as a music mastery feat to confer some of the abilities of the Bard and Virtuoso that aren't captured under the Perform skill.
c) More feats! IMX, more feats mean more fun for the players. Players LOVE getting to choose more neat attributes!
d) The trait system. Lots of d20 material has these already, though, but I certainly wouldn't play without traits ever again.
e) More uses for skills. My biggest disappointment with 3e was that, while it introduced an excellent skill system allowing for substantial PC customization, several skills simply weren't hugely useful. IH's skill uses allow much more utility for skills prior to achieving those insane three-figure DCs from the Epic-Level Handbook.
f) Less hoop-jumping. Optimizing PCs in D&D usually requires a reasonably defined set of PrC, magic item, and buff strategies. IH effectively allows you to build an optimized character just using a class, feats, and skills, which has seemed more straightforward than D&D Character Optimization, at least to the players in my current game.
g) VILLAIN CLASSES! These have to be the. best. DM labor-saving tool. ever. Fast NPC builds that represent well-defined, challenging archetypes. Nice.
h) Zones. Yes, these add some complexity to the game, but on the other hand, they provide well-defined mechanics for those sorts of fun situations that DMs love to spring on their players. Narrow stone bridges over lava flows? Rockfalls? Warehouses full of tumbling barrels and made-for-acrobatics stacks of crates? Good stuff.
Last edited:
Odhanan
Adventurer
What I love about Iron Heroes? It's a variant to D&D: it lets me play D&D without the heavy reliance on magic items and spells. It lets me play characters who are more "human" because of it.
I love the way the rules serve the fun of the game. The tokens, the stunts and challenges, many rules enhance combat and action, and promote them in new, inventive ways on the part of DMs and players. It's a set of rules serving the game. It lets me do things I wouldn't have thought about without it (like token costs which are simple, elegant additions to the game enhancing not only the character concepts but the fact of playing a game in itself). IH opens more horizons than it closes them, IMO.
I would like to see more discussions of possible settings and ideas of adventures for IH. I would like to see more adventures and supplements. A bit less rules tinkering. So yes, nothing's perfect and we can always aim higher and/or in different ways, but I'm really satisfied with what Iron Heroes offers so far.
I love the way the rules serve the fun of the game. The tokens, the stunts and challenges, many rules enhance combat and action, and promote them in new, inventive ways on the part of DMs and players. It's a set of rules serving the game. It lets me do things I wouldn't have thought about without it (like token costs which are simple, elegant additions to the game enhancing not only the character concepts but the fact of playing a game in itself). IH opens more horizons than it closes them, IMO.
I would like to see more discussions of possible settings and ideas of adventures for IH. I would like to see more adventures and supplements. A bit less rules tinkering. So yes, nothing's perfect and we can always aim higher and/or in different ways, but I'm really satisfied with what Iron Heroes offers so far.
Last edited:
Mustrum_Ridcully
Hero
I admit wondering about this aspect, too. All of these uses can be defended against, they take time, and everybody can use (and benefit) from them. I hope we can play IH again someday (currently, we have 4 D&D Campaigns, 1 Warhammer and 1 Arcana Evolved campaign, and all of them are more somewhere in the middle and not at the end :/ )ruleslawyer said:
It is certainly possible to have ranks in all skills, but you can't have them at a level good enough to make them count except in very standard situations. Those that put max ranks in a skill still benefit more of it and can shine with their use. The advantage is - the rest doesn't annoy your with their constant incompetence.
It might also be neccessary, because there is no "standard party" (like in D&D with wizard, rogue, fighter and cleric) defined. That makes it neccessary to allow all characters to be able to cover for vital skills - without having to give up their core idea of the character.
Tolen Mar
First Post
Two interesting things happened to our group when we switched to IH:
1) we became much more interested in the acquisition of treasure. We need gold for our ale and whores dad blast it!
2) we roleplay more now than we did previously. With all the kewl new social skill stunts and what not, we often at least try to fast talk our way out of a fight. Our characters are a lot more developed as well, as they are so much less a collection of rules bits and actual characters.
1) we became much more interested in the acquisition of treasure. We need gold for our ale and whores dad blast it!
2) we roleplay more now than we did previously. With all the kewl new social skill stunts and what not, we often at least try to fast talk our way out of a fight. Our characters are a lot more developed as well, as they are so much less a collection of rules bits and actual characters.
jasin
Explorer
Can you clarify what you mean by sword & sorcery?arscott said:
At it's broadest interpretation, it could mean any action-oriented fantasy, but you probably don't mean that, since that's what D&D is all about, and it was obvious right from the start that that will be what IH is all about, right?
You might mean the relatively primitive, barbaric settings like Conan's world, were the men are men, and the women are chainmail-bikini-clad babes and such. This is definitely the feeling that IH evokes for me, but I think that the IH system itself is generic enough to support a much wider variety of genres (as long as they're action-oriented).
What's the type of game you're interested in?
