Iron Lore: Malhavoc's Surprise?

[A'koss]

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...

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]

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]

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]

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. :\

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]

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

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.