Iron Heroes threaten my GM style of low magic items...

[I'm A Banana]

It seems obvious to me that your players want more power. They don't like their weakness, and they understand that magic items are a bit shallow, but Iron Heroes allows them full mighty power without the magic shininess, allowing something of a compromise.

So I'd say give 'em what they want. Play closer to the RAW for a bit. Maybe you'll enjoy it more than you think you will. And if not, you could always switch DM's or go back to the old method. What do you risk by giving it a fair try?

Well, the question to that depends on the campaign. Are you in a game where goblins are speed bump in the quest for more levels or reminicent of the frightening critters in fairy tales.

To assume either one excludes the other is a false dichotomy. Furthermore, to assume that because one creature called "goblins" are speedbumps, that the campaign cannot have frightening creatures from fairy legend is also barking up the wrong tree.

You don't need weak characters to make monsters seem scary.

If a GM wants to design a whole campaign for an "orc invasion" you either have it only for the first five levels, give orcs levels and toys too (which some people consider cheating) or you tweak the rules somehow. It's sort of the nature of the beast with a leveling system as compared to other XP styles.

Cheating? Seriously? Do your players see it that way? Do they think monsters can't gain levels?

'Cuz if they don't care, you're creating problems where none exist. Leveling orcs is smooth sailing, in comparison to having unhappy players.

I say what's it hurt to try some more powerful PC's for a while, at least? Play closer to the RAW. Give it a fair shot. Maybe it'll suck, and then you can all go back to the old style and those who want IH won't be so eager. But maybe it won't suck, and everyone will find a new style of game they like just as much, if not better?

 

[ecliptic]

I can tell you what is running through your players mind when they get a magical item. "About damn time" as opposed to "Yes!".

 

[Herobizkit]

I'm a follower of the "throwback" treasure generation method from 2ed. I don't track gp/level for magic items... you roll for treasure and (barring anything too powerful) that's what's there.

To me, two pieces of magic for a high level PARTY is much too little. PCs like looting. Even if they find nothing but potions, scrolls, and the occasional wand, I'm sure they'd be happier if more of said items were introduced to their characters.

Now, there is another thread about D&D being magic-dependent on the go right now... give it a read. You'll see what people mean.

As for Iron Heroes... I can't say that I've seen the book. I've read a number of good reviews of it, though. I would at least consider giving the book a read.

 

[Stalker0]

If you want to continue to run low magic games, IH is probably your best solution. It gives players teh power they expect, and you the lack of hassle about magic gear.

For your current situation, the power increase by allowing IH is very dependent on what you actually allow.

THe classes themselves in IH are not that much more powerful than regular characters. However, when you starting adding in IH traits and feats the power curve jumps up a lot.

I've personally opened up IH combat challenges, stunts, and some of teh new skill uses in my AE game. Its worked alright so far.

 

[Odhanan]

Of course they're complaining that they don't have enough magical items. They're 9th level characters and only two out of six PCs have a magical item! Now, I'm not saying you should slavishly follow the wealth guidelines, but when you say you are following RAW, I would expect that they would have somewhere around what characters within 2-3 levels are supposed to have. The book does say it expects 9th level characters to have 36,000 gp, you know? Mostly in magical items.

Now, its no wonder they want to run Iron Heroes. They are already playing a low item game, and Iron Heroes would allow you to run a low item game with the same power level as a normal D&D game. Iron Heroes gives PCs a boost of power in exchange for not having magical items, rebalancing them with this in mind.

I too think the two points complete each other. It's logical that if they find their characters lacking in magical might for RAW D&D, they will think of Iron Heroes to still have fun with cool characters while playing in the style (small magical rewards) the DM likes.

During play, they have fun and we haven't had any difficulty yet. But the guys who complain after the fact are my min/maxers. You know guys who petition to get their first levels in barbarian after three levels of playing a city theif.

Whether these players are "min/maxers" or not is IMO beside the point. The point is that some of your players would like to have more fun in the game, whatever their style is. Your role as the DM is to provide fun for everyone (including yourself, and these guys). These min/maxers maybe would like to be challenged while having a wide area of choices for tactics (this is where the magical items or IH characters come in). The DM is supposed to let these guys have fun too. This is the whole point of the game.

 

[Bastoche]

IMO, using 3.X D&D to run a low magic (items or magic itself) campaign is like driving a screw with a hammer. It can be done but it's much easier with a screw driver. IH is one of those screw drivers. There are others aout there. If you dislike IH, there's other opitions out there. 3E is just a poor choice IMO.

1) if there's spellcasters among the group, the non-spellcasters are dead weight.
2) if there aren't there's no point left playing 3E and IH offer cool option for non spell casting type.

 

[S'mon]

IMO, using 3.X D&D to run a low magic (items or magic itself) campaign is like driving a screw with a hammer. It can be done but it's much easier with a screw driver. IH is one of those screw drivers. There are others aout there. If you dislike IH, there's other opitions out there. 3E is just a poor choice IMO.

1) if there's spellcasters among the group, the non-spellcasters are dead weight.
2) if there aren't there's no point left playing 3E and IH offer cool option for non spell casting type.

I disagree on point 2 - I haven't seen a non-spellcasting version of d20 that gives the same feel as 3e D&D. I dislike the genericness of the Strong/Tough/Fast Hero approach. Conan OGL and Slaine d20 are ok but very fixed on their own particular settings; and Conan at least has some problems to do with balance of power in classes and (especially) equipment, eg Bardiches are far too cheap & powerful while swords are too expensive for anyone to use.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

That's fairly close to the reason that I am ambivalent towards IH. I never bought into this "MUST... HAVE... LESS... MAGIC... ITEMS" sensibility that some seem to have. As it is, 3.xe puts a lot of power in the players' hands. I see magic items as my tool to introduce capabilities to the party that I want them to have to face challenges I have in store. Taking the power alotted to players via magic items and putting it all in there court seems as if it makes the game all the more chaotic and managing PCs all the more like herding nuclear powered cats.

I just want to say Psion put this very well - I generally give the party magic items that I have plans for. I don't make it impossible to solve tha adventure without the item, but the item will make it a lot easier. But if I know that the party has access to certain abilities it makes planning out the adventure much easier.

And now back to your regularly scheduled topic.

The Auld Grump

 

[molonel]

Well, the question to that depends on the campaign. Are you in a game where goblins are speed bump in the quest for more levels or reminicent of the frightening critters in fairy tales.

Why should the critters in fairy tales be base goblins from the Monster Manual?

If a GM wants to design a whole campaign for an "orc invasion" you either have it only for the first five levels, give orcs levels and toys too (which some people consider cheating) or you tweak the rules somehow.

Why on earth is giving orcs levels and toys cheating? There is an entire section on advancing monsters in the Monster Manual. Certain monsters advance "by level" which means they get NPC treasure and gear, and class abilities from their levels.

 

[Delemental]

Just don't be suprised to fnd your group extremely low on players one day.

I can tell you what is running through your players mind when they get a magical item. "About damn time" as opposed to "Yes!".

I'm curious... are you a player in his campaign? How else would you know so certainly what his players think?

I don't recall reading anywhere in any of the core books the phrase "The DM is required to give magic items to the PC's according to the Wealth by Level chart, regardless of the campaign's theme or setup."

They are "Wealth by Level" Guidelines, not "Wealth by Level" Mandates. As long as the DM adjusts encounters to accomodate either below or above average magic items, that's fine.

That's not to say that Von Ether doesn't have a situation that may need resolving. His players perceive a problem, the DM sees the source of that problem differently than the players do, the players have proposed a solution to the problem, the DM is unsure that the proposed solution will work within the framework of the campaign he's set up. Most people seem to be advocating that he consider the player's solution as legitimate.