D&D 4E Iron Heroes for 4e?

[Irda Ranger]

4E really will shine for a PsIron Heroes set on Dark Sun. Add the bonuses expected from items to stats, and replace the expected "Secondary effect" magic items with psionic p0wahz.

I'm very confused. How does playing "Dark Sun" with a game having "Iron" in the name (or any ferrous metal, really) make any sense? That's like saying "I can't wait to play my Dark Sun / Age of Sails homebrew."

 

[Reaper Steve]

I think 4E *is* Iron Heroes.

WotC saw what Mearls dreamed up, while still sticking to most of the 3.5 conventions, and was impressed. Impressed enough that they hired him and handed him their baby.

I love Iron Heroes. But I don't think its worth updating... 4E is the update. It served its purpose, but game design has evolved from it. I think (as has already been stated) that 4E Iron Heroes is as simple as limiting PCs to human fighters, warlords, rangers, and rogues, and limiting their access to magic as well. Done!

 

[A'koss]

From what I understand of the GSL, Adam won't be able to make a 4e-compatable version of Iron Heroes (at least as a commercial version). :-(

Q:With the OGL tied more closely to D&D, how would that impact the future impact of games like Spycraft or Mutants and Masterminds – games that in 3e used the core d20 concept but diverged radically from D&D?

A: The new version of the OGL isn’t as open-ended as the current version. Any 4e OGL product must use the 4e PHB as the basis of their game. If they can’t use the core rule books, it won’t be possible to create the game under this particular version of the OGL.

That said, if 4e makes it relatively painless to run a low/no magic game, IH would have an uphill battle in the market anyway...

 

[ruleslawyer]

I think 4E *is* Iron Heroes.

WotC saw what Mearls dreamed up, while still sticking to most of the 3.5 conventions, and was impressed. Impressed enough that they hired him and handed him their baby.

I love Iron Heroes. But I don't think its worth updating... 4E is the update. It served its purpose, but game design has evolved from it. I think (as has already been stated) that 4E Iron Heroes is as simple as limiting PCs to human fighters, warlords, rangers, and rogues, and limiting their access to magic as well. Done!

Actually, no reason to bother restricting things that much. IH was really about getting back to classic fantasy/S&S roots by eliminating super-heroic magic. That's doable just by toning down or removing certain magical effects.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I'll be running a low-magic, high-action game set in Hyboria (Conan's world) and IH seems perfect for it but I don't want to miss out on the 4e "improvements" (faster play, streamlining, simplifications, etc.) either.

If you want 'faster play, streamlining, simplifications, etc.' and you want to run a game in that setting, I recommend considering Conan: The Roleplaying Game (Atlantean Edition) from Mongoose Publishing, as it's tailor-made for that, and very good besides.

In my experience, it is definitely faster in play (than Iron Heroes) too. More the right flavour, as well. Oh, and the magic system basically works, and suits the setting rather well.

/tj

 

[ruleslawyer]

Not so much in agreement with that; IME, Conan has too many rules that serve as exceptions, rather than enforcing robustness, to be worthwhile. Also, the Scholar class requires doing a full-on PC-style build for villains, which does take more time than the IH dreaded sorcerer. Just IMO.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Actually, no reason to bother restricting things that much. IH was really about getting back to classic fantasy/S&S roots by eliminating super-heroic magic. That's doable just by toning down or removing certain magical effects.

That's a bit of an exaggeration seeing as how there was only one spellcasting class in IH, and he was strictly optional. The only non-optional spellcasters are evil and the only magic items are cursed. I think it's accurate to say that Core IH (as written) is "magic free" as far as the PC's are concerned.

I'm also pretty sure I could re-create most IH classes* using some combo of Fighter, Warlord, Ranger or Rogue. That's why I suggested those classes for a "4E Iron Heroes."



*Other than the Arcanist (which is optional), the Berserker (which will have to wait until 4E gets its Barbarian in PHB2) and the Rogue (which is too Social-oriented for 4E, I think; but maybe the Rogue too depending on how the 4E social encounter rules work).

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Well, were I you, and I'll likely be doing this even though I'm not, here is how I would work a homebrew conversions:

1.) Figure out which IH classes are redundant to 4E core classes - eliminate them.

2.) Figure out which 4E core classes are redundant or a violation of IH themes - eliminate them.

3.) Look at the pile of eliminateds and see which might work cause you want them to work - put them into a maybe pile.

4.) Decide yea or nay on the various IH sub systems you want to import into 4E. Of those divide them into meld or pure imports.

5.) Begin working out the sniggly details of making those sub-system changes work across your new list of classes.

This is pure speculation and eyeballing but here are my picks for how that process will go for me:

1.)
Archer - Ranger
Armiger - Fighter
Arcanist - Warlock
Berzerker - Defender/Controller*
Executioner - If Rogue is more swash than stab Executioner stays and Thief goes
Harrier - Striker
Hunter - Warlord
Man-at-Arms - Redundant, Could go Leader and renamed Noble
Thief - Striker/Controller*, renamed Rake
Weapon Master - Striker/Defender

*-Cause their secondary abilities let them mess up a whole bunch of combatants at once.

2.) Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Warlock, Warlord, and Wizard

3.) Depending on circumstances the Archer, Armiger, Man at Arms, and Paladin might be salvageable. For the right world cleric & wizard should be optional.

4.)
Traits - Can it be balanced against stronger long term races?
Tokens - for the right classes and maybe as a way to do powers
Weapon Profs - 4E seems about right anyways, keep the light vs power distinction?
Defense and Armor=DR - 4E defenses just seem nicer,
Feat Mastery - Meld, some classes yes, others no, or just translate them into power paths
Skill Groups - Meld, get rid of skill points for a class just give each class a set of skill groups for trained, then let them have a number of additional trained slots equal to their INT bonus for individual skills.
Reserve Hitpoints - Probably redundant
Skill Abilities - Some might be redundant with 4E otherwise in like Flynn
General Combat Rules - Case by case, but mostly 4E
Stunts - May need to rebalance for new numbers
Zones - In, unless redundant
Villain Classes - already in 4E, apparently
Wealth Feats - Sure!

I can't think of any others.

 

[ruleslawyer]

That's a bit of an exaggeration seeing as how there was only one spellcasting class in IH, and he was strictly optional. The only non-optional spellcasters are evil and the only magic items are cursed. I think it's accurate to say that Core IH (as written) is "magic free" as far as the PC's are concerned.

I don't think it's an exaggeration at all. IH's major design goal as an alternative to D&D is to rip out PC dependence on items and continuous magical effects. The spellcasting class *is* there if you want it, which is to say that you don't need to restrict classes to fighter, rogue, ranger, and warlord.

Note also that I was talking about the kind of universe that x game is designed to emulate. IH doesn't eschew the idea of magic per se; it's merely trying to emphasize a universe in which a) the PC's innate abilities, rather than his stuff, are what make him a hero and b) magic is unreliable and/or dangerous enough that (a) holds true. IH is *not* "magic-free" for PCs any more than the literature it's trying to emulate (LotR, Conan, Lankhmar, etc.). As Mastering IH indicates, you can still have magic items; it's just that there aren't that many of them, they're not built into expected character power, and they come with drawbacks. None of that sounds too different from 4e's core assumptions.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Well, were I you, and I'll likely be doing this even though I'm not, here is how I would work a homebrew conversions:

[What he said]

Well done! This seems about spot on.