Iron Heroes...is it really different from core D&D?

[ValhallaGH]

I"m not sure IH is neccessary a low magic type system. It is a high adventure type system which is what I call it. The Iron Heroes system comes with a arcanist class that can do some really diverse things.

Diverse things such as enlarge the Ghast rather than the Berzerker, fireball the party rather than the dire bats, or Str boost the T-Rex instead of the Armiger. Yep, very diverse.

That sort of unreliability is the essense of low magic. The only thing lower is no magic.

I think the big thing about IH is that it eliminates the dependancy on magical weapons and items.

And the dependancy upon spells. Don't need them, and many characters don't want them. They can be useful but you don't need spells to buff the party as most characters have self buffs built into them, in the form of token pools.

 

[ruleslawyer]

You're right, but I think you're taking an extreme example (1 opponent). If you mix things up with more than 3 opponents, the amount threatened squares become an issue.

Well, sorta. The thing is that the moment you get into multiple opponents, you're usually dealing with foes without the ability to beat your Tumble check, meaning that you can avoid AoO by tumbling anyway.

[Incidentally, the reason I tweaked the AoO rules as I did was in response to concerns by a *player* who felt that his Combat Reflexes shtick was impaired by the rules, not my own desire to make it tougher on the harrier.]

Is IH easier to run than core D&D?

IMHO: Yes and no. IH is probably more complicated for the players; they have to track token pools, keep aware of a larger spectrum of actions they can undertake using skill and combat challenges (and ability checks), and play around with zone features. For the DM, I'd say it's less complicated. A lack of PrCs, magic items, and spell buffs means that there are fewer wonky effects to track in combat, and the villain classes make writing up NPC challenges a lot faster. Adventure design is also potentially easier, since you don't really have to worry about the insane range of PC capabilities available in D&D (flying, teleporting, divinations, et cetera). All that changes if you use spellcasting classes, of course, but I can't imagine using a class that really grants the same range of capabilities that high-level D&D PCs have in this regard.

 

[DonTadow]

Diverse things such as enlarge the Ghast rather than the Berzerker, fireball the party rather than the dire bats, or Str boost the T-Rex instead of the Armiger. Yep, very diverse.

That sort of unreliability is the essense of low magic. The only thing lower is no magic.

And the dependancy upon spells. Don't need them, and many characters don't want them. They can be useful but you don't need spells to buff the party as most characters have self buffs built into them, in the form of token pools.

We have different definitions of low magic. Iron Heroes has supplements ofr magic in both of its of its expansion books. You could easily run a normal d and d game in the system without destroying magic from your world. The Arcanist is a capable wizard class ,and despite your examples, is not that unusable. If you cast spells within your means you will rarely see any ill effects.

The point of Iron Heroes is to get away from magic enhanced characters not magic. Spellcasters are not excluded from this. NO more does the caster need to supplement himself with loads of magic to keep himself relevant.

 

[ValhallaGH]

We have different definitions of low magic.

We do?
Huh. I didn't realize that another deffinition could exist; I thought mine was that good.
Would you please share yours? For my edification, if nothing else.

Iron Heroes has supplements ofr magic in both of its of its expansion books.

The MIH rules are about magic items (and their many drawbacks) rather than about spells but I'll grant the point. However, a quick review of the beastiary does not have such a supplement.

You could easily run a normal d and d game in the system without destroying magic from your world. The Arcanist is a capable wizard class ,and despite your examples, is not that unusable. If you cast spells within your means you will rarely see any ill effects.

I wonder at some of your deffinitions, sir. "Easily" and "capable" in particular. That, however, is for a different posting.
The Arcanist is playable. I've rarely said otherwise, and that was when I was still somewhat ignorant of how well it actually worked. The difficulty lies in the limitations of it and the completely random effects of a failed casting. All of the cited examples have happened. It was not cool.

The point of Iron Heroes is to get away from magic enhanced characters not magic.

I'm going to disagree here. Not by a lot, but some.
The point of Iron Heroes is to make combat fun and interesting. Without having to use magic.
Magic still exists in the (implied) game world but it is not the friendly magic of Lathander or Gruumsh. Rather, it is the chaotic and unpredictable magic of medieval European legend, complete with a lack of real control by mortals; only inhuman creatures have reliable magic in the system of Iron Heroes. Any human casters must deal with these inhuman forces and risk total destruction by the very energies they seek to control. The most puissant of human mages is still screwed when he rolls a 1 on that casting check.

NO more does the caster need to supplement himself with loads of magic to keep himself relevant.

Now that I can agree with without qualification.

 

[DonTadow]

We do?
Huh. I didn't realize that another deffinition could exist; I thought mine was that good.
Would you please share yours? For my edification, if nothing else.

My definition of low magic means a world where magic exists but (whether its by a few or everyone) but magic is on par with the abilities of normal humans.

The MIH rules are about magic items (and their many drawbacks) rather than about spells but I'll grant the point. However, a quick review of the beastiary does not have such a supplement.

The beastiary has several creatures in it that have strong magiclike effects thus I included it in the pack.

I wonder at some of your deffinitions, sir. "Easily" and "capable" in particular. That, however, is for a different posting.
The Arcanist is playable. I've rarely said otherwise, and that was when I was still somewhat ignorant of how well it actually worked. The difficulty lies in the limitations of it and the completely random effects of a failed casting. All of the cited examples have happened. It was not cool.

I don't kno whow much more I can break down easy and capable. YOur example makes the arcansist sound like some wild mage whom never really knows what he is going to do. I"d hate for you the be the marketing writer at Iron Heroes because this is a complete slaughtering of the definition of the class. A good Arcanist can mimic many of the abilities of a Sorceror at possibly only a level or two below him.

I'm going to disagree here. Not by a lot, but some.
The point of Iron Heroes is to make combat fun and interesting. Without having to use magic.
Magic still exists in the (implied) game world but it is not the friendly magic of Lathander or Gruumsh. Rather, it is the chaotic and unpredictable magic of medieval European legend, complete with a lack of real control by mortals; only inhuman creatures have reliable magic in the system of Iron Heroes. Any human casters must deal with these inhuman forces and risk total destruction by the very energies they seek to control. The most puissant of human mages is still screwed when he rolls a 1 on that casting check.

Now that I can agree with without qualification.

YOu're gathering your point from what you hope the product will do for you, I'm gathering my point from prerelease discussions by Mike Mearls and Monte Cooke, not to mention many of the writers at the Iron League. If the system was suppose to be without magic its been said many times that there would be no magic class, rules for magic items, nor magical abilities. The system even has supplements for high magic campaigns and an appendix that shows how to blend the iron heroes atmosphere in with traditional d and d magic. Sometimes we shouldnt confuse our hopes and dreams with fact and reality.

 

[ValhallaGH]

My definition of low magic means a world where magic exists but (whether its by a few or everyone) but magic is on par with the abilities of normal humans.

Ah, normal. If you consider the PCs of an Iron Heroes game to be "normal" then it is indeed low magic, by your deffinition. If you don't then Iron Heroes is not merely an epic fantasy adventure game, it's also high magic.

The beastiary has several creatures in it that have strong magiclike effects thus I included it in the pack.

Monsters are bad guys. Bad guys get to break the rules. That's why they are bad guys.

Nice try, though.

I don't kno whow much more I can break down easy and capable.

Easy and Capable are relative tersm. Clear up the following for me and that would be a great breakdown.

You could easily run a normal d and d game in the system without destroying magic from your world.

How can you run a normal D&D game with the Iron Heroes rules system? How do you handle the multitude of casters found in D&D? How you do you handle the plethora of magic equipment? How can you maintain a semblance of game balance?
How can you do all of the above easily?

If you can answer that then I would love to see it. I've been wracking my brain over an IH-Eberron conversion for some time and have yet to achieve anything I am satisfied with.

The Arcanist is a capable wizard class

Capable of what? Compared to whom?

YOur example makes the arcansist sound like some wild mage whom never really knows what he is going to do. I"d hate for you the be the marketing writer at Iron Heroes because this is a complete slaughtering of the definition of the class. A good Arcanist can mimic many of the abilities of a Sorceror at possibly only a level or two below him.

Yes, that wasn't the best possible pitch to market the Arcanist; however, I am the anti-thesis of a marketing person as I (almost without exception) stick with blunt truth. Second, I was trying to point out it's flaws and weaknesses, not it's good points (of which the Arcanist class has many and the magic system has very few).
Third, while a well built and played Arcanist can be as effective any other PC, he is hardly equivalent to a D&D Sorcerrer. Evocation is an impressively weak school in IH, so much so that the Eldritch Dart ability is generally supperior to an evocation spell; quite the departure from the potential artillery platform of the Sorcerer. There is no dispell ability written into the IH system (though it appears to have been intended), meaning that a third of the D&D caster's intended role (cancelling out other casters and their effects) cannot be performed by the Arcanist. Many mastery 8, 9, or 10 effects are equivalent to D&D spells of levels 4, 5, 6 or 7, yet the D&D spells arrive 3 or more levels earlier. Etc, etc.

YOu're gathering your point from what you hope the product will do for you, I'm gathering my point from prerelease discussions by Mike Mearls and Monte Cooke, not to mention many of the writers at the Iron League. If the system was suppose to be without magic its been said many times that there would be no magic class, rules for magic items, nor magical abilities. The system even has supplements for high magic campaigns and an appendix that shows how to blend the iron heroes atmosphere in with traditional d and d magic. Sometimes we shouldnt confuse our hopes and dreams with fact and reality.

My point is gathered from the implications and results (empirical and theoretical) of the game mechanics of the Iron Heroes magic system. Period.
1) Spells can fail to cast, every single time. Skilled mages are less likely to fail but a natural 1 is always a failure and often a major disaster.
2) Magic is harmful; almost as much for the mage as for his foes. Strain, minor disasters, major disasters and the sacrifices involved in the Arcane Pact ability are all proof of this.
3) Casting a spell is a lot like playing Russian Roulette. You may be fine, your foes may eat the bullet, your friends may eat the bullet or you may eat the bullet. It's all a matter of luck.

Personally, I would like it if the magic system worked better, i.e. were more powerful and less disasterous. That's why I've adopted the True Sorcery system for my Iron Heroes games.

 

[DonTadow]

Ah, normal. If you consider the PCs of an Iron Heroes game to be "normal" then it is indeed low magic, by your deffinition. If you don't then Iron Heroes is not merely an epic fantasy adventure game, it's also high magic.

The point being that the low magic by your traditional definition is not what iron heroes is. My low magic defintion is closer to high fantasy. There are fantastic mages in the iron heroes world as easy as there are powerful warriors. Why there's some misconceptin that they can't get along is beyond me.

Monsters are bad guys. Bad guys get to break the rules. That's why they are bad guys.

Nice try, tho

? Actually not all the beasts in the book are bad guys. Man, what are we five. BAd guys? I prefer to add a bit of sophistication to the book and its authors and think they designed beasts to be more than just random monsters of the week. The beastiary adds flavor to a typical Iron heroes world by providing monsters that actually don't break the rules. I"m starting to think you've just skimmed over the book instead of actually read it. THere area a few phrases that emphasise that magic does exist in the campaign world. There's also the appendix which for some reason or another you must have skipped.

Easy and Capable are relative tersm. Clear up the following for me and that would be a great breakdown.

Apparently we are five if I need to break down the definitions of easy and capable. Easy, meaning simple compared to something else. In other words I"m saying that compared to the 3.5 book, the arcanist is a very simple to use and perform sorceror class.

How can you run a normal D&D game with the Iron Heroes rules system? How do you handle the multitude of casters found in D&D? How you do you handle the plethora of magic equipment? How can you maintain a semblance of game balance?
How can you do all of the above easily?

OKay, now i'm really starting to think you don't own none of the books or supplements. They explain how this is done. Its actually quite simple. There's not even any conversion really. Just some mild ac and skill changes. The books even reference how both charachters can stand hand and hand together. As a matter of fact, if you go to the iron league websites theres even more supplements by fans on it. In other words, there are capable dms whom have figured it out. (of course I'm using capable in another context here).

I

f you can answer that then I would love to see it. I've been wracking my brain over an IH-Eberron conversion for some time and have yet to achieve anything I am satisfied with.

Capable of what? Compared to whom?

Yes, that wasn't the best possible pitch to market the Arcanist; however, I am the anti-thesis of a marketing person as I (almost without exception) stick with blunt truth. Second, I was trying to point out it's flaws and weaknesses, not it's good points (of which the Arcanist class has many and the magic system has very few).
Third, while a well built and played Arcanist can be as effective any other PC, he is hardly equivalent to a D&D Sorcerrer. Evocation is an impressively weak school in IH, so much so that the Eldritch Dart ability is generally supperior to an evocation spell; quite the departure from the potential artillery platform of the Sorcerer. There is no dispell ability written into the IH system (though it appears to have been intended), meaning that a third of the D&D caster's intended role (cancelling out other casters and their effects) cannot be performed by the Arcanist. Many mastery 8, 9, or 10 effects are equivalent to D&D spells of levels 4, 5, 6 or 7, yet the D&D spells arrive 3 or more levels earlier. Etc, etc.

My point is gathered from the implications and results (empirical and theoretical) of the game mechanics of the Iron Heroes magic system. Period.
1) Spells can fail to cast, every single time. Skilled mages are less likely to fail but a natural 1 is always a failure and often a major disaster.
2) Magic is harmful; almost as much for the mage as for his foes. Strain, minor disasters, major disasters and the sacrifices involved in the Arcane Pact ability are all proof of this.
3) Casting a spell is a lot like playing Russian Roulette. You may be fine, your foes may eat the bullet, your friends may eat the bullet or you may eat the bullet. It's all a matter of luck.

Personally, I would like it if the magic system worked better, i.e. were more powerful and less disasterous. That's why I've adopted the True Sorcery system for my Iron Heroes games.

I'd rather skip all the "woah is me" about how difficult it is to run 3.5 characters with iron heroes because the authors of the system have already addressed this. As for marketing, geesh, the opposite of a person whom believes all marketing is just as bad. The cynical guy whom thinks the goverment has eyeballs in his fridge. Unfortuantely, with d and d material that is a year old it can be proven and tested which iRon heroes has, with or without 3.5 charachters.

In your latest example you are only labeling descriptions of the magic system, not a reason why 3.5 and iron heroes cohesiion doesnt work. doesnt work. Just a reason why its different. The cool thing about Iron Heroes is that you can use the arcanist as is or chuck it and subsitittute any magic system easy. Wheras the arcanist has spells that can fail, he can cast more spells than a sorcoeror can and can potentinally cause more damage. Whereas i admire the arcanist class i said in my first example i dont use it because I dont like players tracking "spell points" and times per day in my system, i went with a more skill roll type system.

What you'll find after doing osme research is that many have figured out that iron heroes is a great system to add magic systems too and there's no unbalance in it at all.

 

[iwatt]

In other words I"m saying that compared to the 3.5 book, the arcanist is a very simple to use and perform sorceror class.

NOw here is were I think the main disconenct comes from. Nothing is easier as a magic class than the sorceror. Nothing. The only complexity comes from spell choice at character creation and leveling up. But the fire and forget and limited spell selection makes for a very easy to play class. Arguably the Warlock spellcasting is even simpler, but it does have additional class features that complicate gameplay somewhat.

Compared to the RAW Arcanist, in which each school has it's own conventions, and must be built up modularly, I can't see any way you can asy that the Arcanist is easy/simple to use.

Now the argument for the capability of the Arcanist is something else. One of the biggest issues when discussing the Arcansit is the inherent imbalance in the magic schools. A conjurer is vastly different animal than the illusionist. I won't even bring up the evoker (which I think nerfing was a good idea for style reasons).

But you seem to be discounting the importance of the failure chances in the RAW arcanist. If you throw around safe spells, the effect of your magic for EL apropriate levels is negligible.

OKay, now i'm really starting to think you don't own none of the books or supplements.

Ascribing things to others is not the right way to solve disagreements. And you'd be wrong as well, since VGH is probably one of the guys that posts most often back the Malhavoc forums, specifically the IH forums.

What you'll find after doing osme research is that many have figured out that iron heroes is a great system to add magic systems too and there's no unbalance in it at all.

The problem with mixing IH and magic is very simple. IH is balanced with class abilities that replace the need for Magic items or buffing spells. This is reinforced by the extreme risks associated with spellcasting, and the fact that magic items have severe disadvantages. If you allow IH classes to use magic items without drawbacks, there is no way in the nine hell that you can balance them with regular D&D classes.

Re: low magic and high magic.

Talk about nebulous terms in D&D. :\ It's the same problem that rises when trying to define Munchkin, Powergamer, Core only, etc...

 

[ValhallaGH]

Thank you for the clarity you've managed to provide, iwatt.

It has become apparent that there is some question about the default level of magic in Iron Heroes. So, I shall rephrase slightly.

Iron Heroes is a low PC magic game.

Magic fills the implied world of Iron Heroes as much as, or even more than, it fills the default world of D&D. The difference is that in D&D, all magical things doable by mosters, extra-planar creatures and villains is equally doable by PCs; in Iron Heroes implied, the vast majority of magical effects achievable by NPCs cannot be replicated by PCs.

All (RAW) Iron Heroes know three facts about magic.
1) Magic is real. Monsters, evil wizards, ancient civilizations and sometimes even allies (or the hero himself) have and use magic spells and abilities.
2) Magic is powerful. Magic bolts can blast through the heaviest armor as if it were paper. Magic can cause walls to appear from thin air, reanimate the dead, inflict or restore wounds, summon monsters from other worlds and even raise the dead.
3) Magic is out to get them. 90% of the magic in the world belongs to evil wizards, demons, devils, monsters and other inhuman creatures that will gladly kill the heroes. It can summon, or create, a multitude of monsters, generate searing blasts of powerful flames / cold / lightning / acid; it can wither and shrink the most powerful of warriors, take control of a person's mind and actions, and is the source of most of the major threats to hamlets, towns, cities, nations and even the world.

Magic is very much present in Iron Heroes. It is simply not found, much, in the hands of the players.


DonTadow, when you are ready to post mature and reasoned arguments, as opposed to ad hominem arguments, then I shall be willing to reply to any specific points you may have.

 

[Nyaricus]

I think IH would be great to run in a Nordic/Scandinavian type of game with maybe one magic item for each PC, using the "leveling up" items from Weapons of legacy.

Kill a dragon with your grandaddy's sword? Maybe next level you find out it can become wreathed in flames? That shield turned a scorpians tail from sticking you with it's poisonous tip? Maybe you become resistant to acid, poison and disease. That headband once worn by the ittithid which you killed? Maybe it gives you special mind powers ("psionics", by D&D RAW) which develop as you gain levels.

Stuff like that.

In any case, I think that IH has a lot of room in regards to it's differences from core D&D, but that it'sstill an awesome, and easily adapted ruleset suited for a variety of games. Celts, Vikings, Norse, Goths, Greecian, Roman and Conanesque games all come to mind where one might very well be able to adapt IH to the needs of it.

I'd personally love to run somehting with major celtic influences, and ahev the heros meet with even 15% of the amazing figures and beasts from Celtic folklore. Fight the Boobrie, the giant northern diver which can swallow cattle (and men) whole. Or the terrible Bean Sidhe, the forlorn fey cloaked in a white gorn, eyes red with tears for a departed loved one, a golden comb is stroked through her hair, and when she turns on you a bone-rattlnig wail escapes her lips. Or the Ankou, a portender of death who's skeletal head with eyes popping from it's skull calls upon it's victims to their deaths, and rides through townships casting down the common folks fates upon them. Of the Beithir, the ethereal bear with the loenghty tail whichs shoots lightning bolts from it's totthy maw.

I think I've been inspired to do this now - and that's only a small taste of what you can do!