Iron Lore - Tokens, what the heck are they?

Yair said:
About the Hunter class, I just wanted to add that "Hunter" is really a bad name for the class. "Tactician" would have been much better. The fluff is just all wrong (a strong independent warrior that ... leads his team-mates to victory ?!! Ehem).

Yeah, I have to agree. I don't think a commander is necessarily a woodsman, and I certainly don't think a woodsman is necessarily a commander. It's like Mike had two classes and decided they were both based on INT so he may as well merge them.

Then again, Mike always said he had trouble coming up with names for things.

EDIT--Actually, looking at the hunter again, I see Wisdom is at least a big a factor as Intelligence, so the two halves of the coin are even less related.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

mearls said:
On the NPCs and tokens issues:

Remember the NPC classes from the 1e days of Dragon magazine?

Yup, so do I. And they inspired an important part of the Iron Lore system, at least in the two follow up books. I can't say much more, since this stuff is still in development/playtest, but its something to think about. The issue of NPCs and tokens is an important one, and I addressed it in the design.

There are monsters that use tokens - but when they do use them out of the box, I tried to make them a measure that only gets spent if the DM wants to spend them.


Well, then my last reservation is gone (I was already sold, but now I'm that much more excited)! If the above pans out, I think Iron Lore may very well be THE best thing to happen to D & D since it was invented! I am VERY excited about the whole concept which underlies it (i.e. implied world or setting with minimal, but powerful magic and heroic combat with stunts, etc.), the tokens sound awesome, and if DM-management of NPCs and monsters is addressed, then I think I shall be playing Iron Lore almost exclusively! CAN'T WAIT!!
 

Yair said:
About the Hunter class, I just wanted to add that "Hunter" is really a bad name for the class. "Tactician" would have been much better. The fluff is just all wrong (a strong independent warrior that ... leads his team-mates to victory ?!! Ehem).

After reading it, it sounds like a commando more than anything else. Off hand, other than "ranger" I can't think of a good synonym for "commando" that isn't too modern.
 

We did an Oriental one-shot with one stunt every round, ninjas diving through windows, but you only got a bonus if you described it well/the stunt was a "cool" idea. It was great fun and we used no magic as well, except for some semi-minor items.

And, similarly to the Hunter's abilitie to "make" things happen around him, our DM (theprivateer00) lets/forces us to make "Luck" checks to see if we find a barrel or stick or something useful in the situation, kinda like the d20 Modern What is useful and lying around in my house? mechanic. So the overt sort of thing the Hunter has seems cheesy, but similar things do work and are endlessly enjoyable...
 

hunter and tokens

Well, I like the tokens mechanic..it reminds me of Torg's Drama Deck. If you haven't seem the rules for Torg you should -- it was a game that was really before its time.

I have to agree that Hunter is a terrible name for the class. A good name for the class would be Commander, or Captain, or something connoting authority. Even Tactician would be better. A Hunter is a loner in my book, someone who goes off by himself for long periods of time in pursuit of quarry. Not a leader of men.

Names are important. Poorly chosen class names really do detract from the feel of a game. Personally, I was really disappointed with the class names in Arcana Unearthed, especially the Warmain. It was one factor that kept me from switching to that system (another being that 3.5 really did fix much of what I disliked about the rules set).


Mike, I'm really excited about your book. You've attempted something really ambitious, and we all want you to succeed.

-Ken
 

"Everyone is now a spellcaster". Well in pure technical terms yes. But there’s a heck of difference between forcing an enemy to make a difficult balance check and hmm.. lets say stop time itself, transform into a friggin 25 ft. tall demon or revive a hundreds of years old corpse. It’s not even comparable in any meaningful way.

But this is all in the fluff. I can change every spell in the PHB so that it is described more a subtle use of tactics or chemistry than an overt magical effect. But whoopidee-doo. :p A different feel is all well and good, but I don't need IL to make spells feel different.

If the above pans out, I think Iron Lore may very well be THE best thing to happen to D & D since it was invented! I am VERY excited about the whole concept which underlies it (i.e. implied world or setting with minimal, but powerful magic and heroic combat with stunts, etc.),

I guess, hyperbolic fawning aside, this doesn't sound any different than half a dozen D&D games I've run or been a part of.

I mean, I wish IL the best of luck, and am excited to see what mearls comes out with, but the new Revoultion, I think this ain't it.
 

Celebrim said:
So, when I refer to the token system as a 'magic system', I mean that in a gamist sense.

"Any sufficiently abstracted event management system is indistinguishable from magic." :D
 

Kamikaze Midget said:
But this is all in the fluff. I can change every spell in the PHB so that it is described more a subtle use of tactics or chemistry than an overt magical effect. But whoopidee-doo. :p A different feel is all well and good, but I don't need IL to make spells feel different.

Ah, I see. So when a character uses a Jump or Tumble skill check to reduce falling damage--well, that's just a mini-featherfall spell. And using a Diplomacy check to improve an NPC's attitude? Nothing more than a variant spell from the enchantment school. Rogue sneak attack, barbarian rage, heck just chopping a guy's head off with a sword, these are all spells disguised with fluff.

I don't know where you guys are going with this arguement. Obviously, class abilities, skills, feats, and spells are just things invented to make things happen in the game. But when I go to a movie and see a character miraculously survives an impossible situation through sheer endurance and strength of will, I don't just point at the screen and say "ah, somebody just cast a raise dead spell. Or it's the same thing anyway!"
 

Felon said:
Ah, I see. So when a character uses a Jump or Tumble skill check to reduce falling damage--well, that's just a mini-featherfall spell. And using a Diplomacy check to improve an NPC's attitude? Nothing more than a variant spell from the enchantment school. Rogue sneak attack, barbarian rage, heck just chopping a guy's head off with a sword, these are all spells disguised with fluff.

No. There is one important distinguishing characteristic which separates the above from a spell system.

In athe above cases, the assumption is that successfully tumbling, fast-talking, sneak attacking, or chopping something with a sword does not prohibit the character from doing it again. In fact, whenever you assume a naturalistic explanation for events, the assumption is that doing something once indicates that it can be done again. If you have a natural talent for doing something, what should forbid you from doing it whenever you like - or at least more times per day than can be easily tracked?

The one case in the above that doesn't seem to fit into the others is the barbarians 'rage' ability. Why can the barbarian only get angry once per day? Balance reasons. The barbarian's rage ability could just as easily be a spell-like effect because it is not at all clear that it isn't some supernatural ability on the barbarian's part. A few times a day the barbarian gets to call on supernatural forces. OK, that's magical so I don't need a naturalist explanation for why it can only occur a few times a day.

But what is the naturalist explanation for only being able to make better use of cover a few times in a fight? I mean, if you can make superior use of cover once, why are you suddenly unable to make superior use of cover latter? The token system seems to encourage a explaining the situation in a way that fits the mechanics to a degree beyond what we are used to in D&D. Normally, if you had 'Improved Duck Behind Cover' then you'd just be good at crouching behind cover. Now though, the character spends his ability to crouch behind cover as a resource. "Ooops the goblin steps 6" to the left and you are completely out of ideas on how to stay hidden... at least until the sudden beginning of the next encounter."

I don't know where you guys are going with this arguement. Obviously, class abilities, skills, feats, and spells are just things invented to make things happen in the game. But when I go to a movie and see a character miraculously survives an impossible situation through sheer endurance and strength of will, I don't just point at the screen and say "ah, somebody just cast a raise dead spell. Or it's the same thing anyway!"

Only in a system that let's you raise dead at will. You don't normally think that a character who is good at dodging has 'Focused Dodge' and can dodge X attacks per combat, but will be hit by the X+1 attack, or if you do you think it will be because the fight has gone on so long as to cause fatigue. But this system has nothing to do with fatigue.
 

BlackMoria said:
Also, you are not seeing all of the Hunter class in the preview (hence the comments about why no saving throws information). You are seeing only the salient points of the class. You may want to hold off making a final decision with whether IL misses the mark or not until you see the complete picture.

I think this is key. One class preview (and an incomplete one at that) and suddenly we're all experts on how this system will fail or fly? Hello? Can we lose the nay-saying until there's actually a finished product to evaluate in its entirety?

Is it just me, or does this happen pretty much any time something new appears? Someone comes out of the woodwork with a pronouncement that the product will be utter crap, having seen a piecemeal and brief bit of information... Let's just settle down and wait to see what the product is actually like before we go off half-cocked and make ourselves look dumb.
 

Remove ads

Top