Iron Lore: Malhavoc's Surprise?

[Felon]

I know what you're saying, but in practical terms... what would you expect in the way of rules for this?

Well, first off, some of the last half-dozen or so posters need to go be contentious with Mike Mearls, not me. He expressly said that 9 times out of 10, a character's response to any situation will be to roll initiative and attack. Assertions that IL will be just as friendly to politics and intrigue as any RPG are in contrast to his statements. I didn't put those words into his mouth.

From what I've read so far I think a lot of it will have to do with the fact that D&D classes have some broad concepts inherent to them, while IL classes appear to be packaged exclusively based on their combat role. A ranger represents a broader concept than "archer". The paladin probably has more aspects to it than the armiger. And the differences between a ranger and paladin amount to a lot more than their fighting styles.

Is that a rules concern though? That seems more of a player/DM/campaign concern, if anything.

It is partially, and a lot of it has to do with the classes themselves. Is a bard every bit as likely to launch into bloodthirsty assault as a barbarian? The reality is, not every D&D class is supposed to kick ass. In fact, many aren't, due to limitations on hit points, AC, and offensive options that make them poorly-suited to the "boo yah" mentality. Bards, monks, rangers, and paladins are not classes folks play because they can consistently clean house--not that they can't in their own fashion, but copious amounts of ass-kicking is not what lies at their core. And even "owners" like wizards, sorcerers, and rogues have to give some thought to pressing the attack button.

But again, I think a lot of folks chose to ignore the closing remark of my previous post:

I'm still interested in the book, but I can't say I think it's being presented in a good light by its author.

So tell ya what, get him to recant or clarify a few statements, and I'll be the first to breathe a sigh of relief.

 

[sword-dancer]

I don't know if I'd go that far. I think that Iron Lore is to the warrior what Ars Magica is to the wizard: it's a celebration of all that makes that archetype fun.

I see The Riddle of Steel filling that niche.

 

[tetsujin28]

There's a lot of signs that IL will be the TROS of D&D.

 

[tetsujin28]

So, all you ever do is scream "boo-yah!" and move from one explosive, action-packed scene to the next--with nary a moment to slow down, think, or savor anything--and your role in every fight is pretty clearly scripted. How does this not amount to tediousness?

I'm still interested in the book, but I can't say I think it's being presented in a good light by its author.

This has got to be one of the silliest statements I've ever seen, here.

 

[Felon]

Feel free to elaborate on what you find so absurd. Might show a little more character than making a one-sentence snipe at someone you don't happen to agree with.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

So tell ya what, get him to recant or clarify a few statements, and I'll be the first to breathe a sigh of relief.

I don't know man, I think my post stands up pretty well to your original statements. There might indeed be a better way for Mike to sell it, but I think you're being too harsh on it regardless.

Not to mention giving way too much credit to any DnD class other than the Bard for having a wealth of concepts at its disposal. Paladins are pretty much only about kicking ass, in the name of the Lord mind you, but still kicking ass. Also, for some reason, they're moderately good at stopping plagues from taking out your party. Considering how much 'fluff' Hunters had in terms of using skills appropriately to their theme, if Iron Lore is going to give Archers with similar 'concept' abilities I'm going to be a lot happier with the consistency of those concepts and wealth of options in feats and skills than I'm going to be with the Paladin's throw away miracle. I suppose we'll get some data for that test next week with the Archer's sneak preview, though I don't think the experiment will be finally concluded till we see the structure of the skill and feat system.

Also, no matter how artfully it's used, any sentence with the phrase 'Boo-yah' in it is automatically sillier than somewhere around 90% of the sentences ever phrased in English. Even that last sentence qualifies.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Feel free to elaborate on what you find so absurd. Might show a little more character than making a one-sentence snipe at someone you don't happen to agree with.

It's Tetsujin28, he's already got character tokens to burn and I'm pretty certain that his one sentence snarks are his way of gaining one or two in the middle of round to be followed by a devastating forum combo.

 

[Particle_Man]

If all skills are available to all players (no cross-class stuff), including knowledge skills, diplomacy and other "interaction" skills, etc., doesn't that automatically make IL more role-play friendly than D&D? I could easily see a "swashbuckling" campaign where characters seduce the noble's heir, find out the cardinal's evil plan, convince the mob of the innocence of the doomed prisoner, and *then* do the ass-kicking. What about IL makes any of that harder than regular D&D?

 

[Michael Tree]

If all skills are available to all players (no cross-class stuff), including knowledge skills, diplomacy and other "interaction" skills, etc., doesn't that automatically make IL more role-play friendly than D&D? I could easily see a "swashbuckling" campaign where characters seduce the noble's heir, find out the cardinal's evil plan, convince the mob of the innocence of the doomed prisoner, and *then* do the ass-kicking. What about IL makes any of that harder than regular D&D?

It would seem so. Judging from the previews, the concept of "class favored skills" works differently in IL than the way D&D's class and cross-class distinction works. It seems that each IL class gets access to a number of "Skill Groups", and can buy them for a skill point per rank in the entire group.. Other skills not included in their groups can be bought at one skill point per rank in the skill.

Or at least that's how I hope the skills system works.

So yes, there's tons of potential for swashbucling intrigue, Vlad Taltos-esque assassination and conflict, prehistorical/postapocalyptic barbarian survival, medieval crusades, or any other sort of game heavy in combat.

 

[A'koss]

Well, first off, some of the last half-dozen or so posters need to go be contentious with Mike Mearls, not me. He expressly said that 9 times out of 10, a character's response to any situation will be to roll initiative and attack. Assertions that IL will be just as friendly to politics and intrigue as any RPG are in contrast to his statements. I didn't put those words into his mouth.

Fair enough Felon, if you're looking for a game which is rules-heavy on politics and intruigue I'm certain Iron Lore won't be for you. I don't any class on this list with the names "Diplomat" or "Existentialist". But then again, neither does D&D...

Could Mike's marketing skills be better? Almost certainly. For myself, I want the rules to run a cinematic sword & sorcery game. Politics and intrigue I can do on my own...

From what I've read so far I think a lot of it will have to do with the fact that D&D classes have some broad concepts inherent to them, while IL classes appear to be packaged exclusively based on their combat role. A ranger represents a broader concept than "archer". The paladin probably has more aspects to it than the armiger. And the differences between a ranger and paladin amount to a lot more than their fighting styles.

Partial agreement. Definitely when you see a class called "The Archer" that seems like an extremely narrowly focused role. Will every archer effectively be cookie-cutter copies of one another? That's a good question, but I doubt it's one we'll be able to answer until we get the book in our hands.

On the other hand, going by the core D&D books, how much conceptual latitude do you have playing a paladin or ranger? In game terms - not much. Take 10 paladins or rangers at 10th level and what differences will you see, game-wise?

It is partially, and a lot of it has to do with the classes themselves. Is a bard every bit as likely to launch into bloodthirsty assault as a barbarian? The reality is, not every D&D class is supposed to kick ass. In fact, many aren't, due to limitations on hit points, AC, and offensive options that make them poorly-suited to the "boo yah" mentality. Bards, monks, rangers, and paladins are not classes folks play because they can consistently clean house--not that they can't in their own fashion, but copious amounts of ass-kicking is not what lies at their core. And even "owners" like wizards, sorcerers, and rogues have to give some thought to pressing the attack button.

However, you're really reaching on this one. How is this different from what we've heard about the Thief, Archer or Arcanist? The Hunter isn't what I'd call an ass-kicker either. But Rangers and Paladins are clearly specialist house cleaners - they kill their chosen foes better than anyone else.

I think having every class be able to kick ass when in their own element is a laudible goal, not one to rail on.

So tell ya what, get him to recant or clarify a few statements, and I'll be the first to breathe a sigh of relief.

To settle the question once and for all: you can run political intrigue with IL. I did it

As they say... The proof is in the tasting.

A'koss.