Iron Heroes vs Conan

[iwatt]

(1) Magic will corrupt, so the players won't probably won't be magic-using base classes. However, evil sorcerers will be magic-users because of the prower it grants. It looks like Conan does this better. I've heard Iron Heroes magic system is a bit "wonky"? How so? What is it like?

Unless you enjoy statting NPC spellcasters, nothing beats using the Dreades Sorceror from Mastering Iron Heroes. Just choose an appropriate CR and in 3 minutes you ahve your villain.

If you want easy PC magic, just use this warlock conversion . It's easy to add in a corruption rule, like this one

(2) I don't need a fully fleshed out world. In fact, the world will probably just have whatever is cool for the current session: Roman gladiators and legionaries one day, hordes of undead the next, and an evil sorcerer kings the next. How do the two systems handle this? How easily adaptable are they? Can a GM wing it?

One of the big features of Conan is the setting. If you aren't going to be using a big part of the book (and therefoer the price tag), maybe it's not worth it.

(3) Combat should be fun, brutal, and flow without getting caught up in a bunch of tactical exercises. I want the players to feel powerful. I assume this can be done with both, but in your experience how "fun and fast" is combat in Conan and Iron Heroes?

I haven't read the conan combat rules in depth, but Iron Heroes has one advantage: players no longer are encouraged to move 5' and full attack. The stunt mechanic empowers them to actually do cool stuff, and removes one of the isssue I have in regular D&D, which is that if it's not explicetly coded in the rules, it's ahrd for non-winging GMs to solve situations like table throwing, chandelier swinging, rapelling, etc..

In any case, if you've seen the Trailer for the adaptation of Fran Miller's 300, you'll have an idea of what IHs combat should look like.

 

[GlassJaw]

One of the big features of Conan is the setting. If you aren't going to be using a big part of the book (and therefoer the price tag), maybe it's not worth it.

Not sure if you've seen the book or not but I can say that even if you aren't interested in the Conan world, the book is still definitely worth it. First off, the book is huge - around 350 pages. About 70 pages of that is the gazeteer and a chapter on religion/gods. The rest is all crunchy goodness that is easily adaptable to any low-magic/gritty setting of your choice.

 

[iwatt]

Not sure if you've seen the book or not but I can say that even if you aren't interested in the Conan world, the book is still definitely worth it. First off, the book is huge - around 350 pages. About 70 pages of that is the gazeteer and a chapter on religion/gods. The rest is all crunchy goodness that is easily adaptable to any low-magic/gritty setting of your choice.

I haven't seen the book. I had the impression that a larger part was fluff. I reckon then that last argument of mine was weaker (1/5 isn't really that much).

I love Iron Heroes. It's about over the top action (although the arrow ladder is one of those things I don't like as much). But it also has some very cool mechanics like feat masteries, skill groups, attack challenges, stunts, action zones, etc...

In any case, both systems allow for Grim* and Gritty**

* of a sinister or ghastly character
** firmness of character; indomitable spirit

 

[masshysteria]

Thanks for all the input. It sounds like I can't go wrong either way and my decision will probably be made based on price. Assuming I can get my group to bite on something other than 3.5 D&D.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Thanks for all the input. It sounds like I can't go wrong either way and my decision will probably be made based on price. Assuming I can get my group to bite on something other than 3.5 D&D.

Just tell them they won't have to worry about Disjunction.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I haven't played in a Conan game. I've only played one Iron Heros game, and my impression is that it does not meet the criteria of "not getting caught up in a bunch of tactical exercises". My take was that IH embraces the tactical aspects. It's D&D combat turned up to 11. That amping it up made it more interesting to me, but I don't think it's what you're looking for, based on your post.

~Qualidar~

As an IH DM, I agree with this post. IH combat is quite complicated. My general solution to it has been to seriously turn down the level of mechanical discussion in combat. IOW, I now expect a player to say "I leap into the air, bound the ten feet to the ogre, and strike him with all my force on his head" rather than "I take a Jump stunt for +4 to attack and Power Attack for full". Of course, that requires that my players and I know the rules very well and back to front, which means a bit of work.

However, IMHO, the rewards are worth it. Your players get more involved in the ebb and flow of combat, and combat is much more immersive in that players are constantly looking for ways to pull off interesting attacks and stunts. This is especially true in the PC vs. monster category: Since IH PCs have no conventional way to damage certain monsters, they have to resort to imaginative tactics to beat them.

That said, Conan has two principal advantages over IH from your perspective: First off, combat *is* simpler (although not by much; Conan has combat maneuvers and armor piercing rules that, IMX, add almost much to the complexity as the IH challenges and stunts). Second, the power curve is flatter, meaning that combat (or the effects of it, anyway) is more "brutal," and the game stays simple as characters get to high levels. In general, the Conan classes are *definitely* easier to manage than the IH classes, since there are no token-based classes and far fewer class abilities overall.

I wouldn't say that Conan's magic system is better than IH's... if you're running a no-PC-magic game. It's much easier to build a quick NPC spellcaster using the IH dreaded sorcerer than to work one up with Conan's scholar.

As to "super-hero-y": I think that factor may be exaggerated a bit with IH. REH's Conan is quite "super-hero-y" enough to fit in an IH game. First off, the power curve in IH is not quite as high as it is in D&D. Second, the mainly "super-hero-y" things that IH-ers can do come in one of three forms: a) absorbing massive amounts of damage; b) dealing massive amounts of damage; or c) movement. Of those three, both (a) and (b) are abstract; the real balance implication at high levels of having high hp but dealing bucketloads of damage (IH) vs. having lower hp and dealing more moderate amounts of damage (Conan) is that the *monsters* (who have the same hp advancement in Conan as in IH) are more powerful in Conan. Movement is tricky; one way to deal with it would be to just ban the harrier class, which is the only class for which this really matters much.

IH has really no implied setting, which may be an advantage for you, since the IH classes model pretty much any imaginable fighting style and archetype. Finesse- and ranged combatants are definitely better represented in IH than in Conan (which cleaves faithfully to REH's style in this regard), in addition to wuxia-type acrobatic fighters.

(Incidentally, the arrow ladder is *one* *optional* class ability; it isn't even a feat or a hard-coded stunt. It's not necessarily the best illustration of how IH works.)

 

[argo]

Bias disclosure: I have GM'd several Conan campaigns (I'm in the middle of running Slavelords of Cydonia with the Conan ruleset right now) and been a player in several others. I don't own IH but thumbed through the IH rule book before deciding to adopt the Conan system as my game of choice. Take that for what its worth.

(1) Magic will corrupt, so the players won't probably won't be magic-using base classes. However, evil sorcerers will be magic-users because of the prower it grants. It looks like Conan does this better. I've heard Iron Heroes magic system is a bit "wonky"? How so? What is it like?

I think that Conan fits this bill to order. The basic assumption is that magic is scary-bad and unnatural and basic mechanics (corruption save) are included to reinforce this. The mechanics are set low enough that a PC spellcaster could "walk the line" but it is easy enough for the GM to ratchet up the intensity or even ban PC spellcasters and declare all his sorcorers evil-insane with no problems.

I will admit that stating up a NPC sorcorer in Conan takes about as long as stating up a DnD spellcaster (45 min or so) but since they are usually singluar villans I'm not too bothered by that.

(2) I don't need a fully fleshed out world. In fact, the world will probably just have whatever is cool for the current session: Roman gladiators and legionaries one day, hordes of undead the next, and an evil sorcerer kings the next. How do the two systems handle this? How easily adaptable are they? Can a GM wing it?

Well, on the one hand Mongoose put a lot of effort into making the Conan ruleset a faithful intrepretation of REH's stories. So setting details permiate the entire ruleset.

On the other hand... REH's Hyborian Age was already a patchwork of different historical cultures from pirates to red indians to zulu warriors to arabian nights to plate-armored knights. So if you embrace the spirit or the origional tales you can do the same.

However, I think I will give the nod here to IH which seemed to me to be fairly setting-neutral.

(3) Combat should be fun, brutal, and flow without getting caught up in a bunch of tactical exercises. I want the players to feel powerful. I assume this can be done with both, but in your experience how "fun and fast" is combat in Conan and Iron Heroes?

I think Conan is the clear winner here. I like tatictal combat and minatures, however IH's use of token pools and stunts seemed to take it to a level I was unwilling to go to.

Combat in Conan is built on the basic 3.5 ruleset, however what the rules do is open up more "basic options" to everybody. For example in Conan
-everybody can finesse melee, no feat required
-everybody can move-attack-move, no feat reqired
-most fighting classes get TWF for free at first level
So even a low level fighter can switch it up between sword 'n board, spring attack, TWF, ranged combat, THF and so forth as needed. Tactics becomes a matter of sizing up the situation and your resources and adapting your abilities to the combat at hand. This keeps things interesting without significantly increasing the rules-mastery reqired by the players (assuming they already know 3.5 combat).

Also... combat in Conan is deadly. THF are killing machines, sneak attack is often a one-hit kill and even the "lesser forms" are still plenty deadly. Multiple opponents get bonuses to hit. Hit points cap out at 10th level. Getting caught flat-footed means having an AC of 10. Bloodletting is fast and nasty.


In the final analysis though, what really sold me on Conan over IH was that IH was (by admission) designed to run a DnD-style game without the christmas tree of magic items. Conan feels to me to be more of a true Swords 'n Sorcery game where even a 20th level Barbarian would hesitate to face an army of mooks. Just IMHO.

Hope that helps.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Conan ftw.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Getting caught flat-footed means having an AC of 10.

Man, why did you have to bring this up?

You mention it like it's different from IH but it's exactly the same.

Including it makes your intelligent, diplomatic and highly persuasive post come off like uneducated drooling babble. It pains me to see such a well constructed post laid low by a single sentence.

And you were doing so well ....

 

[argo]

Well, as I said I only thumbed through IH so I guess I missed that.

Still, I stand on my point that IH combat with token pools/stunts it going to be more complicated than Conan combat. As a GM I would rather wing any crazy ideas my players come up with by handing out simple +2/-2 than asking them to track varying resource pools. Just IMHO

Later.