Problems with Iron Heroes?

[Particle_Man]

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.

But in my experience, mid- to high-power undead are usually *more* nasty, and bear careful observation.

Also, grapplers become deadlier, as there are fewer "get out of grapple free" magic items. But I have problems with d20 grapple rules in any case.

 

[Odhanan]

I think there's a mix-up that's been going on for a while on what "low-magic" means exactly. In fact, what low-magic means varies with people. For some DMs it means a decreased power of the player characters. An increased control over "the story". What would be at stake then is the control over the game and its events. Not whether the game's "low-fantasy or not".

If you want to have "low-magic" game in which characters are in fact "mundane" characters with basically way less options and abilities than their D&D, magic-laden counterparts, Iron Heroes is clearly not for you. If however you want the action to be at the center of your game, with PC heroes that perform feats of heroism, awesome combat-moves but are not loaded with magic items to do so, then IH clearly is your game.

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.

I don't agree. IH isn't about the combat. It's about the action, as in "fantasy action-heroes". There's a huge nuance, because "action" can mean combat heavy games, yes, but also heavy in chases, athletic moves, extreme situations and environments, and so on and so forth. And this, if you ask me, is very much in the tone of Sword and Sorcery stories like R.E. Howard's or Leiber's stories.

Conan and the Grey Mouser enter the "Forlorn Temple of Doom", steal the Heart of Ahriman, slaughter the Priest while swinging on the live and sacred snakes tied up to the roof of the shrine. They escape the Temple by climbing up the stairs while the structure starts to crumble! They run over the walls of the High Tower crashing down over the temple below and then jump hundreds of feets in the air from the top of the shattered tower! The temple itself collapses from the shock it receives from the tower's fall in a huge cloud of desert sand, never to be heard from again. The two thieves walk away, badly wounded but richer, to the next city where they will drink until they pass out. Tomorrow will be another morning. Another adventure.

Here, that is what IH is about, in my opinion. It's playing out hard-and-fast Conan or Grey Mouser stories with AC/DC in the background. The PCs do awesome things in IH adventures because they can. In the rules, that's abilities for classes, yes, but also extended Skills uses, challenges and stunts allowing you to use these Skills, and so on and so forth. That's the heart of action fantasy for me.

It's not about Jack-the-Half-Handed trying to make a living killing frogs around the village.

 

[Felon]

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:

Fair enough. To be honest that blanket comment was largely inspired by Odhanan's blanket comment about how critics only represent an easily-dismissable "vocal minority", which I don't find to be very helpful or accurate. If I get a chance, I'll go dig up my copy and evidence what I mean by awkward feats and class abilities.

 

[Odhanan]

My apologies if you felt insulted by my opinion, Felon.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

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 .

Definitely get this if you're running Iron Heroes. The cards are great for class-specific token-tracking, the tokens are darn good if you don't do minis, and the brushed steel d20 is just cool. FDP did a great job.

Now, as to the system? It has more errata than I would have thought. You can download it though, print it out and run it. I'm playing in an IH/Arcana Evolved crossover and it's a blast. I will say that the armiger actually plays pretty decently under RAW, and better with the errata'ed version. (Haven't tried the other two versions.) My two minor beefs are that some of the token abilities don't come into play and I don't get more DR easily! It's awesome being able to sit there and take lots of damage. Trust me.

 

[Gothmog]

Definitely agreed; see my post above. HOWEVER:

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.

You think Conan is fragile?

True, the skills do have details for some uses out of combat, but the impression it left my group with was that the characters were much more superhuman than even D&D characters. But even the skills and challenges are set up for more combat-oriented situaitons and that seem supernatural in scope- for example, Hide has create diversion to hide, evade extraordinary senses, and shadow strike; Knowledge lets the PC make a check to gain bonus to attack and damage vs a monster; and Sense Motive has Sense Enchantment, Combat Clarity, and Read Situation (a very basic form of mind reading).

And no, Conan isn't fragile in the stories, but he's also not impervious to harm. He can be captured and injured. Having played both IH and Conan OGL, I felt Conan OGL did a better job of modeling the Conan stories, and captured the tone of the world better in the rules (esp concerning arcane matters and the intensity and speed of combat).

 

[Particle_Man]

If you want a high social skill fighter-type, you could go Man-At-Arms and choose the social skill group, and appropriate social feats. Could work for a Noble or Samurai type.

And fear the Thief with maxed out Bluff. Puts Maverick to shame.

 

[Particle_Man]

the impression it left my group with was that the characters were much more superhuman than even D&D characters.

That is exactly right. The reason for this is that an Iron Heroes party at Level X is meant to be exactly as capable of taking on a CR X challenge as a regular D&D party of Level X. The D&D party does this, partially, through incredibly powerful magical items. The Iron Heroes party does not necessarily have any magical items, and the ones they have may be cursed and too dangerous to use except in dire emergencies. Thus their capabilities come from their inner resources. Thus an IH character is pound for pound tougher than a D&D character (sans magic items) of the same level (except at 1st level, when no magic items are expected).

So instead of Sir D&D wielding his +5 Dragon-Bane Holy Greatsword vs. the Dragon, we have IH the Mighty wielding an ordinary greatsword (well, maybe masterwork), but IH is badass enough that he can take on the Dragon too.

 

[ruleslawyer]

True, the skills do have details for some uses out of combat, but the impression it left my group with was that the characters were much more superhuman than even D&D characters. But even the skills and challenges are set up for more combat-oriented situaitons and that seem supernatural in scope- for example, Hide has create diversion to hide, evade extraordinary senses, and shadow strike; Knowledge lets the PC make a check to gain bonus to attack and damage vs a monster; and Sense Motive has Sense Enchantment, Combat Clarity, and Read Situation (a very basic form of mind reading).

Well, as Particle_Man said, IH needs to do a lot of work to plug the holes in PCs' abilities left by the removal of plentiful buff spells and magic items. IOW, IH characters *have* to be even more superhuman because they don't have their magic stuff to rely on in combat.

Now, I do think this raises a conceptual problem with fantasy games in general. One of the general tenets of a fantasy game is that bending reality is okay... as long as a spell does it. Epic-level wizards can create demiplanes, rip open planar vortices, summon godlike celestials to the Material Plane, travel worlds in the blink of an eye, and devastate entire armies with fire. Epic-level rogues can... walk on clouds. Woo hoo. While this can work fine in literature, where the wizard is either (a) the enemy; (b) a celestial or demonic being with powers far beyond those of the non-wizard characters; or (c) limited to occasional bursts of power that are anorexically-disguised story devices, it doesn't hold up in a game in which wizards are supposed to be characters just like everyone else.

Note, BTW, that I happen to think that all of the skill uses you bring up are actually very flavorful and appropriate in a fantasy game. It makes sense to me that powerful heroes have a "supernatural" ability to read their opponents' intentions (read situation), target the weak spots in a monster's armor (Beast Lore), or create a simple diversion to give themselves a fraction of a second to duck into the shadows (create diversion).

And no, Conan isn't fragile in the stories, but he's also not impervious to harm. He can be captured and injured.

Ah, but you haven't seen what I do to *my* PCs...

Having played both IH and Conan OGL, I felt Conan OGL did a better job of modeling the Conan stories, and captured the tone of the world better in the rules (esp concerning arcane matters and the intensity and speed of combat).

I agree, to a certain extent. OGL Conan's combat system is simpler, and thus faster, than IH's. The tone is clearly better matched to a Hyborian campaign, and if I wanted to run one, I'd definitely use OGL Conan, with IH as a secondary resource. However, if I wanted a system that provided a Conanesque feel, I'd go with IH, only because I find the latter system's classes, feats, and combat rules more *interesting* than OGL Conan's. But that's purely a matter of taste.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Fair enough. To be honest that blanket comment was largely inspired by Odhanan's blanket comment about how critics only represent an easily-dismissable "vocal minority", which I don't find to be very helpful or accurate. If I get a chance, I'll go dig up my copy and evidence what I mean by awkward feats and class abilities.

Thanks a bundle! I know I'll appreciate the input, and I'm sure the OP will as well.