Iron Lore: Malhavoc's Surprise?

[Particle_Man]

Right. The whole point is that a 20th level IL character can take on monsters that a 20th level D&D character can. And 20th level D&D characters are pretty much fantasy super-heroes. (The "gadget" type, I guess, to extend the analogy).

I think there might be an element of "rock paper scissors" that might require people to be coy on how they spend their tokens. If the DM's bad guy has the choice of spending tokens to up his defence bonus, but the archer has spent tokens to completely negate that defence bonus, it would be very tempting to spend the bad guy's tokens in another direction (to suck up damage, or whatever else that bad guy can do). And the same thing could happen in reverse if the DM is the archer. Mabye people would write down how they spend tokens and declare them as they become relevant?

Note: I have not playtested the game, and I may misunderstand tokens completely, so this may not be a problem at all in a real game. Or it may be a "problem" that already is "solved" in game.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Well there are supposed to be special NPC classes with slightly simpler more villanous/strategic mechanics, and I don't think that most of the monsters, since they are DnD monsters, will have much in the way of tokens.

Mearls has said that there are monsters who use tokens but they use them straight out of the box and are generally fairly straightforward.

It will be interesting to see what the mechanics are both for surprise and for adjudicating competing token bids.

 

[Azgulor]

Well, it is Fantasy Superhero Action. I think it's pretty obvious this is not a deadly game of stealthy attacks and indirect assault. Characters will do things that Conan, the Grey Mouser, and Aragorn wouldn't do in their wildest adventure. You won't just be kicking ass as a result of having surprise on your side, opponents conveniently too disorganized to attack in unison, and nobody having a handy crossbow laying around to pin you to the wall. You'll be plowing headlong into the masses, either dodging all of their blows at the same time, or just letting them hit you and just laughing it off.

It is more like Xena or Samurai Jack, who are the equivalent of fantasy superheroes.

Thank you for the two perfect examples - it's highlighted the incorrect assumption that I made. In reading the ads and design diaries, I was interpreting Mearls' comments for what I would want the game to be. Specifically, that Iron Lore classes COULD play on par with their D&D counterparts when I should have been reading that Iron Lore classes WILL play on par. So Xena & Samurai Jack definitely fit the bill. Unfortunately 90% of fantasy film and fiction MAY not.

Which is fine. Given D&D's popularity, I'd have to admit that it's the largest target audience. It's just not the kind of game I want to run or play in. However, given the limited info thus far, I can't rule out a purchase. It's just changed from "Salivating must-have! when is August going to get here?" to "Research carefully and examine closely before buying."

Ah, well.

Azgulor

(Fortunately Game of Thrones and Thieves' World are coming out soon, so my need for "gritty" may be satisfied anyway.)

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Hmm, Well I can't say I disagree with your conclusion. There's no doubt in my mind that Iron Lore is here to do heroic fantasy and to be an elaboration of DnD rather than a correction.

Though rhapsody on a theme might be a more appropriate catch all then elaboration, as I don't think it's about the complexity or minutae of the game.

But the response did intrigue me enough to hop up another thread on it.

 

[Felon]

Thank you for the two perfect examples - it's highlighted the incorrect assumption that I made. In reading the ads and design diaries, I was interpreting Mearls' comments for what I would want the game to be. Specifically, that Iron Lore classes COULD play on par with their D&D counterparts when I should have been reading that Iron Lore classes WILL play on par. So Xena & Samurai Jack definitely fit the bill. Unfortunately 90% of fantasy film and fiction MAY not.

Yes, I imagine it is hard for most writers to depict fantastic, over-the-top combat without descending into self-parody. Kind of like writing a Paul Bunyon tall tale.

I think to a large part we have to turn to Asia for quicker comparisons. That whole wuxia genre people here speak of.

 

[Mac Callum]

Mounted PC's

As it is I am very excited to see how riding is handled in the game, what sort of feat group riding feats will fit under, how many riding and nomad themed traits there are, and what sort of pursuit rules the game will introduce. So please do not interpret my repeated arguments for the horseman or knight as anything other than a rift or rhapsodic witnessing to the flights of RPG artistry that this game drives me to, I am as certain that I will be pleased as I will be pleased to create an Iron Lore style horseman class and pimp it mercilessly and relentlessly.

I think you're going to have to be "content" with Traits (Son of Horses), Feats, and Stunts. Personally, I think any Stunts that allow you to jump from one charging horse to another, or a Trait that allows you to speak to them, would make a really kick-ass Horseman. You could also make your own Mastery Feats if Iron Lore doesn't have exactly what you're looking for. Imagine a Hunter with the Tactician Feat "Master of Cavalry", which allows him to spend tactical tokens on groups of horsemen within 90' of him. That would go a long way towards Ghengis Kahn. (And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Alexander's army almost completely heavy infantry?)

The main problem is "balance within the story." All of the other classes seem to be designed so that they could be on foot or mounted, and still good at what they do. That means if all the PC's are on horses, great! If all of the PC's are afoot, great! But if you're playing "The Horseman," and suddenly the group goes inside the dungeon, you're screwed. That's not fun for you or your fellow PC's.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Alexander's army was mixed force. The Alexandrian and Hellenestic model was revolutionary for Greek forces in that it had a very deliberate mix of heavy infantry, light infantry, and various cavalries.

Under his father Alexander was the cavalry commander for the Macedonian forces and he introduced the custom of Hellenestic generals leading from the heavy cavalry contingents of the army. He was particularly famous for leading the charge himself.

Heavy infantry was certainly key to Macedonian success, but the introduction of heavy cavalry to the Greek model was what enabled the Macedonian army to conquer both the other Greek states and guarantee success in Asia.

Balance within the story I am not so worried about. An archer's not as useful in a dungeon or closed environment either. So with the horseman you either adjust the adventure, accept that sometimes you're not gonna be doing your best, or just rely on ancilliary benefits, like your skill list semi-unique fighting style, and, possibly, any other animals you may be working with. Horseman in history and fantasy frequently being famed for their relationship to dogs, hawks, and other animals of the hunt as well.

I will be content with the traits and feats I get, my point with IL and this topic of conversation is that IL really gets so into the nitty gritty that I think you could really do this character type right using IL's structure.

 

[Mac Callum]

Horseman in history and fantasy frequently being famed for their relationship to dogs, hawks, and other animals of the hunt as well.

There probably would be room for a "beastmaster" type character, niche-wise. You certainly wouldn't be stepping on any of the other character's toes.

I will be content with the traits and feats I get, my point with IL and this topic of conversation is that IL really gets so into the nitty gritty that I think you could really do this character type right using IL's structure.

Hmm, maybe. The horseman, probably. The more generic beastmaster, who's also good with dogs, hawks, etc., I'm not so sure about. I don't know how you'd be able to realisticly increase the attack power of your animals to scale with the other PC's.


PS - This is "Irda Ranger" from Monte's boards. I used to be Irda Ranger here too, but my account got lost in a software upgrade to the boards a year or two ago.

 

[Mac Callum]

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.

Or as Mearls put it, System v. Story. As I see it, AU and D&D had a lot of story stuff built into the classes (as you noted). The Fighter has about zero 'story' elements, but every other class has "more than zero", with the Paladin and Druid probably being the high water mark. IL seems to be built with as little story pre-built into the classes as possible. Personally, I like that. That means the "fixed and playtested" part of the rules are for combat resolution only, while the story part is completely open-ended. Since no one is specialized in being the face man, that means they're all equally good at, doesn't it? Since the Bard isn't around to show everyone up, any PC can do "roleplaying stuff" as well as any other. I see that as a selling point, personally.

As for the "9 out of 10" remark, well, maybe in Mearl's campaign that's true, but it won't be in mine. "Roll initiative" would definately be the wrong answer when trying to illicit info from some random NPC. Luckily (1) the rules don't prevent me from roleplaying, and (2) I don't need rules to tell me how to roleplay. I actually don't like Diplomacy for the most part, since I've had PC's rely on that rather than think "Hm, how should I approach this." It's a crutch I'd rather not have my group rely on.

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.

No system is perfect ...

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.

That's the stuff I'd rather leave to Traits, the character's bio, etc. Any PC, of any class, is free to take a Paladin's Oath or sweet-talk a lady.

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.

Yeah, Mearls should definately leave the marketing (and class names) to Monte. I never pay too much attention to marketing hype anyway though, and try to tease rules apart from how the designer expects me to use them. I don't plan on asking Mearl's permission to use IL to run a city-based, plot-heavy adventure (not that I'm saying you or anyone else would). I just need to know if the rules do what I expect them to. So far, I think they will.

 

[Mac Callum]

Would you want a system where characters just got one rank in every skill in the book? Probably not. Now, why not? Because characters would lack definition? Because no character would excel over another in any department? There are good reasons why you don't want the typical character co-opting two-dozen out of the three-dozen or so skills available.

For one, Stunts, Feats and Skills seem to be fairly inter-woven. In the playtest spotlight (I think) they mentioned how a Thief could do jumps the Archer couldn't, even though they had a similar number of ranks.

For another, I expect the Hunter is near the high end of the SP/level range, and even he will have gaps in his skill sets. I'm sure that everyone will have something they can shine at.

D&D's skill point allotment does a pretty good job of balancing the need to give a class enough class skills and skill points to flesh out a character against the need to keep one character from fielding more than his share (especially if the class is not one of the primary skill-oriented classes).

Three points,

One, I have never been satisfied with the 2 SP / level that Fighters get. I have never been able to "round out" my characters the way I wanted to. Especiially with some skills being all but mandatory for some classes (Spellcraft?), I'd usually be left with one or two "optional" skills to fill out a PC if I was lucky. That was never enough for me.

Two, there are no skill-oriented classes in IL. No Rogue, Ranger, or Bard. No Akashic. The full complement of skills has to be covered by the PC's who are also fighter types. That means they need more than 2 SP/ level, or there will be huge gaps in what the party is capable of.

Three, not every group is going to have a representative of every class. That means you need more croos-training. Armigers need to be able to take Survival (without shafting the skills they need to be Armigers) in the event no one is a Hunter. To do that, you need extra SP/ level.