JRRNeiklot said:
PCs have a heroic stature. They are stronger, smarter, and faster than normal - This I really don't like. I lie the old AD&D method, where pcs were considered no different than the ordinary Joe, except for their training. I don't want to see pcs throwing boulders and wrestling fire giants to the ground. Slaying the giant is cool, but a 6 foot human putting a giant in the camel clutch is a bit much.
In 2nd Edition I always had that feel that the characters were special and unique while still being mundane and mortal, they could fight dragons but also, a forest environment could prove deadly without care and proper equipment, now they can have those skill so high that a deadly forest becomes the backyard, they have so many abilities that strike me as magical in nature that they no longer feel mortal and mudane.
3rd Edition kind of brought the Divine Ascencion Feel of 2nd edition to mid levels. That is something I am living with cause I like the engine, but not what i really like. Hell, WotC even contrtadicts the idea of the skills in the epic level handbook, they put that damn swim up a waterfall hile the PHB presents the idea of the possible and magical...
I agree with you in that I want heroes leaping to grab a dragon talon while it attacks them, i want them crawling over a dragon head to strike its weak spot. I dont see how a dragon in a open field should be a problem in a low magic game, the dragon should win by my standards, it would be run and hide or die.
Wulf Ratbane said:
Well-- maybe not exactly. Let me back up. The focus of Iron Lore is obviously combat. It's not necessarily a bad thing for combats to take longer, if the combats are fast paced and exciting throughout. I think that's the point.
I totally agree with this, combat becomes dull and pure die roll, we dont have many options, we dont have much to think about instead of how much will be my bonus for that attack if I use this or that. It became all about numbers, I call 3rd edition, which i like a lot, the combo edition for that sole reason. I would rather have a character choose between colorful options like tumbling around an opponent as he strikes and then gain a bonus, then think about plain spells that give the same bonus...
mearls said:
2. It makes sense to me that a warrior who uses a light, fast, agile weapon would strike with more accuracy than one with a big sword. I see a warrior with a rapier as picking out gaps between a foe's armor, or an archer taking aim and hitting the space between two plates. So, you can expect to see that in the rules.
That is exactly what i want from a game, I dont think a character that is so specilized that he carries a single sword is a good idea, there are times a bow, an axe or a dagger might be better, DR in 3.5 made that a little more true, want it taken a step further.
------
On the Whole iron Lore, I am looking forward to it, although i dont want magic in 3rd edition to be taken away ust for something else to take its place, this seems like a much easier place to tone down to a feel I stated above then the standard 3.X edition. I want to see the amgic system too, I m a fan of ars magica system and this seem to be somewhat like it in versatility, danger of failuer and also, unwanted results.
The Magic system and the combat options are the points that have drawn my attention the most, the others may as well do so, i am sold and if it is good enough, I may as well port midnight to this system, although when this kind of world comes to hand, the magic system never supports divine magic well enough.