Iron Heros

[Denaes]

I'll pick it up and snake ideas from it for my True20 Iron Kingdoms game

At the very least, the extended skill difficulties will be neat for ideas. Feats will also be neat for ideas as well.

 

[Akrasia]

...
Alot of the changes to the system (low magic-high adventure, defense based combat system, ect.) appeal to me as a DM and as a player.

What does Iron Heroes do that Conan does not already do?

It seems that Conan already accomplishes the goal of providing a d20 game balanced for low and rare magic. It has defense-based combat, hero points, PC 'boosts' to compensate for the absence of magic, etc.

I guess that IH has the advantage of being 'setting neutral' (though I really like Hyboria). But aside from that, what is 'new' or 'better' about IH?

Just curious (I don't really have a strong attachment to either system, as both seem far too 'crunchy' for my tastes as a GM).

 

[Akrasia]

Is anyone else looking forward to the new Monte Cook creation "Iron Heros"?
...

Btw, IH was written by Mike Mearls.

(I'm not sure what Monte Cook did, aside from putting his name on the cover above the title, and owning the company that is publishing it.)

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

What does Iron Heroes do that Conan does not already do?

It seems that Conan already accomplishes the goal of providing a d20 game balanced for low and rare magic. It has defense-based combat, hero points, PC 'boosts' to compensate for the absence of magic, etc.

I guess that IH has the advantage of being 'setting neutral' (though I really like Hyboria). But aside from that, what is 'new' or 'better' about IH?

Just curious (I don't really have a strong attachment to either system, as both seem far too 'crunchy' for my tastes as a GM).

What are Conan's feats like?

 

[Azgulor]

What does Iron Heroes do that Conan does not already do?

It seems that Conan already accomplishes the goal of providing a d20 game balanced for low and rare magic. It has defense-based combat, hero points, PC 'boosts' to compensate for the absence of magic, etc.

I guess that IH has the advantage of being 'setting neutral' (though I really like Hyboria). But aside from that, what is 'new' or 'better' about IH?

Just curious (I don't really have a strong attachment to either system, as both seem far too 'crunchy' for my tastes as a GM).

Well, as previously mentioned, there was another VERY lengthy thread that discussed the perceived virtues and vices of Iron Heroes. Originally, I viewed Iron Heroes as a potential companion volume to Conan. What has become evident through the posts in that thread and the design diaries, however, is that Iron Heroes is not High Adventure, Low Magic. Rather it's going to be High Adventure, Low Magic Items. The default D&Disms and power level will be there, but in the form of innate character ability and powers rather than magic items.

So for me, Iron Heroes became a "no thanks" book. It looks like it will be a great book, but not one suited to the style of play that I run. Right now, Conan is serving up just what I'm looking for in a fantasy RPG. I'm rounding it out with elements from Grim Tales and plan to borrow heavily from Thieves' World if it turns out as good as it looks like it will. (I use Conan for a Kingdoms of Kalamar campaign. The sorcery rules in Conan aren't as good a fit for a D&D-style setting, but it looks like Thieves' World's tweaks on magic will fit the bill nicely.)

Azgulor

 

[GlassJaw]

The default D&Disms and power level will be there, but in the form of innate character ability and powers rather than magic items.

Exactly. And like I said before, instead of a 20th level fighter having a +5 weapon, he will have a BAB of +25.

 

[Staffan]

It seems like semantics to me. So I might not have any magic items but my BAB goes to +25? Hmm.

I'm not saying it's what everybody wants, but it's something they've been very up-front about from the first released information.

 

[JPL]

I'm not saying it's what everybody wants, but it's something they've been very up-front about from the first released information.

And it's hardly a matter of semantics. The game effect may be the same, but that's a substantial shift in tone from standard D&D by putting the power in the hero rather than the hero's tools. Remove magic items, eliminate the need for clerical healing, and get rid of Vancian magic, and you have greatly changed the nature of the game, both in terms of the goals and activities of the characters and the player's approach to "resource management."

I already like the idea of combining this with "Weapons of Legacy" --- make items rare, but highly potent in the hands of the right hero.

 

[Dav]

It is indeed a "shift" from normal D&D--but one that I think quite a few people will like. I don't know about you, but the models of fantasy that I read don't have magic shops and thousands of mages just wandering around. Lord of the Rings - how much magic does our party of 9 wield? We've got Frodo with a single ring and a jar of stars, a bunch of warriors and archers, and a single wizard, whose power is not used all that often. Many epic fantasies are like that, but most D&D games don't capture that very well at all. I like D&D, yes, but if I wanted to play a world where it's just me doing the epic deeds and not the fact that I was able to buy my Christmas tree "ornaments" (magic items). I'm really looking forward to Mearls's work.

 

[GlassJaw]

If anyone is looking for a gritty, low-magic ruleset, I highly recommend Grim Tales if you haven't heard of it before. I'd recommend it before Conan, although I like Conan as well. Remove magic items and give the fighters a +25 BAB it ain't.