D&D - Iron Heroes...between the poles

[Denaes]

What people seem to forget is CR is based on many factors, not just "raw power". If you remove magic items and don't come up with a good replacement, PCs are going to have a hard time avoiding getting hit, making saves and perhaps dealing damage, but they're going to hit things just fine.

It also interferes with intra-party game balance, giving a huge edge to spellcasters. Removing magic items is more complicated than just adjusting CRs.

First off, welcome to the boards

Secondly, Yes.

This is what Iron Heros attempts to do. Even the playing field so that each class is pretty much equal.

If you're not hobbled to the CR chart as law, you can remove magic items and just try to eyeball balance and whatnot.

But you're right, I couldn't conceive of having a 14th level party with a normal D&D spellcaster and non-spellcasters without magic items. Maybe if you adjusted the magic to tone it down or something...

 

[ThirdWizard]

You can solve many of the problem in low magic D&D campaigns by having a rule that caster classes can only be, at max, 1/2 ECL.

As for magic items in Iron Lore. I don't think it would be too much of a problem as long as you keep in mind how the system works. Keep them semi-ambiguous, and stay away from magic weapons and armor for the most part (or change the /magic on armor to /-, or make them have have to be "activated" ala Chaz from Sluggy Freelance). Also, add in some flavor so that there's a drawback to the item and you get an item that isn't too powerful, that fits the flavor of the game, and that the PCs can enjoy.

I think it would make an interesting topic to come up with magic items that would fit Iron Lore. Personally, if I ever get a chance to run it, it won't have a complete lack of magic items (even without the GM book that will have them). They'll just be less codified for the players and a bit more mysterious in how and what exactly they do.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

First off, welcome to the boards

Thanks, but I'm not new here.

You can solve many of the problem in low magic D&D campaigns by having a rule that caster classes can only be, at max, 1/2 ECL.

That doesn't come close to solving the AC and saving throw issue. There are things to save against that aren't spells. Poison and ghast paralysis come to mind.

 

[ThirdWizard]

That doesn't come close to solving the AC and saving throw issue. There are things to save against that aren't spells. Poison and ghast paralysis come to mind.

That's a CR issue, though... I was talking about inter-party balance. Of course, taking away the magic items makes CR practically useless, and you're never going to go up against powerful creatures. But, the game is still playable. You just stick to fighting humanoids with class levels. Is it fun? Not for me. But, it works.

 

[med stud]

A solution used by one of my players to the magic item problem:

(the character is a Shadowborn Executioner, her grandfather was a werewolf)

The character has Weapon Bond Scimitar.

The scimitar in question is named the Evening Star and it was forged by her father, a wizard, to be the perfect weapon for his daughter. The blade is on the short side for a scimitar and it is silent; when drawn it makes a faint hissing sound, like a snake. The handle is long enough for the PC to hold it in two hands if needed. Due to the magic that went into the creation of the sword, any light shining on the blade will reflect as if it was fire. The PC talks to her blade and the blade is thirsty for blood.

What stats do this clearly magical sword have? Well, medium sized, 1d6 damage, 18-20 critical. It's a finesse weapon (as scimitars are according to the errata).

The sword is cosmetically very cool (IMO at least) and it has a magic feel but it isn't magical. Honestly I can't see what a +2 bonus would have done to make it more interesting. If you are looking for the magic "feel" it's best to make it up. The bonuses aren't needed anymore as the classes are balanced against each others with only class abilities and mundane equipment in mind.

 

[Odhanan]

I didn't know people actually used CR's in practice.

I use CRs in practice. And I find them pretty darn well-built. I love these game mechanics. They save a lot of time and ensure both that PCs level-up every three game sessions, roughly (14 encounters), make the challenge easy to tailor in difficulty.
____

And if it's the error of expectation problem, well that doesn't give people a license to come in here and bitch that their well-labeled root beer doesn't taste enough like cola.

I agree.

Back on the thread "Malhavoc's Surprise: Iron Heroes?", I seem to remember that Mike wasn't using the term "low-magic" on purpose. I think there is even a post in which he was confirming that this was not so much low-magic as without mundane magic.

The power of IH characters is supposed to be roughly the same as PHB characters assuming the last have access to normal D&D magic items and the former don't. So when you compare PHB and IH classes, the later are given more efficient abilities and more feats.

IH in my opinion is not a placebo to DMs who do not know how, or do not want, to manage medium to high level characters. It has never been the case. However, feats, abilities and token pools are certainly easier to use than spells, slots and so on. Each player tracks his/her pool and notes what abilities are available to his/her character - in these conditions, there is no reason to slow down the game.

What people seem to forget is CR is based on many factors, not just "raw power". If you remove magic items and don't come up with a good replacement, PCs are going to have a hard time avoiding getting hit, making saves and perhaps dealing damage, but they're going to hit things just fine.

It also interferes with intra-party game balance, giving a huge edge to spellcasters. Removing magic items is more complicated than just adjusting CRs.

I concur on this.

Some DMs sometimes mess around with the system, don't give magic items to the PCs because "that's for powergamers", but never get on the other side of the screen to see the grim reality that PCs are at the mercy of the DM. This is the start for railroading and "TGCM" (Ta Gueule C'est Magique - Shut Up, It's Magical - quoting some French DMs I knew, meaning the DM justifies nothing happening and just allows this or that spell, effect, ability or item to be used or not summarily, "just because"). This is no longer a role-playing game of cooperation. This is a struggle for control and power.

This is not efficient DMing IMO. (at best, DMs willing to learn and evolve will; at worse they should write novels and quit trying to control everything their players, gamers in general and/or publishers are doing)

If some guys here have problems with high level characters, that's fine by me, but this has nothing to do with IH. Create a thread in the appropriate section of EN World and I'm sure many of us (including me) will be happy to help if they can.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

-A ghoul attacks and hits. DM rolls for damage and informs. DM moves on to next action. Player keeps one number in head that of damage. Player rolls armor. Player references die roll and subtracts from number in head. Damage is recorded.

-A ghoul attacks and hits. DM rolls for damage and informs. DM moves on to next action. Player keeps damage number in head. Player either finds average number on sheet or has to recall it in addition to remembering damage from DM. Player performs subtraction operation. Damage is recorded.

I dunno. I've run rather long-term Alternity games in the past. Alternity had a die-based damage-reduction armor system. It was, honestly, one of the things I found most time-consuming and annoying about Alternity combats. It was another rolled die that pretty much always had to be rolled. You could set it on average, but that system was a little more troublesome, as they had numbers like (1d6-2) and a different number for each different form of attack. You couldn't just "set" an average for it, really, as some of those funky adjusted numbers didn't average out well.

I've also run a long-term GT game, using a conversion mechanic. After the first session, everybody knew their number until it changed for some reason, then there was a little sheet-scanning, but it almost never became a problem.

It's a little thing. If I played IH, I'd probably do the DR like I do hit dice in regular D&D ... we just give a favorable average. It's not a HUGE thing ... it's just one of those dangly bits that get in my craw and make me go "argh".

But it's also a personality thing with me. I'm an odd duck. I like the options and complexity of feats and spells and special abilities ... but when stacking and non-stacking effects begin to seriously slow down combats I just get annoyed.

Same with a ghoul-style full attack. I'm the kind of guy that rolls it all together ... so I'd roll all the DR dice together too. But it's still there, that extra step of finding more dice, rolling dice, adding them up. Even if -I- didn't get slowed down by it ... oi ... just got done playing in a game with a guy who played a druid who would wildshape into big cats and run around doing charge-pounce-full attack-rack combos ... and roll each ... and every ... single ... die ... individually ... so it'd take him a full minute to do 12 points of damage ... and the guy next to him would roll all his attacks in a handful and plot them out and call them down and be done in six seconds.

I can't stand needlessly wasted table moments ... watching dice I might not need to roll, tracking a dozen conflicting conditions, whatever.

As I said. I don't have a hate-on for IH. I'm still keeping an eye out for it when I shop, and I intend to pick it up, if for nothing else than to yoink stuff for GT (and here you can laugh, as my players would mimic me saying "for Grim Tales" ... that seems to come out of my mouth whenever RPGs and products come up). I might even find myself stirred to unbeforeknownst heights of passion ... or at least intrigued enough to inflict my love of non-D&D d20 games on the next group of unfortunate suckers I get to play with me and run an IH game.

Though Strangelove's strange love has probably piqued my interest in the game a little more. So there's that.

--fje

 

[HellHound]

people are throwing up empty, intellectually devoid phrases like "low-powered game"

Once again, insulting your way through the thread. I'm glad to see that low-powered games is an intellectually devoid phrase... but it is still something I like - a game where the PCs can advance in power without getting incredibly powerful.

 

[monboesen]

What is incredible powerful ? Do you think it means the same for you as for me ?

That was the point of the (rude) post and thats why "low-powered" is a ambigous term. Not because it doesn't have meaning, but because it holds a different meaning to different people. Just like incredible powerful.

For me incredible powerful is about at level 11+ in standard D&D. Mundane threats or difficult terrain are no longer threats/hinderances at all, travel comes by the means of teleport, a fight where one side does not acces magic of the 5-6 level spells kind will be a definate slaughter and characters are more like the sum of their magical stuff than their actual abilities.

Iron heroes does away with most of the problems I have with level 11+, so I'm definately going to use that system for my next game. Will I take it to level 11+, I dont know, I will have to actually play it before determining if it stays on track for me at high (another of these ambigous terms) levels.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Did I go about this with less diplomacy than was perhaps called for? Absolutely. I'll cop to that.

Well, that's cool. People generally don't ever admit to being in the wrong on the internet.

Anyway, I agree with much of your rant's intent. From the get-go, I assumed that the Iron Heroes concept was about making the PCs as powerful as D&D characters of the same level, but without having to rely on magic items for much of that power. That's something that hadn't been done before, at least in the fantasy genre, and is why I became very interested in IH. If it had simply been another take on a setting or world in which magic was less prevalent, with no attempt to compensate for this lack in regards to character power, I'd've been uninterested.

Another assumption I've seen elsewhere about IH is that somehow some expected it to "streamline" regular D&D combat. That's the assumption that really baffles me: that a game that concentrates on one aspect of d20 - in this case, fighting characters - would make that aspect less detailed. In my view, that would be akin to expecting a d20-based game that was all about magic to feature fewer spells than the core.