Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GlassJaw" data-source="post: 2483541" data-attributes="member: 22103">As soon as IH was announced, the comparisons began.  When I read through it, I tried to be as unbiased as possible.  I wanted to read through the book for what it was, not what I wanted it to be or what it wasn't.  While my comments in my post reflect my overall view (and obviously I made comparisons to other products), I didn't start out not liking IH.From a purely mechanical standpoint, I was disappointed, plain and simple.  Disappointed doesn't mean I completely hated it - there's a lot of cool stuff in there - but on the whole, I felt it lacking.Again, IH pats itself on the back multiple times throughout the book for being action-packed and fast-paced yet many of the classes are required to spend actions doing nothing to gain tokens.  That's poor design IMO.  IH points out that instant-death spells are much more deadly in IH.  Yeah, duh.  The solution?  Reduce the number of times per day the creature can use its ability.  How is that a solution?  Why doesn't the author merely tell the user not to use those creatures?  Again, I feel IH doesn't know what it wants to be.Well I'm not sure if you've actually read any Conan stuff but I couldn't disagree more.  If you took Conan and IH and printed out the mechanics only and removed all references to setting or publisher, Conan's ruleset immediately answers up the "why" and "how" the mechanics are what they are.  If a set of mechanics can intuitively evoke the mood and feel of a genre or setting, it gets my praise.  Conan does this.  If you just had the mechanics from the Conan book and nothing else, you know what the style of play is.I didn't get that feeling when reading IH.Is it trying to be normal D&D?  Is it a gritty setting like Conan?  It is like Errol Flynn/Robin Hood?</blockquote>

Verification