Iron Lore Excerpts

[Khorod]

I got the distinct sense that the Hunter was the most difficult class to play, aside possibly for the Arcanist. Its not intended for just anyone- but rather the best tactitians/rules monkeys among the players.

 

[A'koss]

I got the distinct sense that the Hunter was the most difficult class to play, aside possibly for the Arcanist. Its not intended for just anyone- but rather the best tactitians/rules monkeys among the players.

Well, in the Hunter preview they do infact flat out say, "The hunter is perhaps the most difficult class to play in Iron Lore.". But whether that's just conceptually or mechanically we'll have to wait and see. Perhaps one of the playtesters can chime in on this?

Cheers!

 

[Jackelope King]

What seems most interesting to me is that Mr. Mearls' system is balanced not within the paradigm of what a member of a party can do in a given day, but what a member of a party can do in a single encounter. This in itself addresses some of the more common concerns in D&D (ie a wizard is far more powerful than a fighter at high levels, but a fighter can go all day while a wizard can't... the former proves true far more often the latter, especially when high-level heroes can pick and choose encounters quite effectively). This new paradigm IL seems to suggest that the ideal form of balance is one that says "within any given encounter, class X is balanced with class Y because they both have access to different options of similar power level and can only exercise so many of those options in a given encounter".

In my mind, this also means that the new balancing factor within combat is how much of a good thing you can effectively do. Tokens seem to limit this. You might have to "waste" a few actions to build up enough tokens to pull off the effect you want, meaning that you could do something really, really cool... but only once or twice while someone else does a few "meh" actions, but all the time. In core D&D, the "really, really cool" would be a spell and the "meh" would be an average attack routine... note that they both generally consume the same number of actions. Judging by these previews, IL might change this for the better.

Or I could just be reading far too much into a few little previews.

 

[Gez]

Personally, I think the sheer number of hits in standard D&D is the biggest problem I have with getting deep into the game. When I play a melee character, I feel like the bloody Black Knight in Monty Python's In search of the Holy Grail.

Little house-rulish/flavour thing: IMC, all the hit points above your Constitution score are "dodge points", while all the hit points between 1 and your Con score are "pain points". They behave the same rule-wise (for healing, magical or not, critical strikes, etc.; it's not VP/WP), but as long as you're above your Con score in hp, you're not, medically, wounded -- but you're more and more fatigued, dodging impressive blows by the skin of your teeth, getting maybe slashes on your clothings, etc.

Once you get below your Con score, then you're really wounded. When you get at 0, the wounds are becoming too painful to be ignored and cause you the standard penalty.

As a side effect, low-level characters are poor dodgers. High level characters, on the other hand, have mastered the art of dramatically evading blows. Combat-focused classes are better at learning to dodge than others.

Of course, this rule is for PCs. For monsters, it would have to be adjusted with a multiplier, because a Colossal dragon with only 45 "pain points" doesn't seems right.

 

[Felon]

Not if you describe misses in a fun way. You didn't miss, your opponent brought his shield to bear just quick enough to turn aside your blow. The enemy didn't miss you, you spun to one side and his overhand swing crashed to the floor, or his dagger flashed towards your eyes, but your pantherish reflexes were sufficient to the task of deflecting his blade with your own.

Let's face it: if misses really exceed hits, then you're going to run dry on cool ways to describe those misses pretty quickly. When it sinks that what's being described is essentially "nothing happened, but boy did look good" the wind will slowly leave everyone's sails. Hit-point depletion is what amounts to progress in a D&D fight.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Any bet that Barbarians will be d6+6, with maybe 1d5+5 classes thrown in for good measure... I agree it's a good compromise, I just hope the range between the classes doesn't end up too disparate (which creates problems at higher levels).

My guess would be that there is a fairly uniform 1d4+x depending upon character class.

Perhaps 1d4+1 for d6 guys
1d4+2 for d8 guys
1d4+3 for d10 guys
1d4+4 for d12 guys?

i.e. the same amount of variability within the hp spread for a class at a given level, but a certain assured minimum for the 'tougher' classes.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Let's face it: if misses really exceed hits, then you're going to run dry on cool ways to describe those misses pretty quickly.

And running out of ways to describe hits is not a problem? You've never seen a player bored to tears by simply hitting something again... and again... and again... for nickel and dimes of hit points at a time?

The problem for some players is long, drawn-out combats with no meaningful options. A curse that is prevalent among melee classes in core D20, IMO.

 

[ThirdWizard]

To add one other topic to the discussion, was anyone else concerned at the complexity of the Hunter class in actual play? The number of abilities, the management of the token pool, the conditional nature of the bonuses, the short-term nature of the bonuses - all this adds up to a very complex game session, IMO. Especially at high levels, I can see a player using one or more reference charts just to play the character at minimal effectiveness.

I really hope the Hunter is not typical of the complexity of the rest of the classes and rules in IL.

It isn't instilling a lot of confidence in the ease of NPC creation/play for DMs, IMO. I doubt PCs will have too hard a time working with their tokens, but I loathe as a DM having five piles of tokens, one for each NPC they are fighting, and having to utilize each one effectively with their abilities.

 

[Sargon the Kassadian]

Welcome to the boards, Jackelope King!

The idea of tokens seems flexible and yet simple enough that it just might work. The question for me is, how the other classes are balanced against/with the hunter, and also what kind of economy Iron Lore will run on?

Also, if there are only "combat classes" will the variations be enough to interest everybody?

 

[A'koss]

My guess would be that there is a fairly uniform 1d4+x depending upon character class.

Perhaps 1d4+1 for d6 guys
1d4+2 for d8 guys
1d4+3 for d10 guys
1d4+4 for d12 guys?

i.e. the same amount of variability within the hp spread for a class at a given level, but a certain assured minimum for the 'tougher' classes.

Possibly, but I can't see the Hunter having the highest HD of the group - he's "support guy". I'm willing to bet that the real front-liners - the Berserkers, Armigers and Men-at-Arms will have more. I'd also bet we won't see any character class with less than 1d3+3 HP. There's no magical healing and by all accounts you have to be out of combat in order to recover HPs. I think in IL, I'd err on the high side.

I'd be interested in seeing what kind of "reward" system is in place for IL. What do you spend your money on? If the 1st level Hunter example is anything to go by, they're certainly not grovelling for every copper.