Iron Lore - Tokens, what the heck are they?

[Yair]

I suspect we'll have to wait and see if Malhavoc releases playtest notes on high level play. They've only had one playtest article after all (and they're not going to dump all their articles in the first week). They've got to build interest over time, until the release date.

I agree with everything you say, but just wanted to add that by their nature these "playtest articles" aren't going to include real criticism. They are posted to promote the product, not as playtest feedback (any such feedback is carefully screened and chosen). So I wouldn't be relying too heavily on insights from them.

I really like what I'm hearing (well, reading) about Iron Lore so far, except for the complexity of it all. We'll just have to see about that. (Of course, that's a matter of taste - when I picture a combat scene with a Hunter character giving advice, using terrain, using actions to survey the combat and so on, it sounds good to me. YMMV.)

Yair

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

The more I learn about Iron Lore, the less I like it. It was a great concept, but I want classes that can be yanked and still be compatible with 3.5. Also, I detest action points in my games.

And that has precisely what to do with tokens?

They are somewhat dissimilar, unless you simply dislike any renewable resource that isn't written on a character sheet. Does that constitute a scribbling bias?

 

[Particle_Man]

Who wants to rename the hunter?

I would go with "Commander". This does seem to be the guy that tells the others what to do in combat, as a function of his class. "Leader" would sound a bit cheesy. "Commando" too modern.

 

[A'koss]

Who wants to rename the hunter?

Oh, yeah...

Hmm, lessee...

Commander is good... Tactician, Strategist, Vigilant, Marshall and Warden could also work.

 

[Felon]

Hmm. How about "Field Commander" or "Field Marshal"? That designates a guy who actually fights on the battlefield, not one who sits in a tent somewhere on the backlines sipping white wine. And of course, with "field" in the name, it evokes the terrain-manipulating abilities.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

Well, yeah. Or vice-versa and spells are just mechanical effects with a specific fluff. One that can be removed and re-applied and re-examined and be something different in every campaign. What is ray of frost in one game could be "firing an arrow aith an alchemic mixture on it that causes frostbite upon contact" in another. The flashier spells are a bit harder to justify, but it's not hard to put the flavor-hammer to the gavel and say "Fireball is you throwing a grenade. Magic Missile is you taking advantage of an opponent's momentary distractin and throwing a few knives at him. Change the damage to piercing. Teleport is you suddenly finding a hole in space-time that you can step through. You're using the TERRAIN TO YOUR ADVANTAGE!" Or you can just nix the flashy wizz-bang spells (or limit them to arcanists) and keep the "Longstrider is actually just you finding a shortcut" explanation for the rest.

The thing that makes Tokens *surprisingly* like magic is that they are a points system, they are a # of uses system, they represent a finite source of energy that you can expend to cause conditions. In the case of the hunter it's "tactical resources" that he "will have exhausted", but that's just another word for "Spells that he will have cast" or "Power points that he will have used."

I don't think this is a bad thing, but then I don't think magic is a bad thing. Giving all classes use of magic is a great way to make all classes feel like a wizard or sorcerer, and expending limited rescources is fun for everyone (it's why MOST of the core classes have some x/dy thing they can do, even if it's not just magic).

I think some confusion exists on what Iron Lore is about. I think the key feature of Iron Lore is that your PC that washed up on the beach with no stuff is just as cool as he was yesterday, when he was buckling swashes with a pack full of gear. Main point, your cool tricks are built into the character, not the the gear. I got a friend who will only play Forsakers with the Vow of Poverty (smashes magic items to get more powers, doesn't need gear), to avoid dependance (and DM vulnerability) on equipment. So I get that.

With that goal in mind, there's several ways to solve it. The "easiest" is to have lots of feats and class features that unlock at each level. In this way, BAB, AC and damage can go up, as if you had magical items.

Again, I don't need IL for this. The "easiest" way to make your powers part of your character is to remove that belt of giant strength, and just give the warrior PC a +2 enchancement bonus to Strength. Same mechanics, insert your own flavor.

You don't need a new system to get away from a dependancy on items.

 

[A'koss]

I suspect we'll have to wait and see if Malhavoc releases playtest notes on high level play. They've only had one playtest article after all (and they're not going to dump all their articles in the first week). They've got to build interest over time, until the release date.

Didn't one of the playtesters post here running a higher level IL battle with a Green Dragon? One of the PCs did the back-scaling trick? I can't remember where I saw it...

Hmm. How about "Field Commander" or "Field Marshal"? That designates a guy who actually fights on the battlefield, not one who sits in a tent somewhere on the backlines sipping white wine. And of course, with "field" in the name, it evokes the terrain-manipulating abilities.

I don't know why, but when I see "Field Commander" my brain turns it into "Wing Commander" and suddenly I get a cheesy sci-fi score playing in my head...

Again, I don't need IL for this. The "easiest" way to make your powers part of your character is to remove that belt of giant strength, and just give the warrior PC a +2 enchancement bonus to Strength. Same mechanics, insert your own flavor.

You don't need a new system to get away from a dependancy on items.

Heh, nice bit of flamebait KM - kudos.

A'koss.

 

[Dalamar]

I'm tempted to call the hunter Alpha Male, but that'd move away from the non-gender specific naming convention of classes. But that's what it reminds me of: somebody pretty darn capable of fighting on his own, but even more dangerous with a small group of sidekicks.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Again, I don't need IL for this. The "easiest" way to make your powers part of your character is to remove that belt of giant strength, and just give the warrior PC a +2 enchancement bonus to Strength. Same mechanics, insert your own flavor.

You don't need a new system to get away from a dependancy on items.

Have you had good experiences with this strategy in terms of decreasing the amount of time and effort it takes to create balanced high level characters?

I'm just asking because as advertised this doesn't really seem to address the inconvenience of having to work around a tremendous point-buy system at the higher levels. I've done it with Four-Color to Fantasy before and it really doesn't do anything different for your game except skew the balance a little and translate the points value from thousands of gold pieces to dozens of hero points.

Not to say that that doesn't have some value, but that IL seems to be developing a very different system for addressing this issue.

 

[sword-dancer]

A resourceful, adaptable Warrior and Leader is what the Hunter Seems to be.

Pack Leader, swordleader, swift Leader, adaptable Sword/Blade,