As Odhanan said, much of the supposed balance issues with IH are out-and-out overstated. Much of the brouhaha occurring on the IH boards regarding houserules and other tweaks are largely due to different gamers' personal tastes, not to inherent gaps in the system. Keep in mind that IH is an advanced player's ruleset, of sorts (in that it is targeted for players and GMs already familiar with the D&D 3.0/3.5 rules), so it naturally attracts the same sort of people who spend tons of time on, say, these boards discussing rules questions, fixes, house rules, errata, etc. regarding D&D. These folks are natural tinkerers; I wouldn't say that IH encourages that behavior, but rather that it's a character trait that's as easily applied to IH as to Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, Grim Tales, or D&D.
As for how thought out the system was based on the FAQ: Read that thread. Compare it to the FAQs released for the D&D core rulebooks. Note how much of the FAQ thread is about suggestions, optional tweaks, and alternatives for addressing particular gaming issues rather than about incomprehensible or unworkable rules. You'll note that what the FAQ really expresses is a rapid jump by players and designers alike to tinker with the system to fit individual tastes.
I'd say that overall, with the exception of the Arcanist and its spellcasting system, IH plays pretty fine. I've had far less work to do making it go in my group than I did with D&D, or even with AU/AE. As to the following:
Wombat said:
In play I find that you need to know a LOT more about your combat area. Not simply where walls are and where holes are, but also if there are ledges, chairs, barrels, ropes, etc. As such, the game screams out to be played 3-D, and I don't just mean walls. I mean to really capture to the feel of the game you would need to be able to move characters up and down, have stuff to throw, etc. This would also mean moving away from "squares/hexes" to "inches/centimeters", as it would be the only logical way to map combat.
I would turn this statement around a bit. I think that IH
encourages more detailed description of the combat area, because of the stunt system. IOW, the stunt system codifies a lot of the cool things that players like to do already in d20 combat, and generally got done (at least IMC) by DM handwaving. It's
fun (at least for some folks) to get more description about your combat area, and to use all those ropes for swinging, barrels for rolling down and knocking over enemy guards, and ledges for springing on to, but it's hardly necessary. Options, not restrictions.
Wombat said:
Equally, some character types really only shine in very particular environments. The Armiger and the Man-At-Arms are good pretty much anywhere; the Weapon Master isn't bad, as long as there is a tough guy on the field -- otherwise they never really get to shine. The Hunter (incredibly misnamed) is solid, but primarily as an adjunct to other members of the party. Archer? Good if they have cover, but if they are out in the open they are in trouble. Berserkers tear through weak hordes like nobody's business but can have problems against the Big Bad unless they have backup. The Executioner (read: assassin) needs cover and time. As they strike best when undetected and as they wear very little armour, they have to be able to sneak, hide, and then pounce; again, if caught in the open they can be in big trouble. The Harrier needs room, room, room -- in tight spaces they are useless as they do very little damage and don't have a great base defense. The Thief is great as the Skills Monkey, but gets nailed in combat very quickly; as written, this is almost strictly a support class.
I'd have some specific disagreements with some of your class descriptions (the Thief is quite survivable in combat when played properly, and berserkers do a fine job of taking on BBEGs, even having a class ability [March of Ruin] specifically tailored to help them do so, etc.), but more to the point: Isn't this how d20, or at least a D&D-style d20 game, is supposed to work?
D&D provides a string of choices (classes, PrCs, magic item selection) that characters must make in order to achieve a suitable build. Those builds are never effective in all situations; try building a combat wizard that can survive being grappled, for instance. Thus, D&D classes have somewhat defined roles; clerics are primary healers and secondary fighters, rogues are primary skill monkeys and secondary combatants, etc. What's interesting about IH is that due to the general combat-effectiveness and high number of feats and skills available to every class, most classes can be built to be good at most things. For instance, the hunter and man-at-arms make for ranged combatants almost as good as the archer in most situations, and a Weapon Master with Cleave and Mobility feats can do an excellent job of battlefield control. In fact, IMHO, IH provides ways for any character to accomplish skill-related obstacles, defeat multiple opponents, or take on a BBEG. They just do it in different ways, which to my mind is the essence of a good class system.
