Iron Heroes...what's your opinion?

[GlassJaw]

Oh, I'm sorry. I just figured that since everybody who talks about it calls it a simpler, lighter system than D&D, it must be.

I don't call it that, and I'm one of its primary advocates around here. *shrugs*

Regardless, my point remains: People who describe the class-level acquisition of powers as a problem should probably just be playing a point-buy game. There are plenty of excellent choices out there.

I have no problem with classes and levels. I just like GT because the classes aren't specific archetypes. My Strong Hero will be vastly different than your Strong Hero. I get the impression that there will be less deviation as to how people play the various IH characters. They are very specific (even moreso than the core D&D classes) archetypes IMO.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Relevant to this discussion is a quote from Mike Mearls' LiveJournal from ages ago. To paraphrase:

"You should design your game so that it actively discourages the people who don't like what you're trying to do from buying it."

I think this is the flipside of "A game which is designed to do a specific thing will generally do it much better than any generic game could."

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I have no problem with classes and levels. I just like GT because the classes aren't specific archetypes.

Perhaps you're missing it, but . . . you're not the person for whom I recommended point-buy games, and his problem didn't seem to be overly-strong archetypes, it seemed to be the fact that D&D-style games cause automatic acquisition of certain abilities to the exclusion of others, because of the class-level system.

 

[Dark Psion]

So far, I like it!

As to not having a "Setting", I am thinking of using Legend of the Five Rings setting but Iron Heroes rules. The new 3rd edition AEG L5R just left me cold, but using these rules will be interesting.

With Iron Heroes rules, Samurai is just a title, like Duke or Baron. They would actually use all of the classes here so you are not sure if that Crab blocking your path is a Armiger, Berzerker, Weaponmaster (Tetsubo) or just a Man-at-arms.

I will add a new trait: Clan as well as Clan feats.

The Arcanist will require a little work to change it into a Shukenja, but changing the four schools to the four elements should be easy.

I do think a Martial Artist can be made from the Weapon Master. I would make most Monks weaponmansters, retired from another class or use the Man-at-arms to represent their unpredictability.

Also, I think Martial Arts Mastery feats can be made for each type of martial art, Blood and Fists from RPG Objects should help with that.

The Courtier does present a problem, maybe a variant Hunter that could use his Tactics feats in court and change his woodland bonuses to Courtly Senses. The Thief does have best access to Social feats and has some very good defensive abilities.

Other variant ideas would be a Unicorn Mounted Harrier and a Crab Kaiu Armiger who is a master at building fortifications.

 

[TimSmith]

Question about standard D&D adventure compatibility with Iron Heroes

I like the sound of IH. For those who are into it:-

1) Could I run IH characters through a "standard" D&D adventure just by altering/removing magic items' availability?

2)Or are existing NPC spellcasters for example going to be too dangerous to the players now?

3)Would it be possible to use NPCs virtually unchanged (whether magic users or otherwise) if IH is supposed to be balanced for existing D&D CR's?

4)What about monsters etc (eg demons and dragons)?

5) Any other compatibility issues that leap to your minds.

 

[wizofice]

Two things that spring to mind: no alignments (and therefore no [Good] or [Evil] weapons, no effect for protection from alignment spells on PCs) and DR (metals are still good as is —, but Good, Evil, etc. would need to be changed).

I believe the CRs are supposed to be close, however, I think a low-level IH party would slaughter a low-level wizard or sorcerer in short order, but that's just a guess. I'd like to see what happens with a higher-level one.

Another issue might be that the NPCs would have far fewer skills and therefore far fewer options in combat (even Appraise has a use!), but that in some ways just makes the DM's job easier since he won't have to deal with too many options and it'd be easy enough to give them some beforehand or on the fly.

 

[Staffan]

Two things that spring to mind: no alignments (and therefore no [Good] or [Evil] weapons, no effect for protection from alignment spells on PCs) and DR (metals are still good as is —, but Good, Evil, etc. would need to be changed).

Note that in most cases, the CRs for creatures with DR assumes that the PCs will NOT have the weaponry necessary to bypass the DR. The exceptions are DR X/magic, and I think DR X/damage type. That's why DR values are much lower in 3.5e than they are in 3.0.

It would be more troublesome with regenerating outsiders, though - most of those have both DR X/something and regeneration that's stopped by that same something. A 20th level Iron Heroes character should be able to punch through a Balor's DR 15, but the DR combined with the 5 points of regeneration might be harder, especially with no way of dealing lethal damage.

 

[wingsandsword]

Now that I have had the chance to read through the book and play a game or two, here's what I've got to say:

In many ways, it's better at being D&D than D&D is. This is much closer to my ideal of a fantasy RPG. Not perfect, but a lot closer. In terms of houseruling and homebrewing to come up with my ideal game, I'd definitely start from here and move on, instead of D&D 3.x

What they did right:
Making characters playable without hoardes of magic items.
Restoring the focus of being a PC to being a fighter-type instead of a spellcaster (yes, spellcasters are cool and important, but Gandalf was only one person in the fellowship, not to mention Conan had that wizard sidekick, but he was also just one person, by 4th level everyone in the party should NOT have spellcasting).

Now, as for what I'd do differently:
Replace the Arcanist with another class, either the D&D Sorcerer (and with a broader spell list to incorporate what is traditionally divine and arcane in D&D) or the AE Magister.
Go with WP/VP instead of Reserve Points.

 

[Bagpuss]

If you go with Vitality/Wounds the Armiger is completely nerf'ed (like it needed to me made any weaker) since DR is only applied against Critical Hits (or after you have no VP left) in a VP/WP system. The Armiger will virtually never be gaining any tokens until the round before he dies.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

If you go with Vitality/Wounds the Armiger is completely nerf'ed (like it needed to me made any weaker) since DR is only applied against Critical Hits (or after you have no VP left) in a VP/WP system. The Armiger will virtually never be gaining any tokens until the round before he dies.

One could use strain a la Psychic's Handbook instead of tokens. That way, the Armiger would have plenty of tokens to use, and some rules for the fast recovery from strain would keep the 'usable per encounter' scheme.

Hell, all of the IH token abilities could use strain.