Hong's Iron Heroes page

[hong]

Also, for people who don't check the Malhavoc boards, I'm working on an alt.weapon master. Draft is here:

http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/ih/wmaster2.htm

If you have any comments before I link it from the main page, I'd be glad to hear them.

 

[hong]

Update, 9 Jun 2006: Added the weapon master. Minor update to the character worksheet to display BAB check. Also uploaded a version of the worksheet that uses all these hacks. Modified the Improved Feint 7 feat.

 

[hong]

Update, 13 Jun 2006: Tweaked the executioner significantly: gets bonus feats, first strike is made a 3rd level ability, and various other changes made. Harrier erratum: bonus feats can be either Defense or Finesse. Added hacks to the multiclassing rules.

 

[comrade raoul]

Think you might ever do the magic system?

(Though perhaps that would only be the sort of thing one has time for after one gets tenure...)

 

[hong]

For the moment, I'm pretending that arcanists don't exist.

I'll freely admit that I'm not as confident about being able to balance spellcasters as non-spellcasters. Heck, one of the reasons I like IH is because there's not much wacky magic cluttering up the place. Still, I may look at it at some point.

 

[Miles Pilitus]

Hong, I have to ask this, I like what I've read of Iron Heroes (never got a chance to play it), but does it really need all the love you've given it to be better balanced?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Hong, I have to ask this, I like what I've read of Iron Heroes (never got a chance to play it), but does it really need all the love you've given it to be better balanced?

I would say: No and Yes.

If you really really really strive for perfection, you will need to tweak it. But that's also true for D&D and probably any other game out there. If you look up all the house rules _and_ errata available for most games, it isn't surprising that hong can take so much effort with IH

But I think you can play the game out-of-the-box and have a lot of fun with it.

 

[iwatt]

I would say: No and Yes.

If you really really really strive for perfection, you will need to tweak it. But that's also true for D&D and probably any other game out there. If you look up all the house rules _and_ errata available for most games, it isn't surprising that hong can take so much effort with IH

But I think you can play the game out-of-the-box and have a lot of fun with it.

There are some small things that "need" changing.

The RAW arcanist most of all. The True Sorcery variant solves that issue IMO.

The Armiger had a significant errata. You could play with the one in the book, but the errata is better IMO. Hong's Armiger isn't as large a departure as the other classes he's hacked.

Hong's Weapon Master is the best variant I've seen. But the RAW WM is functional.

So basically, Iron Heroes is completely playabel out of the box. It's just too much fun to tweak.....

 

[ValhallaGH]

Hong, I have to ask this, I like what I've read of Iron Heroes (never got a chance to play it), but does it really need all the love you've given it to be better balanced?

It doesn't need it, but since when was giving a system lovin' a bad thing?

Hong's got a plethora of rules and choices that make the game more along the lines he's looking for: Executioners are glass cannons with a heck of a reload time, Armigers are constantly choosing between taking all blows on their armor and avoiding all them pesky touch attacks, Archers are doing lots of fun stuff.

Does anyone else use his changes? Sure.
Does anyone need his changes, or any others, to have a ton of fun playing an Iron Heroes game? No.

 

[hong]

Hong, I have to ask this, I like what I've read of Iron Heroes (never got a chance to play it), but does it really need all the love you've given it to be better balanced?

As the others have said, it doesn't _need_ it all. IH is playable out of the box; you can have a good time with it and not worry about these things for the most part. Since it's built on a familiar d20 base, it already comes with a decently balanced foundation, and someone as experienced as Mearls certainly isn't going to completely screw it up.

That said, most games are playable out of the box. D&D 3E was playable out of the box, but that didn't stop 3.5E coming out. There are thousands of RIFTS fans who will tell you that RIFTS is also playable out of the box.

I see it as a quality-of-implementation thing; there are bits of IH that I figure could be better, in terms of showcasing what's new and different about it compared to D&D. For example, take the archer. Aim tokens are a really cool idea, and lend themselves to lots of nifty new mechanics. However, the implementation means that aiming is often not the best option, tactically speaking: you're better off just standing and shooting with Rapid Shot, just like you would in D&D. So the new stuff ends up being sidelined, despite its potential.

Most of the hacks and changes are there to deal with this issue. There's some that are more idiosyncratic to my tastes, but hey, what's the point of having a website if you can't indulge yourself. Besides, there are a lot of fiddly bits in IH that, as far as can be told, are just Mearls taking the opportunity to see his house rules put in print. So if he can do it, I can do it too.

Much of this is undoubtedly due to Mearls having to finish in a rush because of his new position at WotC, which I'm hardly going to blame him for. That kind of job doesn't show up every day. Hell, for someone with the gearhead nature, it's a golden opportunity to tinker with something without also having to deal with 30 years of legacy issues.

Also, I wouldn't go to all this trouble if I didn't think the underlying system wasn't worth it. There's a lot to like about IH, and this is just my way of getting an extra 10%.