How does IH actually play?

[Pbartender]

I want combat maneuver mechancis that spice things up give my players ideas for cool things they can do, and which make it easeir for some characters to do certain cool maneuvers than it is for other characters, but don't imply that there are cool things they CAN'T do because they haven't purcahsed the maneuver.

If nothing else, Iron Heroes has this in spades... Stunts, challenges, action zones and the various token pools gained from different classes and feats.

I want REALLY fast action resolution mechanics & players roll all the dice per Unearthed Arcana.

That's going to be a tough one, no matter what game you play... Unless you go for a VERY rules light sort of game.

IH is no slower than D&D, and is usually a little faster, but not excessively so. It depends greatly on what classes, feats and actions your players choose to use in combat and how familiar they are with those options.

Along with this, I want action point mechanics so the players can say "Hey, it's important that I succeed at THIS action, so I'll spend a point and if I fail it's tragic and if I succeed I'm being awesome."

IH does not feature action points, but it would be simplicity itself to add them in.

I want magic mechanics that are basically similar to the combat ones.

You don't ask much, do you?

The standard IH magic rules are widely regarded to be a bust. They are typically completely left out, or replaced by another alternate system.



In all honesty, the best suggestion might be for you to find a short adventure (look here), build some pregenerated charcters for you players, and take the system for a test drive. You'll get a much better idea of how the system works, you'll come back with much more meaningful questions about it, and we'll be able to give you much more useful answers, I think.

 

[Ry]

Hmm... I think if I took a hybrid for a test drive, it would look something like this:

Hero
Skill points / Level : 6
Skill groups: All

Base Attack, Defense Bonus, Trained Skills, and Saves, and Save DCs: +1 Per Level
5 hps / level.
At odd levels, you gain feats
At even levels, you gain a fighter feat (if sword) or a warlock invocation (if sorcery) - warlocks would be about doing freaky stuff more than direct damage

 

[Ry]

Addendum: With the stunt and challenge and zone rules from IH.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Hmm...

rycanada: I'm on my way out to a party, so I'll post more later. Please don't take this as my entire set of thoughts.

OK - I have 3 competing interests, as I see it:

1) I want REALLY fast action resolution mechanics & players roll all the dice per Unearthed Arcana.

I'm switching to players roll all the dice in my IH game as well! Certainly no more difficult than in D&D.

Along with this, I want action point mechanics so the players can say "Hey, it's important that I succeed at THIS action, so I'll spend a point and if I fail it's tragic and if I succeed I'm being awesome."

There is a mechanic for this in IH, actually. Mastering Iron Heroes gives the glory points mechanic, which is flat-out awesome, along with different (simpler and more story-based) XP systems, all of which I think are way cool. (For example, you can have a character with a flaw, and if you allow that flaw to be exploited, you gain extra XP... if you survive!)

2) I want combat maneuver mechancis that spice things up give my players ideas for cool things they can do, and which make it easeir for some characters to do certain cool maneuvers than it is for other characters, but don't imply that there are cool things they CAN'T do because they haven't purcahsed the maneuver.

Stunts and challenges are for you, then, at least thematically. The real question is whether those mechanics are too complicated for your purposes. There are some things you can do about that:

http://ironheroeshouserules.pbwiki.com/SimpleStunts

is one of them. Basically, the character has to tell you what he wants to do; the bonus is already figured out (sparing you the calculations and opposed rolls) but the solution has to be creative and you can award the bonus in whatever way you like. Nice for free-form play.

There are actually tons of ways to slim down combat in IH. One is to do what you're suggesting: Get rid of the token-based classes and just use the Man-at-arms. The feats and skills should give you enough customization for the player to do exactly what he wants to do, and a straight MaA is certainly powerful enough! In fact, this may be a stroke of genius, since players can then use their wild card feats to simulate those "cool combat maneuvers" you're talking about without having to take a permanent feat to do it.

Some other ways to slim down combat:

a) Use hong's negate defense rule:

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

This folds all the different ways to negate defense into a simple, easy-to-remember mechanic.

Hong's custom feats also do a good job of this, especially Dodge and Combat Expertise, which remove the token pools in favor of fixed bonuses. Easy to remember, easy to use.

There are numerous other ways to slim down combat mechanics in IH, but IMX, the most difficult things PCs do (in both D&D and IH) involve build design. Taking that stuff out of the picture by using one or two classes makes things a lot easier.

3) I want magic mechanics that are basically similar to the combat ones.

Perhaps the Ironcarnum system?

http://ironcarnum.pbwiki.com/

In my mind, there's a system kind of like D&D except:

1) Everybody has 1 class that gives the basics like IH (Attack, Defense, hp, saves)

2) Feats are the main mechanic for everything else (+ magic feats, which is why I like Warlocks, because Invocations are swappable with feats without too much difficulty)

3) There is very little coupling/stacking between feats and other feats.

4) Some kind of tokens or action points are used, and there's connections between the feat system and the action point system.

Hmm; that is tricky. I'd refer you to hong's IH hacks, which more closely map feats to token abilities, but then you're back using token abilities and their related classes, which introduces a level of complexity you may not want.

One way to go might be to allow everyone to pick a token pool at 1st level: Armor, Defense, Finesse, Power, or Projectile. (IMHO, there's no reason to bother with social since those feats give their own tokens anyway.) Each is tied to a particular feat category, and basically you can spend tokens to "unlock" feat uses. Then just add in the token abilities (pick some armiger for Armor, harrier or weapon master for Defense, executioner for Finesse, berserker for Power, archer for Projectile) and you're golden!

 

[Ry]

(this is not to say I think you've fully put out your ideas, just responding to what's there)

Why not just have a pool of action points, call them Conviction (as I did in my last game) and have them all be "tokens" for the purpose of the above feats. I could do something like "You have a pool of Conviction equal to 4+Wisdom Modifier + Level. If you have less than 2 Conviction at any time, you can take 2 minutes to regain your strength and gain 2 Conviction."

 

[Ry]

Any Conviction you gain from actions in combat is lost at the end of combat.

 

[Ry]

Here's what may be a dumb idea, but I'm putting it out there anyway.

Oh, BTW, I added my decoupling rule that I've been considering (see my other thread). I think it's a rule that would have me burned at the stake, but most of EN World would think it's a joke or something.

PCs would start at level 3, I wrote it up DM-still-rolls-dice style for ease of comparison.

 

[Ry]

Basic uses of Conviction

Cost Action
1 -=- Roll an extra d20 (if you declare before the roll)
2 -=- Roll an extra d20 (if you declare after the roll)
1 -=- Take an extra move-equivalent action on your turn**
2 -=- Take an extra standard action on your turn**
2 -=- Gain an extra use of a X/day ability, if any

 

[Ry]

Wow, I woke up this morning and I still liked my idea. If you decouple Ability Modifiers from the rest of the system and get rid of racial modifiers, and only have Warlocks (with Wild Card invocations and more feats) and Men-At-Arms (w. a slightly less than rogue sneak attack damage), the game would look like this:

Action = Level + Modifiers due to feats + situational modifiers + d20
AC/DC = Monster's Level + Modifier's due to feats + situational modifiers + 11

So all of the rules-heavy stuff would be relegated to:
Actions (AoOs, skill uses)
Feats
Invocations
Situational Modifiers

 

[ruleslawyer]

It's a nice idea!

(this is not to say I think you've fully put out your ideas, just responding to what's there)

Why not just have a pool of action points, call them Conviction (as I did in my last game) and have them all be "tokens" for the purpose of the above feats. I could do something like "You have a pool of Conviction equal to 4+Wisdom Modifier + Level. If you have less than 2 Conviction at any time, you can take 2 minutes to regain your strength and gain 2 Conviction.

FWIW, I think that a generic token pool is fine, but I'd rather force players to choose a pool type. Your suggestion of allowing one pool to do anything actually makes the game more complicated, not less.

The essential difference IMO between a rules-heavy system and a rules-light system is that a rules-heavy system provides a larger range of choices with a larger range of mechanical consequences. A rules-heavy system therefore allows for a wider range of descriptive mechanics: The barbarian has a mechanical consequence for raging that closely matches the description of raging (he hits harder, can take more hits, and is more resistant to mental influence, but can't concentrate and is worse at dodging blows), while the fighter excels at a range of combat techniques (bonus feats) such that he can parry, use particular weapons to great effect, and do cool stuff in combat.

The rules-heavy system fails where there are too many different ways to achieve the identical mechanical consequence; this is something that gets me with the D&D modular spell, magic item, and PrC mechanics, because one ends up with ten different ways to achieve the same mechanical result (and worse, sometimes you get crazy stacking). OTOH, the rules-light system fails either when a) it fails to deliver a satisfactory range of mechanical or descriptive options; or b) it isn't actually rules-light because of inelegance (the latter is why I don't like C&C).

Sorry to essay. In short, if your players will be happy having a single set of mechanical benefits and instead getting variety out of describing their actions in-game, I'd just go with a single set of mechanics (action, roll vs DC, result [success or failure]) and call it a day.

Incidentally, I find allowing action points to be spent for extra actions to slow down play even more than spending them for benefits. If you don't, though, go for it!