[Iron Heroes] Magic oddities.

[Agamon]

Oh, it works. Just not as well as some of us would have liked it to; bit too much gap between the practical capabilities of some variants. Some things seemed to have been balanced according to mana requirements, others to dificulty class, and when both got tied together it created cases where a reasonable cost for the effect made the difficulty too high or too low (or vice versa.)

Call it a case of the 3.0 Ranger. I just find that the core of it is intriguing enough that I'm compelled to 'improve' it. And I have to give credit to the author for being candid about the issue, instead of ducking it.

Exactly. It can be reigned in by a good DM. It's hardly unusable, you just have to set some ground rules and make sure no one expects to be casting meteor swarm-like spells anytime soon.

I also am intrigued by the core idea and would like to see some tweeks that work out well when playtested.

OTOH, I'm not completely against simply importing the Warlock, as Mike suggested, either.

 

[Agamon]

I guess I just wanted something that was good enough that it would work well out of the box. All things considered, it looks Iron Heroes should be fine if they were to face a mage who can nuke as well as a D&D wizard (indeed, they'd probably do better against a straight-up damage-dealing evoker than many other types of casters). So, why deal them a weak hand?

From what I understand, NPC wizard types, coming in Mastering Iron Heroes, will have less of a problem with the 'nuking'.

 

[Malachias Invictus]

So is anybody else think Mearls didn't want the 'mage as mortar' syndrome. Sure they can't fireball anybody but they can still hurt people.

Mearls wanted magic to be different, sure. However, he also thinks that the check made to cast a spell is a fundamentally flawed mechanic, and wishes that he had more time to tweak the magic system, which even he is not particularly happy with.

MI

 

[Malachias Invictus]

At least at low levels, the Black Company magic system is best described as "punitive." As in, the game seems to want to punish you for having the gall to be a spellcaster.

Honestly, that seems like it could work nicely for Iron Heroes. Magic is supposed to be quite difficult.

The kinds of magical effects that you can call forth are laughably weak and devastatingly draining. I've never played such a character - I just built one at 3rd level for a play by post game that never got off the ground. Correspondingly I also don't know how they fare at higher levels - but more powerful wizards suffer correspondingly more damaging costs.

I would not mind a tough, even "punative" magic system, if one could eventually do minor stuff with little risk, and could also go for a magical, very risky "Hail Mary" at any level.

 

[Malachias Invictus]

And unless you've got someone chomping at the bit to play an arcanist, it's not essential.

I don't so far with my group, but then again, I told everyone "don't bother until I get things worked out." I *do* want to get it worked out fast, though, because a freaky Arcanist-type would make a great Big Bad.

 

[Malachias Invictus]

Exactly. It can be reigned in by a good DM. It's hardly unusable, you just have to set some ground rules and make sure no one expects to be casting meteor swarm-like spells anytime soon.

...unless you are 15th level and they do 1D6.

I also am intrigued by the core idea and would like to see some tweeks that work out well when playtested.

Agreed. I am going to help with the Wiki.

OTOH, I'm not completely against simply importing the Warlock, as Mike suggested, either.

I think using the Arcanist, but giving them Invocations and Eldritch Blast could work quite nicely.

 

[Malachias Invictus]

That seems a little too generous IMO; you get credit for fixing the flaws before they go to press. not for leaving them as-is and then being candid about it after the fact.

I see this as two separate issues. Mike screwed up and did not get the magic system quite together. However, he had the guts and integrity to face up to the shortcomings in his book, and chat with people honestly about it. I am disappointed by the former, and highly impressed by the latter. Besides, I seem to remember the 3.0 PHB having some substantial errata after it came out (not to mention 3.5E coming out a while later); it is not as if these things are unprecedented.

 

[Kaos]

I guess I just wanted something that was good enough that it would work well out of the box. All things considered, it looks Iron Heroes should be fine if they were to face a mage who can nuke as well as a D&D wizard (indeed, they'd probably do better against a straight-up damage-dealing evoker than many other types of casters). So, why deal them a weak hand?

Focus, I suspect. Perhaps his concept of their role was something more akin to a Bard/Loremaster type of wizard: less "bang," more support. And if you build according to that paradigm, things seem to work out ok.

That seems a little too generous IMO; you get credit for fixing the flaws before they go to press. not for leaving them as-is and then being candid about it after the fact. I just hope Iron Heroes will see a revision somewhere down the line, and that possibility won't get nixed by Mearls' job at WotC.

Y'know, I won't really argue that. I'm impressed enough by the rest of the system that I don't mind being overgenerous wrt a component that wasn't part of the main thrust.

Of course, I could always revert to type and blame this on Monte

Agreed. I am going to help with the Wiki.

Is there a formal plan on that, or is it still in the 'tossing up ideas' stage? (Last I heard, there was talk of having the Iron League host it, and a few alternate proposals thrown out...)

 

[Kaos]

I see this as two separate issues. Mike screwed up and did not get the magic system quite together. However, he had the guts and integrity to face up to the shortcomings in his book, and chat with people honestly about it. I am disappointed by the former, and highly impressed by the latter. Besides, I seem to remember the 3.0 PHB having some substantial errata after it came out (not to mention 3.5E coming out a while later); it is not as if these things are unprecedented.

Aye. WotC are the kings of erratta and 'nice idea, bad implementation.'
Just look at Magic: the Gathering. Time Walk, anyone?

 

[Bagpuss]

I'ld like a token system for magic, one that could reflect building power overtime, either summoning rituals that take time or drawing essense from the land.