Problems with Iron Heroes?

[Nyaricus]

Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is your call.

I'd call it good. One of my best friends and player saw that IH had no alignment, read more about it and now we no longer play and D&D with alignment - however still have to take then IH plunge

Anyways, this thread definitly has some great links - thanks guys and gals!!

 

[Stalker0]

Just to sum it up:

1) IH is a very nice low magic system that fills in a lot of gaps that regular dnd does not.

2) IH as written is a playable system.

3) IH as written also contains many errors. There are also several parts of the system that are a bit clunky or unpolished.

4) There is loads of errata out there that addresses the biggest grievances. While you can certainly play IH from the book, in the long run you will get more out of the system if your willing to sit down and go through through the errata documents.

 

[ruleslawyer]

There's quite a lot of erraticized material in the book. When you hear folks saying all the issues are trivial, that the only people objecting are a vocal minority, and that all the objections are based on theory and not actual gameplay, then rest assured you're hearing biased fans dismissing all detractors. Some of the feat chain benefits and class abilities are pretty awkward, even ham-handed.

Here's a question for you, Felon:

Do you actually *play* IH? 'Cause this is not my experience, nor the impression that I get from the boards, nor what I hear from players of mine who are in multiple IH groups.

Even better, why not point out what specific things bother you, so that the OP can have a good idea of what the pitfalls might be?

 

[Felon]

Here's a question for you, Felon:

Do you actually *play* IH? 'Cause this is not my experience, nor the impression that I get from the boards, nor what I hear from players of mine who are in multiple IH groups.

Even better, why not point out what specific things bother you, so that the OP can have a good idea of what the pitfalls might be?

Ruleslawyer, I do suspect you have actually read critical posts on forums about individual's problems with Iron Heroes. Of course, if somebody has major issues with the system, that likely deters them from playing it, which in turn means they can conveniently be dismissed out of hand for their merely theoretical perspective. So I can point out the potential problems with russian roulette, but my "facts" are just meaningless conjecture next to someone who's actually played it several times and insists it's a great game for the family. Here's the thing though: what's not a problem for you and a bunch of people you know might be a big big problem for someone else. Personally, I've been willing to try it, but there's a resounding lack of interest from my fellow gamers.

As for pointing out specific things, we all know where that goes: nowhere...very slowly. It's just inviting an arguement. I doubt it would be anything you haven't heard before, and you are locked and loaded with your rebuttals, which means a lot of back-and-forth about how it's not really a problem, or it's easily house-ruled away, or how D&D is just as bad or worse in that respect, yadda yadda yadda. It goes nowhere and the bickering doesn't help the OP (having gotten the arguement out of my system back when we didn't have the truckload of errata, it doesn't really help me either). You know I'm right; if I'm the millionth guy to bring up how lame the ability to make arrow ladders is, do you just let it lie?

My issues may not be problems for you, and they may not turn out to be problems for the OP. So as fun as it sounds to knock a chip off a shoulder, all signs point to my original comment being the most helpful for the OP and any other curious parties: take the plunge and check it out on his own. It's a good read for crunch-hounds at the very least.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Felon, I'm not attempting to invite an argument. [I find this a common response on ENWorld to requests for specific beefs, though; I guess it must actually be a common way to start an argument.] I happen to think, however, that blanket comments like the following are not really helpful:

When you hear folks saying all the issues are trivial, that the only people objecting are a vocal minority, and that all the objections are based on theory and not actual gameplay, then rest assured you're hearing biased fans dismissing all detractors.

As someone who *does* play the game, I've pointed out what I think are the big pitfalls and directed the OP to the IH boards, where other people's specific issues with holes in the game are covered in detail. Note that the OP asked for specific problems with the rules, how they affect play, and whether or not there's been errata or other fixes to address such problems. Consequently, I do think the theoretical perspective is less than useful as an answer to this question, especially if you're not at least pointing out theoretical issues with specific IH rules.

As a counter-example: For all I know, hong may not play IH at all. Yet I find his problems with various elements of the game, as well as his fixing-stuff-that-ain't-really-broke-just-because, to be extremely useful for my own games (both in pointing out pitfalls and suggesting house rules) and generally illuminating. I read these boards for the same reason: To get ideas.

As for raising issues and rebuttals: I'd think this is *exactly* what people are looking for if they're concerned with problems in any game system. What aspects of the game do people consider to be headaches? Why do other people think they're *not* headaches? And so on. I fail to see how a handwave in the direction of some problems with some unspecified, loose group of rules is helpful to the OP or anyone else.

BTW, I've read *lots* of posts pointing out issues with IH, almost entirely on the IH boards; such posts led to threads that usually generated positive, usable results.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Back to topic

For the OP:

Keep in mind that Iron Heroes isn't really "low fantasy." For that, you'd want something like Grim Tales or Thieves' World. Iron Heroes is really attempting to emulate classic fantasy or sword & sorcery, genres in which magic exists but is rare and/or dangerous. Think Conan, Lankhmar, or even Lord of the Rings rather than the D&D "brand" of fantasy. IOW, IH characters have less magic gear than D&D characters, but they're just as insanely powerful and heroic at high levels; think Broken Sword and Flying Snow charging through hundreds of assembled warriors in Hero, or Aragorn Great-Cleaving uruk-hai at the end of the Fellowship of the Ring film, or River taking down a horde of reavers in Serenity.

As a brief page through the errata should suggest, the problems with IH (other than the magic system) are anecdotal rather than systemic; a combination of the errata and some of Adam's and others' houserules should plug the gaps. When running an IH game, I would suggest the following:

1) Use an alternate armiger (I recommend hong's or Soulmage's version). Trust me; you'll avoid a lot of headaches.

2) Try playing without a spellcaster. An IH party doesn't need one, and you should probably get familiar with the game and "playtest" a few magic system alternatives in your head before trying to plug in something.

3) Read the AoO FAQ. IH AoOs are simpler than in D&D, but they take a bit of getting used to precisely because they are similar, but not identical to the D&D default.

4) Strongly consider using a glory or fate point system, especially if you plan on using any monsters with save-or-be-in-trouble abilities. IH PCs will not have the ability to dispel magic, get resurrected, etc. Consequently, they can use a little padding on the front end.

5) Understand that an IH party may be a bit stronger than a D&D party at low levels (1st-3rd). A berserker 1 with the right traits is a bit more robust than his barbarian cousin, and trait abilities like Mighty Build and Weapon Bond can make certain PCs into damage monsters right off the bat. I'd assume the party is one level higher when setting ELs from 1st-3rd level.

6) If using D&D adventures, keep in mind that from mid-levels onward, most modules assume the characters can fly and/or breathe water. Hard stuff for IH characters, so make sure to deal with that issue before it comes up in active play.

7) There are a bewildering number of ways to deny a target its active bonus to defense in IH. Because active bonuses to defense represent a large chunk of the target's protection (as opposed to Dex bonus to AC, which is the D&D equivalent), getting denied your active bonuses is *extremely* deadly.

There are a number of ways to deal with this: You can make class bonuses to defense passive rather than active (or 50% passive, 50% active, which is a common house rule); you can rule that any effect that denies active bonuses only denies Dex bonuses; or you can come up with countermeasures.

IMC, I use the rule as written because I like ambushes to be deadly, but it may not be your cup of tea.

 

[Klaus]

I'd like to point out that there is a BattleBox: Iron Heroes edition, with cards for tons of maneuvers, actions and whatnot, a CD with lots of stuff and more.

For more info, go to www.fierydragon.com .

 

[Gothmog]

I've been looking at Iron Heroes for a while. I'm drawn to the idea of a focus on character abilities rather than a proliferation of magic items. It seems like the perfect system to run a low fantasy game in. However, I've heard a lot of people talking about problems inherent in the system. I've briefly perused the books and found the rules to be consistent. However, I've never been the one to pick up on balance issues; other people seem to have an ability of detecting potential problems with balance and rules in general. So, what are the specific problems with Iron Heroes? Are there errata to correct those problems? Do these problems drastically affect play? (If so, should I look elsewhere for a low-fantasy system?)

I've got to go against the popular opinion on IH. I played it for about 3 months when it first came out, and if you're looking for low fantasy, IH is definitely not your game. Characters in IH are more about their class abilities, but they do tend to be more heroic and tough than D&D characters at the levels we played at (1st-8th). My specific dislikes of the the system.

1. As said, the arcanist in the book stinks. There are fixes in various places, so this could be overcome.

2. IH is is ALL about the combat- so if you love combat heavy games, IH might be for you. If you don't, it has substantially less to offer. The system is completely set up around a character's combat abilities, moreso than D&D. Fights took us about twice as long as they did in D&D. IH also has a "mook rule" so your characters will wade through dozens of enemies. Some folks like this, but it didn't work for our group.

3. Tokens are an interesting idea, but we found them unwieldy in play, and lead to very meta-game behavior on the behalf of players.

4. I found the tone of IH to be more wuxia-like in feel, with some shades of the Hercules and Xena tv shows. Basically, over-the-top and kinda corny. It definitely does NOT emulate Conan or Lord of the Rings well- heroes in those stories are more fragile and not as superhuman in their abilities.

IH has some cool ideas, but for my group, it didn't fit our playstyles well at all and was too combat-focused. If you really want to do low fantasy where a character is more human in their abilities and not defined by magic items, pick up Grim Tales, Conan OGL, Thieves World, or Black Company. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2 is great too, but its not D20.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I've got to go against the popular opinion on IH. I played it for about 3 months when it first came out, and if you're looking for low fantasy, IH is definitely not your game.

Definitely agreed; see my post above. HOWEVER:

2. IH is is ALL about the combat- so if you love combat heavy games, IH might be for you. If you don't, it has substantially less to offer. The system is completely set up around a character's combat abilities, moreso than D&D.

This I must disagree with. IH has a much more strongly developed ruleset for the use of skills (both in and out of combat), all the PCs have more skills (enabling more use of same outside of combat), and there are numerous elements to the game (the Thief class, the wealth feats, etc.) that skew away from combat.

4. I found the tone of IH to be more wuxia-like in feel, with some shades of the Hercules and Xena tv shows. Basically, over-the-top and kinda corny. It definitely does NOT emulate Conan or Lord of the Rings well- heroes in those stories are more fragile and not as superhuman in their abilities.

You think Conan is fragile?

 

[Capellan]

It's interesting how different people's perspectives of the Conan stories can be. I think IH does a good job of mimicking the feel of the Conan stories (better than Mongoose's Conan RPG), and I know that they were part of mearls's inspiration for the game ... but other people feel very differently. This conversation comes up in almost every "what's IH like?" thread I've seen

As far as IH errata goes, it does look like there is a lot at first, but a great deal of it is clarification of exactly how new rules mechanics and situations work, rather than rewrites (the arcanist - and to a lesser extent the armiger - is the main exception). One of these days I'd like to split out the errata/FAQ thread into separate threads for errata and clarifications/explanations, but I haven't had time, thus far.